by Robyn OguinyeFriday, October 29th 2021

https://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/state-passing-of-safe-outdoor-dogs-bill-long-overdue-local-animal-rights-activists-say

State passing of ‘Safe Outdoor Dogs Bill’ long overdue, local animal rights activists say( SBG Photo)

Keeping your pets safe, that’s the priority of a bill that will become law in January.

The “Safe Outdoor Dogs Bill” is making the neglect of your pet a punishable, criminal offense.

The state is now making law what San Antonio has had in place since 2017.

Senate Bill 5 makes chaining a dog in your yard illegal.

Instead, if your dog has to be restrained for a short period of time, no chains can be used, only collars or material meant to be worn around a dog’s neck.

San Antonio animal rights activists say this is long overdue.

“Too many dogs are seen as burglar alarms or some sort of security device instead of the living beings that they are and they’re kept in chains,” says Rachel Wolf with VOICE for Animals San Antonio. “A lot of times they’re forced to be mean so that they can scare away people. This is going to be some protection for them.”

Gov. Greg Abbott originally vetoed the bill during the regular session, but received backlash from the public, much of it coming from the hashtag #abbotthatesdogs.

The bill’s primary sponsor, Senator Eddie Lucio Jr., says he can see why the governor may have had a change of heart.

He says this was his third attempt to make this a law.

“It’s extremely rare that a governor includes legislation that is vetoed. Quite frankly he knows how important this issue is,” says Lucio. “He heard from the people of Texas.”

The new law makes it illegal for animals not to be given proper shelter, shade from direct sunlight and water.

It also eliminates a 24 hour rule that kept law enforcement from intervening if they came across a dog in inhumane conditions.

“Removing the 24-hour notice actually makes it possible for those enforcing the law to do it right there and then instead of coming back 24 hours later,” says Lucio. “Maybe they cleaned up the place a little bit and then it’ll happen again.”

What about dogs that could pose a threat to others if not restrained?

Wolf says there’s always room to course correct your pet.

“They are probably not interacting with their families enough and those sorts of dogs shouldn’t be chained anyway because chaining can often lead to more aggressive behavior,” she says.

For those caught breaking this law, you’re looking at a Class C misdemeanor and a $500 dollar fine.

Paul A. Smith, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel  36 mins agoLikeComments|1

The US Navy is going underground as NATO increases its focus on its…Fact check: Remains found in Florida park ID’d as Brian Laundrie’s, not a supposed…

MADISON – Because the season was already blocked in a separate case last week, a federal judge on Friday declined to issue a ruling on a preliminary injunction requested by Ojibwe tribes to stop the 2021 Wisconsin wolf hunt.© KENA BETANCUR, AFP via Getty Images A federal judge declined to issue a ruling on a preliminary injunction requested by Ojibwe tribes to stop the 2021 Wisconsin wolf hunt Friday.

But Chief U.S. District Judge James D. Peterson said he had “deep misgivings” about state rules that proved inadequate in February to keep the wolf kill to the intended target.https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=3533

“My single greatest concern is the conduct of the hunt this fall, and that it is a recipe for a repeat of the February overharvest,” Peterson said.

Get daily updates on the Packers during the season.

The hearing, held in Western District U.S. Court, was part of a lawsuit filed Sept. 21 by six Wisconsin Ojibwe tribes against the Department of Natural Resources and Natural Resources Board. 

The tribes’ claim that in setting up the proposed fall wolf season the defendants “purposefully and knowingly discriminated against the Ojibwe Tribes by acting to nullify their share.”

The lawsuit also maintains the defendants have failed to put in place adequate safeguards to protect the Ojibwe’s share and “have managed, and are continuing to manage, wolf hunting in Wisconsin in a manner that violates” the tribes’ treaty-protected rights.

Friday’s hearing was on a request for preliminary injunction only; the full case will follow at a time to be determined.

The legal action comes in the wake of a February wolf hunting and trapping season that resulted in a kill of 218 wolves, 99 wolves above the state-licensed quota. The DNR was forced to hold the season by a lawsuit by Hunter Nation, a Kansas-based organization.

The quota for the February had been split 119 for the state and 81 for the tribes.

The take by state-licensed hunters and trappers effectively consumed the tribes’ quota.

The Ojibwe, who consider the wolf a brother and choose to protect rather than kill wolves with their quota, cite data from the late winter season in their case.

The six Ojibwe tribes involved in the case are the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, the Sokaogon Chippewa Community and St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin.

The tribes are represented by the California-based environmental group Earthjustice.

The hearing took an unusual turn due to a preliminary injunction on the wolf season handed out Oct. 22 in a similar case by a Dane County judge. 

With the season already effectively blocked, Peterson said he wasn’t able to issue relief.

But he heard arguments and testimony over 7 hours Friday.

Earthjustice attorneys called tribal members to testify to the importance of wolves as well as former DNR wolf biologist Adrian Wydeven.

The state called DNR researcher David MacFarland, an expert on wildlife population modeling.

Representing the tribes, attorney Christopher Clark said his clients face irreparable harm from the wolf hunt.

“When the state overharvests, it violates the tribes’ treaty rights and interferes with their ability to manage their resources,” Clark said.

Department of Justice attorney Hannah Jurss said the DNR had adjusted its license to quota ratio to 5:1 this fall, down from 20:1 in February, to help avoid an overharvest.

Peterson observed that the case had entered “new territory.”

In a landmark 1983 case on tribal rights called the Voigt Decision, Judge Barbara Crabb saw the tribes and non-Indians as competitors for the same resource, walleye. Her ruling affirmed off-reservation hunting and gathering rights for tribes in the Ceded Territory of Wisconsin, about the northern one-third of the state, and established a 50:50 split of the resources between the parties.

But with regard to wolves the situation was truly antagonistic, Peterson said.

“Tribes don’t want to hunt the wolves at all, and the state is looking out for the interests of sportsmen and women who want to hunt the wolves,” Peterson said. “That is a legitimate interest, but these are diametrically opposed.”

In closing remarks, Peterson asked the state to keep him informed on changes to hunting rules meant to tighten up wolf season controls. He also asked the tribal attorneys to stay in touch on the status of the injunction issued in the Dane County case.

If the injunction were lifted, Peterson said he would be ready to act.

“If you need an opinion from me I’ll be prepared to render it promptly,” he told the parties.

THANK YOU: Subscribers’ support makes this work possible. Help us share the knowledge by buying a gift subscription.

DOWNLOAD THE APP: Get the latest news, sports and more

This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: No ruling in Ojibwe wolf case, but judge expresses concerns about state rulesContinue Readin

Prime minister on way to Italy says our civilisation could mimic the decline of the Roman empire ‘unless we get this right’

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/29/cop26-humanity-5-1-halftime-climate-crisis-boris-johnson

Peter Walker Political correspondent@peterwalker99Fri 29 Oct 2021 13.06 EDT

Boris Johnson has likened the globe’s battle against the climate emergency to a football team losing 5-1 at half-time, as he flew to Rome for a world leaders’ gathering seen as crucial for setting the tone for next week’s Cop26 climate summit.

Speaking to reporters on the flight to Italy for the G20 meeting, Johnson conceded that he had not always been convinced about climate change, and that his mind had been changed in part by a briefing given by government scientific advisers soon after he became prime minister.

Johnson also summoned up the image of the Roman empire to argue that if sufficient progress was not made over the next fortnight at Cop in Glasgow, then the modern world could “also go backwards” in a dramatic way.Advertisementhttps://d849901bac5160874f1b5d641ad10e2b.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html

“There is absolutely no question that this is a reality we must face,” Johnson said of climate change, saying he had pressed China’s president, Xi Jinping, about his country’s use of coal during a phone call earlier on Friday.

“I would say that humanity as a whole is about 5-1 down at half-time,” he said. “We’ve got a long way to go, but we can do it. We have the ability to come back but it’s going to take a huge amount of effort.” He added: “Team World is up against a very formidable opponent in climate change.”

Rome’s ancient monuments, Johnson argued, could be seen as “a memento mori to us”, demonstrating how quickly civilisations can decline.

“Humanity, civilisation, society, can go backwards as well as forwards, and when things start to go wrong they can go wrong at extraordinary speed,” he said.

“You saw that with the decline and fall of the Roman empire, and I’m afraid to say that it’s true today that unless we get this right in tackling climate change, we could see our civilisation, our world also go backwards.”

Speaking about his “road to Damascus” after a journalism career in which he regularly questioned climate science, Johnson said he had been briefed by government scientists early during his time inside No 10.Advertisementhttps://d849901bac5160874f1b5d641ad10e2b.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html

He said: “I got them to run through it all, and if you look at the almost vertical kink upward in the temperature graph, the anthropogenic climate change, it’s very hard to dispute. That was a very important moment for me.”

Asked if he was eating less meat as a way to limit his environmental footprint, Johnson said: “I’m eating a bit less of everything, which may be an environmentally friendly thing to do.”

Johnson will have a series of meetings with other world leaders at the G20, which groups together leading industrialised nations, before flying on to Glasgow on Sunday.

He reiterated the UK’s goal of keeping on track the goal, set in the Paris climate accord, of limiting warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, saying that this Cop in Glasgow was part of a process.

He said: “We’re not going to stop global warming either at this meeting in Rome or at Cop. The most we can hope to do is slow the increase, begin the end of the problem. What we need to do is take steps now that give us the ability in the future to come back and make further commitments.”

People power would also play a role, he predicted. “The great force in all this is not governments, it’s the people. You’re seeing populations around the world starting to demand this, and that’s increasingly true everywhere.”