I urge a note to your reps and senators to pass SB 370, a bill designed to deter puppy mills. Come on...50 dogs on a single premises? What is the reasoning for that?

Yes, this bill is not perfection, I question why "hunting dogs and their breeders are exempt." Although someone has the where for all and wisdom to put in writing that "breeder dogs must be HUMANELY euthanized per AVMA guidelines"

IV. “Necessary veterinary care” means, at minimum, examination at least once yearly by a licensed veterinarian; prompt treatment of any illness or injury by a licensed veterinarian; and, where needed, humane euthanasia by a licensed veterinarian using lawful techniques deemed acceptable by the American Veterinary Medical Association."

"

Hmmm, maybe others know the dirty secret. Disgusting Vets work with disgusting breeders, and who else would want the disappearance of their dogs to be non-existent and no record to be had---yep, the "breeder" that would chose a non-DRUG record.

And as I have verbalized and put into print---there are more than ONE licensed veterinarian to fill these shoes----ehh? Dr. Gajewski??? (Or perhaps we could question her "breeder show Auntie") And of course, the other low-lifes of the profession are not to be excluded ...hmm, how about "Paddy" , the pure-bred Pomeranian "killed" by Dr. MacGregor Oct. 15, 2006 without nary a a presence by his owner?.

See below : Bill text in full, area bolded type (mine)

SB 370-FN – AS INTRODUCED

2012 SESSION

12-2976

08/10

SENATE BILL 370-FN

AN ACT relative to the breeding of dogs for sale or transfer.

SPONSORS: Sen. Odell, Dist 8; Sen. Carson, Dist 14; Rep. Bettencourt, Rock 4; Rep. Cooney, Graf 7; Rep. Gile, Merr 10

COMMITTEE: Executive Departments and Administration

ANALYSIS

This bill:

I. Provides minimum welfare requirements for dog breeders.

II. Allows the commissioner of the department of agriculture, markets and food to appoint agents to inspect complaints relative to breeders.

III. Provides penalties for any breeders who violate the welfare requirements.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.

Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]

Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.

12-2976

08/10

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twelve

AN ACT relative to the breeding of dogs for sale or transfer.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 New Subdivision; Dog Breeders. Amend RSA 437 by inserting after section 22 the following new subdivision:

Dog Breeders

437:23 Definitions. In this subdivision:

I. “Adequate rest between breeding cycles” means, at minimum, ensuring that dogs are not bred to produce more than 2 litters in any 18 month period.

II. “Covered dog” means any individual of the species of the domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris, or resultant hybrids, that is over the age of 6 months and has intact sexual organs.

III. “Debarking” means the cutting or procuring of the cutting of a dog’s vocal cords or the altering, causing or procuring the alteration of any part of a dog’s resonance chamber.

IV. “Necessary veterinary care” means, at minimum, examination at least once yearly by a licensed veterinarian; prompt treatment of any illness or injury by a licensed veterinarian; and, where needed, humane euthanasia by a licensed veterinarian using lawful techniques deemed acceptable by the American Veterinary Medical Association.

V. “Pet” means any domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner thereof.

VI. “Regular exercise” means constant and unfettered access to an outdoor exercise area that is composed of a solid, ground level surface with adequate drainage; provides some protection against sun, wind, rain, and snow; and provides each dog at least twice the square footage of the indoor floor space provided to that dog.

VII. “Retail pet store” means a person or retail establishment open to the public where dogs are bought, sold, exchanged, or offered for retail sale directly to the public to be kept as pets, but that does not engage in any breeding of dogs for the purpose of selling any offspring for use as a pet.

VIII. “Sufficient food and clean water” means access to appropriate nutritious food at least once a day sufficient to maintain good health; and continuous access to potable water that is not frozen, and is free of debris, feces, algae, and other contaminants.

IX. “Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements” means constant and unfettered access to an indoor enclosure that has a solid floor, is not stacked or otherwise placed on top of or below another animal’s enclosure, is cleaned of waste at least once a day while the dog is outside the enclosure, and does not fall below 45 degrees Fahrenheit, or rise above 85 degrees Fahrenheit.

X. “Surgical birth” means birth by cutting through the abdomen and uterus in order to deliver the dog.

XI. “Tail docking” means docking, cutting off, causing or procuring the docking or cutting off of the tail of a dog over 5 days old.

437:24 Requirements.

I. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than 10 female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog:

(a) Sufficient food and clean water;

(b) Necessary veterinary care;

(c) Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements;

(d) Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his or her limbs, including:

(1) Sufficient indoor space for each dog to turn in a complete circle without any impediment, including a tether;

(2) Enough indoor space for each dog to lie down and fully extend his or her limbs and stretch freely without touching the side of an enclosure or another dog;

(3) At least one foot of headroom above the head of the tallest dog in the enclosure; and

(4) Where the length of the dog measured from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail:

(A) at least 12 square feet of indoor floor space per each dog up to 25 inches long;

(B) at least 20 square feet of indoor floor space per each dog between 25 and 35 inches long; and

(C) at least 30 square feet of indoor floor space per each dog for dogs 35 inches and longer.

(e) Regular exercise; and

(f) Adequate rest between breeding cycles.

III. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall have custody of more than 50 covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet.

IV. Debarking, tail docking, and surgical birth is prohibited unless performed under general anesthesia by a licensed veterinarian.

437:25 Duties of the Commissioner.

I. The commissioner of the department of agriculture, markets, and food, or designee, including any duly appointed agent of any humane society, S.P.C.A. incorporated in the state of New Hampshire, or animal control officer, is hereby authorized on the commissioner’s own initiative or pursuant to complaints of other persons to investigate complaints made pursuant to this section.

II. The commissioner of the department of agriculture, markets, and food may adopt rules under RSA 541-A for procedures for investigations of complaints as necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter.

437:26 Penalties.

I. Any person who violates this subdivision shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor and each violation shall constitute a separate offense. If any violation of this subdivision meets the definition of animal cruelty in RSA 644:8, the defendant may be charged and penalized under that section instead.

II. Any person or owner who violates any of the provisions of this subdivision or rule adopted under it may be subject to an administrative fine not to exceed $1000 for each violation.

437:27 Applicability of Other Laws.

I. The provisions of this subdivision shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other state and federal laws protecting animal welfare.

II. This subdivision shall not be construed to:

(a) Limit any state law or regulation protecting the welfare of animals, nor shall anything in this subdivision prevent a local governing body from adopting and enforcing its own animal welfare laws and regulations in addition to this subdivision.

(b) Place any numerical limits on the number of dogs a person may own or control when such dogs are not used for breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet.

(c) Apply to a dog during examination, testing, operation, recuperation, or other individual treatment for veterinary purposes; during lawful scientific research; during transportation; during cleaning of a dog’s enclosure; during supervised outdoor exercise; or during any emergency that places a dog’s life in imminent danger.

(d) Apply to any retail pet store; animal shelter as defined in RSA 437:2; hobby or show breeders who have custody of no more than 10 female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those dogs and selling any offspring for use as a pet; or dog trainer who does not breed and sell any dogs for use as a pet.

(e) Limit hunting or the ability to breed, raise, or sell hunting dogs.

2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2013.

LBAO

12-2976

12/21/11

SB 370-FN - FISCAL NOTE

AN ACT relative to the breeding of dogs for sale or transfer.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Office of Legislative Budget Assistant is unable to complete a fiscal note for this bill as it is awaiting information from the Judicial Branch and Department of Justice. When completed, the fiscal note will be forwarded to the Senate Clerk's Office.

So many postings in the wings, so limited time, but this one was amazing to me. I have to commend the Brits, they say it like it is, and this photo caused me pause to note the resemblance to Pocket's "bad Vet" , John Morrison MacGregor, DVM licensed in NH, MA, and ME.

See if you agree:

http://www.thisisgrimsby.co.uk/Vet-mutilated-pets-gets-struck/story-14305045-detail/story.html

​

DECISION: Judges sitting at the Privy Council agreed with the Royal College Of Veterinary Surgeons’ disciplinary committee’s decision that Joseph Holmes of the former Waltham Veterinary Clinic should no longer be allowed to practice.

A VET who carried out unnecessary operations on pets has lost his appeal against a decision to have him struck off.

Judges sitting at the Privy Council agreed with the Royal College Of Veterinary Surgeons’ disciplinary committee’s decision that Joseph Holmes, of the former Waltham Veterinary Clinic, should no longer be allowed to practice.

Today, pet owners whose animals were treated by Holmes welcomed the decision by justices in London.

As reported, the 58-year-ol,d who had worked at Waltham for 25 years, was found guilty of “mutilating” pets by carrying out a string of unnecessary operations and left his practices in Waltham and Ulceby to appeal against the decision a year ago.

However, the three Privy Council justices – Lady Hale, Lord Kerr and Lord Wilson – agreed with the Royal College’s findings, ruling the unjustified operations amounted to “mutilation.”

They concluded that Mr Holmes had carried out numerous operations on pets without adequate pain relief and then prescribed drugs that were licensed for human use, instead of safer veterinary ones.

The committee also found him guilty of serious professional misconduct for advising and undertaking surgical procedures without sufficient clinical grounds or considering alternative treatment options; failing to obtain the informed consent of his clients; undertaking procedures outside his area of competence; and failing to refer or discuss the option of referral to a specialist.

Persian cat breeder Julie Auckland, 40, of New Waltham – who has 15 cats and gave evidence against Mr Holmes in front of the RCVS’ disciplinary committee – said: “It is good news for the area that he can’t practice any longer.

“It has taken more than three years to get to this decision, so I am delighted about that, but the damage has already been done to my cats.”

As reported, Mr Holmes treated her cats Henry, Charlie Brown and Dream Topping.

Mrs Auckland said: “The show career of my champion stud cat, Dream Topping, who I paid £1,500 for, was cut short after his teeth were taken out – there was nothing wrong with them.”

“Dream Topping went in to have his back end shaved and Mr Holmes persuaded me he needed six of his teeth removed, and I couldn’t show him anymore.

“I asked Mr Holmes to keep the extracted teeth to show me what was wrong with them, but he threw them away.

“The committee found he didn’t use adequate pain relief when he removed any of the teeth and that must have left my cats in real pain.”

She claims Mr Holmes also recommended a third cat of hers, Charlie Brown, had teeth removed, but she refused.

She was one of two pet owners who made a series of complaints against him.

Sandra Marsden of Barrow-upon-Humber was the other complainant, after she had to have her King Charles spaniel, Jake, put to sleep to end his suffering.

The heartbreaking decision had to be taken following a series of botched and unnecessary operations – including the removal of all his teeth and his tonsils between October 2007 and March 2008.

The justices also rejected Mr Holmes’s claims the Royal College members of the disciplinary committee were biased and he was entitled to “an independent and impartial tribunal” under the European Court Of Justice.

Mr Holmes was given 28 days to appeal against the judges’ order that he should pay the college’s costs for the appeal.

Wow!  Did you notice the word "mutilate"??? Gee, I could name a few vets in the United States that pull pet's teeth out un-necessarily just to charge extra $$$ , do you think they would ever be charged with mutilation?? 

Hell no..... that word would be considered "inflammatory"....Veterinary Boards would say anything at all was "medically necessary", even diagnostic tests that have never proven positive in your state in decades!!!

Or on the flip side, not revealing the results of tests and exams...well that's ok too!

Good for you Great Britain, I can only hope this is a fine example of accountability in your country as well as a standard to aspire to in my country.

Pocket's Story from New Hampshire

Key words:

Veterinary malpractice and abuse

John M. MacGregor, DVM

animal mutilation , veterinary negligence

So much has kept me busy these last 6-8 weeks, I've had no computer time.

A shame because so many pertinent subjects have come up worthy of posting to veterinary care and "non-care".

I've met with licensed professionals , including bonafide MD Psychiatrists o discuss the impact of drug abuse both illegal and prescription abuse among professionals and the population-at-large.

I've had to say good-bye to my oldest Scottie, 14 yrs. and 9 mos. to the day, on the Monday following Thanksgiving. She was much like her dam, Alice, and so very regal, yet maintaining a fine line between life and slipping away, that it became  so  diffcult  to make  the call.

Just  the  day before, joined in the breakfast meeting for her toast and fruit, yet the next day after eliminating outside, could barely make it back to her bed. She had a stroke or "vestibular syndrome" earlier; that she recovered fully from--but that was the warning we all could and did expect.What ravaged her body was unimportant. What was to us, was the kindness , compassin, and preparedness displayed by the Veterinarian to end her life without nonsense and clouding the issue by suggesting hopeless treatment. For that we are grateful and thankful.

I wish we could say that all the time, and about ALL the Veterinarians, both in New Hampshire, and across the country. But we can NOT.

The holidays become a time to contact and catch up. And for those pups of our recently departed and still-living dam Pearl, that have left their families heart-broken with loss or diagnosed with life-threatening disease or cancer, I pray for acceptance and many good memories:

Zoey's pups: 11 or so years

Duncan: hemangiosarcoma or liver tumor bleed

Maggi: diagnosed at one of the best clinics, stomach cancer

Xena's pups:

Andy: unknown but diagnosed and poorly controlled Cushing's

Travis: liver cancer

Max: recent liver cancer diagnosed

Pearl:

Missy: kidney failure, age 10

And this of course reminds me once again, how cruel, deceptive, and immoral some Veterinarians can be, particularly when "boosted" or a part of the substance abuse program instituted by the New Hampshire Physicians Health Program. The semi-quasi state program that trades treatment for substance abuse and/or mental illness for animal abuse and client-patient abuse.

For that I am reminded to thank my state of New Hampshire, the professionals that support this program and mis-guided abuse, and of course the professionals and clinics that run and participate in this "sham" and SCAM, that hurt animals and people beyond reason.

That includes, but is not limited to:

Edgefield Veterinary Hospital, Hampstead, NH and the NH licensed Vet Sara Curry, BVSc and her employer Bradford Barnes, DVM

who insisted Pocket "go" to Dver Veterinary Hospital

Dover Veterinary Hospital, run by Lee Spyridakis, DACVIM

and her employees:

John M. MacGregort, DACVIM (Cardiology)

who lied and insisted Pocket was treatable and would "live" and refused kind "euthanasia" (now we all know the "reason" for those LIES)

 and last but not least:

Catherine Gajewski, DVM the "scottie killer" --who obviously thinks inhumane death is acceptable, as do the other NH Veterinarians without narcotic drug access.

On another note, I will hopefully be posting more legal cases, news, and nation-wide material soon.

http://avmacan.avma.org/avma/mail/compose/?target=NH&type=&billid=44262501&voteid=0&azip=

( a modification form prepared for your use @ the address above )

Tell your Member of Congress to cosponsor H.R. 1406

•The NH State board of pharmacy does not govern, regulate, and rarely inspects  veterinary prescription writing making this bill extremely necessary.

•As your constituent and a pet-owner, I am calling to express my support and urge passing of the H.R. 1406, the Fairness to Pet Owners Act of 2011.

•This legislation is long overdue, necessary and and for the protection of consumer-clients.

•The American Veterinary Medical Association already encourages veterinarians to write a prescription in lieu of dispensing when asked by a client, yetr in reality it rarely happens or creates ill feelings upon courteous request.  And pet owners should have the ability to take a prescription to be filled at the pharmacy of their choice.

This will also red flag those unlicensed to prescribe and those already violating the AVMA patient-client relationship, again without checks in our state of NH, that continues to ignore Federal laws and enforcement of DEA Federal codes by allowing practice of Veterinarians suspended or in-elligible to prescribe legend drugs without the paying Consumer-client's knowledge and placing the pet-patient at risk.

Pearl's Special Christmas Card and a source of this evening's inspiration~~

With slight trepidation , we were prepared to hear groans of why we shouldn't have been so tardy for our re-check appointment. This appointment was with a well-seasoned Veterinarian that is pleasant, doesn't mince words, nor get into too much gab.

We profusely apologized for our tardiness, though each of us had valid reason. One was never discussed and of a very serious nature; but the other , we freely offered to share.

I often used this very same analogy with my attorney: A CAR is NOT a dog, though the same in the eyes of the LAW (in most states). I often lamented that if my CAR was abused and beaten , I could get "over it". Surely I wouldn't be happy, but it would never stab me deep in the heart and brain.

Indeed, that scenario happened..... the vehicle dropped off at a bonafide repair facility (one could fairly say "Specialists") , and lo and behold, after servicing and upon test drive, the engine BLEW UP and could no longer be driven after servicing----

Hmmm, most people would be terribly upset right? Well yes, upset was correct. But what may surprise you, and apparently surprised the Veterinarian @ Pearl's appointment:

1. the repair place admitted it

2. the repair place admitted it and APOLOGIZED

3. the repair place did NOT think up stories to hide the fact, and promptly suggested to reach a happy agreement of "rectifying" a bad situation.

OH, did I say they ADMITTED it? That's what inspires me to write this post~~~ today's round-the-block Veterinarian was SURPRISED at the admission of a problem----and why wouldn't he? He lives in this CRAPPY, lie till you drop, state TOO!

Are you surprised to learn, that after the initial anger & perspective, that "blowing" your car up, is NOT QUITE the same as MURDERING YOUR PET?

Do you think we will have nightmares about the blown up car for years and years?

To the bad Veterinarians everywhere ,may YOU lose sleep and always wonder if you will be screwed at your next "pet-loving" mechanic~~

Thank you Dr. ___ , for today's inspiration , and your excellent no-nonsense care of our dearest 14 year old Pearl, mother-dam of angel Tickles and daughter of angel Dottie~~we are blessed to have her with us.

For immediate release: November 3, 2011 (11-170)

###

MAYBE NEW HAMPSHIRE PHYSICIAN'S HEALTH PROGRAM (NH PHP) FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSER VETS WILL WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE , INSTEAD OF ALLOWING CITIZEN'S AND PETS TO BE HURT, ABUSED, DE-FRAUDED AND DECEIVED~~Hmmmm???

~~~~~~~~~

Well, unfortunately, it could be John MacGregor, DVM, DACVIM ---employed at IDEXX telemedicine--- too bad HE DIDN'T DISCLOSE to US --that HE HAD ANOTHER JOB in 2006!!---while he let our Pocket LANGUISH DYING in her cage at Dover Veterinary Hospital

Yep, led us to believe that OUR beloved dog was an important patient---NOT!! And employed by IDEXX telemedicine in 2006----somehow they dropped his name off their "list" while I was SUING the "B" (that's short for bastard---name calling is allowed __)

 BUT fear not--- you can always STOP by and see him at one of the INTOWN VETERINARY GROUPS  located in Woburn, Mass, or Portsmouth, NH ---that is if he isn't too busy at Idexx-----

 http://www.idexx.com/view/xhtml/en_us/smallanimal/inhouse/digital-telemedicine/telemedicine.jsf

Cardiology and Specialty Services

I would be remiss to miss an anniversary of my dear Pocket's death, albeit 5 years ago, in 2006, cruelly and  and immorally killed by Catherine Findlay Gajewski, DVM in my presence via inhumane toxic substance causing excruciating pain and prolonged death by asphyxiation while totally conscious.

Did you have your pet treated at this hospital? Did you authorize "euthanasia"? If so, I can assure you that your pet met a very painful and cruel ending. Why, you ask? Because the clinic is set up to be a "Bad vet reform school for abusers".

That simply means that NO NARCOTICS exist on the premises. The wonderful state of NH decided to set up their "peer assistance program" to reform substance abusers to substitute drugs for animal abuse. The wise people of the NH PHP decided that was the lesser of evils.

Doesn't seem to matter that one would have to be "far more than a drug abuser" to trade their morality in to abuse and be cruel to people's pets.

NH seems to think it appropriate for these "professionals" to earn their halo or gold stars by teaching impressionable veterinary technician students from Great Bay Community College. Is this what we want for our NH residents? If not, ask Margaret MacGregor, DVM, program director the reasoning for it.

Ask her why John M. MacGregor, DVM, DACVIM (cardiology) was licensed in New Hampshire (no, the last name is not a coincidence) unable to OBTAIN his federal DEA (drug enforcement agency) license. ASK her why students are exposed to such fraud and abuse during their education.

My Scottish Terrier named Pocket , was not a thing; she was not a toy, she was cherished and taken care of by "us" , for 11 1/2 years, and deserved what any animal should have under the stewardship of humans~~~~ a humane, speedy, and COMPASSIONATE ending to her suffering ~~~NOT lies and "use" for teaching or otherwise.

And I would be really remiss , to not thank those responsible for putting the whole SCAM in action : Edgefield Veterinary Hospital: owned and controlled by Brad Barnes, DVM, his secretary Cindy and vet tech Marlene, and former employee Sarah Curry, BVSc , DVM , that also participate in the Great Bay Veterinary College teaching program and also must feel the need to support the Veterinary Substance ABUSE program

Pet owners beware, this could happen to YOU~~~