NC ends a 145 year Sunday Hunting Ban, how deep is the NRA in bed with NC Governor McCrory

 

The Outdoor Heritage Act, introduced in April, passed the state House in a 88-26 vote on June 18 and the Senate a week later. It makes North Carolina the 40th state to allow hunting on Sunday, doing away with part of the antiquated “blue codes” that date back to the 1870s.

“The outdoors has always been an integral part of our way of life and this bill has a number of measures that will improve the stewardship of our natural resources,” McCrory, a Republican, said in a statement.

Although the legislation was controversial and opposed by religious leaders, framers of the law painted it as a way to help preserve the shooting sports, not a strike at family values.
“Our opportunities to promote our outdoor heritage to future generations has never been greater nor more needed than at this time,” said Rep. Jimmy Dixon, the legislation’s sponsor. “The Outdoor Heritage Act can help us accomplish that goal.”

The new law, HB 640, allows guns to be used on Sunday in most instances on public lands as well as private lands with permission except for the hours of 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Further, it places a restriction on Sunday hunting within 500 yards of a place of worship or home not owned by the landowner.

While it does not allow the use of dogs for working deer, it allows them for other game. The taking of migratory waterfowl on Sunday will still be prohibited while a new body, the Outdoor Heritage

Advisory Council, will be established to promote youth activities to include the shooting sports. This will be funded through a voluntary $2 checkoff on hunting and fishing licenses.

While the state’s two largest counties, Wake and Mecklenburg, are exempted from the repeal, the other 98 with populations under 700,000 have the capacity after 2017 to opt-out and reinstate the Sunday ban should they desire.

Since September 2010, North Carolinians have been hunting on Sundays on private lands by falconry and with archery equipment and the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission endorsed the legislation earlier this year.

Even with the concessions made to help ease the bill through the legislature, some church advocates decried its adoption.

“This legislation by no means outlaws the Lord’s Day or destroys it, but it does add an additional distraction by law that simply allows it to go by default,” said Christian Action League head Mark Creech. “Human experience has shown us the importance of the Lord’s Day. We do not live by bread alone, neither are we the sum total of our amusements and indulgences. We live by a right relationship to God and in obedience to his commands.”

Safari Club International, local hunting groups and the National Rifle Association, supported the measure.
“This is a positive step for the hunters of North Carolina,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox in a statement. “The Outdoor Heritage Act removes a 145-year-old ban that made it impossible for a number of Old North State hunters to enjoy the great outdoors.”
The law goes into effect on Oct. 1, 2015

Blue Buffalo admits its pet food contained byproducts

Blue Buffalo admits its pet food contained byproducts

Nestlé Purina has legally locked horns with competitor over alleged false claims and false advertising.

Nestlé Purina PetCare Company (Purina) today announced that it has filed a lawsuit in federal court in St. Louis against The Blue Buffalo Company Ltd., for false advertising, disparagement and unjust enrichment – including violations of the Federal Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1125(a)).

Blue Buffalo’s promotion, advertising and packaging repeatedly and unequivocally state that its pet food products contain “NO Chicken/Poultry By-Product Meals.” In its complaint, Purina alleges that testing conducted by an independent laboratory revealed that several of Blue Buffalo’s top-selling “Life Protection” pet food products contained significant percentages of poultry by-product meal. Testing was done from samples of multiple formulas of Blue Buffalo pet food purchased at retail stores on both the East and West Coasts.

The complaint also alleges that testing shows Blue Buffalo “LifeSource Bits” contain poultry by-product meal and corn. In addition, several Blue Buffalo products promoted as “grain-free” actually contain rice hulls, despite Blue Buffalo stating on its website that its “grain-free” products will “free your pet from the grains and glutens that cause allergic reactions in some dogs.”

The complaint estimates that Blue Buffalo spent approximately $50 million in 2013 to promote its claims that Blue Buffalo ingredients are superior to competitors. As a result, Blue Buffalo charges premium prices for its products – significantly more than the pet food products they use for comparison purposes on the Blue Buffalo website.

The lawsuit follows a March 2014 decision of the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, which found that Blue Buffalo is engaging in misleading advertising practices with respect to its claims about competing products. The NAD decision recommended that Blue Buffalo correct its television ad campaigns by removing all of its allegations that Blue Buffalo’s competitors are misleading consumers.

A copy of the complaint and exhibits can be found at a website Purina has created to highlight its concerns: www.petfoodhonesty.com.

Part 2 for futher reading:

Blue Buffalo has admitted in federal court that a "substantial" and "material" portion of its pet food contained poultry byproduct meal, according to a release distributed by Nestlé Purina, which sued Blue Buffalo a year ago for false advertising.

After Blue Buffalo advertising claims were brought to the attention of the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus for review, in early 2014 NAD encouraged Blue Buffalo to modify its advertising claims concluding that ads were falsely disparaging to competitors. This included the "True Blue Test," which NAD said conveyed the message that competing "big name" pet food companies were deceiving consumers. This prompted Nestlé Purina to send samples of Blue Buffalo for analysis. As cited in the lawsuit, tests showed the presence of poultry by-product meal in nine out of 10 Blue Buffalo pet food products.

A year to the day after Nestlé Purina PetCare Co. brought its lawsuit against Blue Buffalo Co. LTD, Purina spokesperson Keith Schopp said, "Through a $50 million annual advertising campaign that flooded airwaves and pet food aisles alike, Blue Buffalo told consumers over and over, emphatically and without qualification, that its products never contain poultry by-product meal."

Blue Buffalo has not returned dvm360's requests for comment, but on its website its FAQ page continues to claim that "Blue pet food contains no chicken or poultry-by-product meals." Blue Buffalo filed a countersuit against Nestlé Purina in May 2014 alleging "a sophisticated and carefully orchestrated advertising campaign … that falsely attacks Blue Buffalo's honesty and the quality of its products."

According to the Purina release, Blue Buffalo is requesting additional time to file an amended complaint with the court naming its ingredient suppliers as defendants. Bill Bishop, founder and chairman of Blue Buffalo, issued a letter to customers in October of last year saying the company had learned that one of its suppliers had mislabeled some ingredients. He said Blue Buffalo received shipments of poultry byproduct meal instead of 100 percent chicken meal. Bishop assured customers that the company had stopped doing business with that manufacturing plant.

Schopp says blaming the supplier isn't a satisfactory response. “Blue Buffalo now claims it had no way of knowing the bags contained byproduct meal,” he says. “A manufacturer is responsible for knowing what’s in its product, and a simple audit of its supply chain would have revealed what we discovered after reviewing the documentation.

“Only when faced with undeniable evidence from the lawsuit has Blue Buffalo admitted the truth to the court: a ‘substantial’ and ‘material’ portion of Blue Buffalo pet food sold over the past several years contained poultry byproduct meal," Schopp continues. "It is unclear to us if or when this practice stopped, or whether any Blue Buffalo pet food containing byproduct meal is still on store shelves.”

Schopp asserts that Blue Buffalo owes consumers an apology for false statements, false labels and false advertising. He also calls for the Purina competitor to prove that no mislabeled products remain in the market.

Deadly contagious canine flu bears watching for 2015

 

 

2:30 pm, May 7, 2015

Chicago is the Windy City, the City of Big Shoulders, the Second City, and now, apparently the dog flu city. The canine influenza virus, or dog flu, settled into the Chicago metropolitan area just over a month ago. Since dogs do travel, however, it's no surprise that the virus has popped up elsewhere. Chicago, however, remains the only hot spot.

According to Dr. Donna Alexander, Cook County Administrator for the Department of Animal and Rabies Control, over 2,000 dogs have become sick, and at least six have succumbed to the dog flu. She calls what's still occurring in the area an epidemic.

I've received many dog flu questions (at dogflu@stevedale.tv). Alexander and others kindly agreed to answer some of your queries:

Q: How did the dog flu get to America? It seems we need much tighter restrictions on dogs entering America, even if it is for adoption. And frankly, don't we have enough dogs here to adopt? -- C.J., San Diego, CA

A: Currently, dogs are required to have a veterinary certificate of "good health" and proof of a rabies vaccination to enter the U.S. Indeed, that good health certificate is vague. In reality, veterinarians in some countries may have different standards than those in America.

Many argue that we should set the bar higher for dogs entering the U.S. Others suggest we should even quarantine such dogs for a set number of days or weeks. The problem is, there's currently no space or funding for quarantining dogs (or cats).

I suspect the reason you ask this question is because the flu strain now hitting the Chicago area is from South Korea and China, and has never been seen before in the U.S. The assumption is that a dog rescued from that region arrived carrying the flu bug. However, it's possible that a U.S. military dog brought the virus in, or even a person, since the virus can live on shoes or a pant leg for a day, or potentially even longer.

Personally, while I understand your point about saving dogs that are already here, I believe that a life saved is a life saved.

Q: Can dogs get the flu from others dogs' urine? -- C.H., Chicago, IL

Q: We go to a large dog park, but our dogs rarely see other dogs there. Since they seldom interact with other dogs, is there still a risk of flu? -- C.H., Deerfield, IL.

A: "Yes, there is some risk," says Alexander, as the virus can live on objects in a dog park, such as sign posts, fire hydrants, and potentially, even grass. However, as long as your dogs don't interact with other dogs, the risk is minimal. Alexander adds that the risk factor is far greater where dogs directly interact nose to nose.

"Dogs cannot get the flu from other dogs' urine," says Dr. Joseph Hahn, technical services manager at Merck Animal Health.

Q: Can cats get the dog flu? -- N.B., via cyberspace

A: It's been reported in Asia, where the H3N2 strain of the dog flu came from, that cats have been sickened. According to Asian sources, cats don't get as ill as dogs.

"So far, there isn't a single verified (case of a) cat who's come down with the dog flu in this country," says Dr. Jill Lopez, senior Specialist Drug Safety at Merck Animal Health.

Q: Would the virus affect any results from blood chemistry? I'm wondering about this because one of my dogs was coughing recently at the same time we ran tests for possible kidney failure. -- J.D.O., via cyberspace

Q: Can you outline the dog flu symptoms? How long should I keep a new dog isolated from other dogs? Is seven days sufficient? I presently have a new dog from animal control. We kept her separate for seven days. It's now the eighth day (since her arrival) and she has a choking type of cough. Is that a symptom? -- M.T., Lincolnwood, IL

A: "The only findings we've seen in the influenza-induced pneumonia cases is an elevated white blood cell count on CBC (a simple blood test, complete blood count)," says Dr. Natalie Marks, of Chicago.

A diagnosis of dog flu is also based on symptoms which may be any combination of coughing, wheezing, lack of appetite, general depression and/or a fever.

Before symptoms occur, dogs can shed or spread the virus for 7-10 days, according to Dr. Joseph Hahn.

Q: Will there be an H3N2 vaccine in America, and if so, when will it be available? -- J.V., via cyberspace

Q: Will the dog flu die out, and then there will be another epidemic in another large, urban area? -- C.D., New York, NY

A: Pharmaceutical companies are investigating the effectiveness of the vaccine for the H3N2 flu that already exists in Asia, and are rushing to create a similar vaccine here.

The million-kibble question is, will we need such a vaccine? For starters, it might turn out the current vaccine for the strain of the dog flu historically seen in the U.S., H3N8, may offer adequate cross-protection. However, most experts feel a vaccine specific for H3N2 would make more sense. Of course, if the existing H3N8 vaccine offers little or no cross protection, a vaccine for H3N2, the current strain making dogs sick, will definitely be needed.

Unfortunately, vaccines take time to develop and must then win government approval. Meanwhile, the current dog flu virus might settle in around the Chicago area, becoming endemic, or ever present. If that occurs, an effective vaccine will be desperately needed or more dogs will die.

It is possible the virus will dissipate on its own before a vaccine is released, making its development less urgent. Of course, if the dog flu does diminish in Chicago, it might find a hot spot in another city.

(Steve Dale welcomes questions/comments from readers. Although he can't answer all of them individually, he'll answer those of general interest in his column Send e-mail to PETWORLD(at)STEVE DALE.TV. Include your name, city and state. Steve's website is http://www.stevedalepetworld.com; he also hosts the nationally syndicated "Steve Dale's Pet World" and "The Pet Minute." He's also a contributing editor to USA Weekend.)

Steve DaleMy Pet World

    (c) 2015 DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Pet Portraits - Sat, May 9th Winston Salem NC

Help stop North Carolina's dangerous "ag-gag" bill H.B. 405

 

Your help is needed to stop North Carolina's dangerous "ag-gag" bill before it makes its way to the House floor. On Tuesday, April 21, at 1 p.m., public comments on the bill, House Bill (H.B.) 405, will be heard by the Judiciary II committee. Please attend and urge members of the committee to vote NO on this bill!

If passed, H.B. 405 would penalize workers who document cruelty on farms, in laboratories, and in other facilities where animals are abused without employers' permission. A similar North Carolina bill was introduced and defeated in 2013.

The meeting will be held at the state Legislative Office Building, Rm. 421, 300 N. Salisbury St., Raleigh, NC 27603. To see if your representative serves on the committee, please click here.

For more information about the meeting, please e-mail Erin at ErinC@peta.org.

 

To read H.B. 405 click here:

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015/Bills/House/PDF/H405v1.pdf

 

To reach out to your NC Rep's click here:

 

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/Committees/Committees.asp?sAction=ViewCommittee&sActionDetails=House+Standing_29

Dog Treat Products Settlement, Waggin' Train & Canyon Creek Recall

Dog Treat Products Settlement
Adkins et al. v. Nestlé Purina PetCare Company, et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-02871 (N.D. Ill.);
Matin v. Nestlé Purina PetCare Company, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01512 (N.D. Ill.);
Gandara v. Nestlé Purina PetCare Company, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-04159 (N.D. Ill.)

IF YOU PURCHASED OR YOUR PET(S) USED OR CONSUMED WAGGIN’ TRAIN OR CANYON CREEK RANCH DOG TREAT PRODUCT(S), PLEASE READ CAREFULLY. THIS WEBSITE IS TO INFORM YOU OF A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT THAT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS.

YOU MAY BENEFIT FROM READING THIS WEBSITE. IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE BENEFITS UNDER THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, YOU MUST SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM.

Case Background
A Settlement has been reached in class action lawsuits claiming that Waggin’ Train or Canyon Creek Ranch brand dog treat products imported from or containing ingredients imported from China (“Dog Treat Products”) were defective and that some pets may have become sick and/or died after consuming the products. A list of the Dog Treat Products can be found here. Defendants Nestlé Purina PetCare Company and Waggin’ Train, LLC have denied any wrongdoing. The Court has not decided which side is right.
Defendants have agreed to create a $6,500,000.00 cash Settlement Fund from which eligible consumers and/or pet owners may receive a cash payment for up to 100% of certain documented economic damages related to their purchase of or their pet’s consumption of the Dog Treat Products, after the payment from the Settlement Fund of the costs of notice and Claims Administration, attorneys’ fees, Class Representative awards, costs, and taxes. Economic damage means the expenses you incurred related to your purchase or your pet’s consumption of the Dog Treat Products, and include veterinary screening or treatment bills and other expenses related to your pet’s illness and/or death.
For each of your pets that used or consumed Dog Treat Products, you may recover up to 100% of certain reasonable economic damages you claim you suffered if you can provide documentation showing the economic damage.
In addition to compensation for expenses supported by documentation, you may also receive up to a $300 payment per pet for reasonable economic damages for which you do not have supporting documentation. You must still complete a Claim Form and provide information about your economic damages to be eligible for payment of your undocumented expenses.
The total amount available for product reimbursement is $700,000, and the total amount available for healthy screenings is $100,000. Reimbursement of Claims may be subject to certain pro rata reductions and other limitations described on this website.

SUMMARY OF CLASS MEMBERS’ RIGHTS AND OPTIONS UNDER THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
SUBMIT A CLAIM	The only way to get a payment. Submit your Claim Form by mail, facsimile or email (.pdf) to the Claims Administrator no later than April 1, 2015.
EXCLUDE YOURSELF	Get no payment. This is the only option that allows you to not be bound by the final judgment and release and to be part of any other lawsuit concerning the issues being settled now. You must exclude yourself from the Settlement Class by no later than February 10, 2015.
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT	Write to the Court about why you support or oppose the proposed Settlement. If you want to object to the Settlement, you must do so in writing by May 25, 2015. Filing an objection does not exclude you from the Settlement.
GO TO THE FINAL APPROVAL HEARING	Ask to speak to the Court about the proposed Settlement at the Final Approval Hearing, scheduled for June 23, 2015 (date subject to change).
DO NOTHING	Get no payment. You will not be able to bring or be part of any other lawsuit concerning the issues being settled now, and you will be bound by the final judgment and release in this case.

If you would like further information about the claims asserted in this case, you can review a copy of the Settlement Agreement here.


NOTICE: This website provides a summary of the Settlement and is provided for informational purposes only. In the event of any discrepancy between the text of this website and the original text upon which it is based, the text of the original document shall prevail.

Questions? Contact the Claims Administrator at 1-866-329-9963 or info@DogTreatProductsSettlement.com

World Spay Day 2015