Archive - Feb 25, 2010
Animal Welfare in Connecticut
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Thu, 02/25/2010 - 18:37There are several important developments concerning Animal Welfare in Connecticut that deserve special attention right now.
Parvo
Topping the list is the parvo outbreak in southwestern Connecticut. According to Stratford's chief Animal Control Officer Rachel Solveira it is the worst outbreak in over fifteen years. According to an article in the NewsTimes, “The Stratford and Fairfield animal control centers both had to be quarantined twice in recent months after the disease erupted among their dogs.”
Dog owners should check to see that there dogs have been vaccinated. Typically dogs get a combination vaccination for distemper and parvo. These vaccinations typical cost around $20 and if all dogs were vaccinated, it would put a quick end to the outbreak.
An Act Concerning Certificates of Origin for Dogs...
Today, I also received the opportunity to follow up on my blog post about An Act Concerning Certificates of Origin for Dogs Sold by Pet Shop Licensees. I had attempted to contact the Department of Agriculture several times and received no reply. Yesterday, Legislative Program Mgr., George E. Krivda, Jr. called while I was visiting clients. This morning, I had the opportunity to speak with him extensively about the problems I have had emailing the Department of Agriculture as well as about the bill.
The problem with my emails not being responded to appears to be a technology glitch that has been referred to the Department of Information Technology.
In terms of the Certificate of Origin act, I received a lot of valuable information from different several sources. Public Act No. 09-228 went into effect last July. During this period, the Head of Animal Control took early requirement and it was sometime before the replacement was named and the program was implemented.
Currently, there are 128 Pet Shop Licensees in Connecticut that this law applies to, although it is not clear how many of them actually sell dogs. It is estimated that approximately 10,000 Certificates of Origin will be filed each year, with the majority coming in by fax. Currently, there is no ability to file the certificates electronically and there is no provision for the Department of Agriculture to produce reports summarizing the certificates.
At the public hearing Connecticut Votes for Animals (CVA), which opposes bill 5118 describes the original bill that created this requirement as the Puppy Mill Law. They say that “the purpose of the Puppy Mill Law was to prevent the sale of puppy mill dogs in Connecticut”. They raise a concern about the certificates being accessible under the Freedom of Information Act. The proposed legislation, they argue, would make the certificates only available to the Department of Agriculture when visiting Pet Stores, and not available to activists, or for that matter, reporters, investigating trends in animal populations.
Yet retrieving the 10,000 faxes through Freedom of Information Act laws, and analyzing them could be a difficult and expensive endeavor. To address some of this, “CVA has publicly pledged its resources to the Dept. of Ag. in order to ensure that Certificate of Origin information can be filed with the Department of Agriculture.”
A better option might be to enable and require electronic filing of Certificate of Origin information. This information could then be easily accessible by an interested party. While the state is short of funds, it may not have the resources at present to create this as part of the State Department of Information Technology infrastructure. However, building a sample form like this on Google Documents is quite easy, and I’ve set up an example:
CT Certificate of Origin Form (The Department of Agriculture is welcome to use this form if it serves their purposes.)
It may be that the legislature could temporarily suspend the filing of Certificate of Origin forms with the Department of Agriculture until such time that the Department of Agriculture has an electronic filing system in place, provided that the forms are not only kept by the Pet Shop Licensees, but that they are available through the standard Freedom of Information Act provisions, with the Pet Shops needing to provide the information to any third party that asks.
Any bill that makes the gathering and dissemination of important information more efficient, especially in these days of fiscal constraints seems like a good idea to me.
It has also been suggested that this legislation be modified to apply not only the Pet Shop Licensees, but also to rescue organizations bringing animals into the state. While there are some great animal rescue organizations that should not have an issue complying with this, there are other more questionable groups posing as animal rescue organizations to avoid complying with laws applying to Pet Shop Licensees.
An Act Prohibiting the Unreasonable Confinement and Tethering of Dogs
Another bill that was introduced, and yesterday was referred to the Joint Committee on Environment is An Act Prohibiting the Unreasonable Confinement and Tethering of Dogs. This bill would more clearly define what is reasonable confinement and tethering of dogs and raise the fine for confinement or tethering that is not deemed reasonable. The ASPCA and CVA has concerns about some of the language of the bill and will provide suggested revisions to interested parties and at the public hearing on the bill.
Legislators for Animal Advocacy
It was also announced today that
State Representatives Annie Hornish (D- Granby) and Alfred Camillo (R-Greenwich) announced today that they will co-chair the newly formed "Legislators for Animal Advocacy," a bipartisan organization committed to raising awareness of animal welfare issues.
Reps. Hornish and Camillo both serve on the Environment Committee which will be considering bills 5118, 274 and others affecting animal welfare.
#meego Community Website Meeting
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Thu, 02/25/2010 - 10:41Yesterday, members of the #meego community gathered in an IRC channel to discuss what sort of services the community needed. It was a well attended covering topics from build services and repositories to forums and mailing lists. Every once in a while the discussion would drift off into religious views about one system or another but the meeting was well run and rapidly brought back to the topic at hand.
According to the logs, forty-five different people spoke at the meeting, which hopefully brings a broad representation of the community as a whole. However, since it was on IRC and talking about the details of the services provided, it may well have been a self selecting crowd that left out the largest and most important group, the end users. Many of the decisions being made are likely to affect end user experience, and I believe many of the end users really don’t care a lot about whether or not a given application is completely open source, or if it depends on components that are not open source. I suspect that many of them, likewise, aren’t especially concerned with whether or not the people doing quality assurance are third party people that have access to read the source code or not. However, these seemed to be the issues that many in the meeting were most interested in.
The importance of the distinction between the developers perspective and that of end users was brought home to me by an article in Rethink Wireless today about a TNS report that found users are now swayed by apps as much as carrier brands.
Every day, I receive emails from various organizations launching new applications for the iPhone asking me to review and blog about the applications. I always respond with a question about their plans to be made available on other platforms. Typically the response is that maybe they’ve considered porting the application to Android at some point, but they’ve either never heard of, or not seriously considered porting to the N900, Maemo or MeeGo.
I remember years ago the difficulty of getting corporations to consider Linux and even now the difficulty of getting home users to consider using Linux. Given what I’ve seen of the MeeGo community so far, I have doubts about MeeGo ever getting beyond being a toy for hobbyists. This is unfortunate, because MeeGo has the potential to become a great platform and a chance to illustrate the advantages of open source development.
Can Intel, Nokia and LG step in and help developers focus on the bigger picture? I don’t know. However, until something like that happens, I’ll keep playing with my N900 as a great cell phone for hobbyists. I’ll kick around Moblin and eventually MeeGo on a netbook or two, but I’m unlikely to spend a lot of time taking what I’ve written and packaging them for wider distribution and I’m probably even less likely to recommend Maemo, Moblin, or Meego to anyone except my geekiest friends.






