The Red Dog Inn

On the way to work this week, I saw something that made me sick — a dog that had been thrown from the bed of pick up.  I dutifully called Animal Control and was informed by two people that I’d have to talk with someone else.  By the time I talked to the someone else, I was feeling pretty darn miffed!  THERE SHOULD BE A LAW ABOUT THIS!

Well, where I live, there is: CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE 23117.  (a) No person driving a motor vehicle shall transport any animal in the back of the vehicle in a space intended for any load on the vehicle on a highway unless the space is enclosed or has side and tail racks to a height of at least 46 inches extending vertically from the floor, the vehicle has installed means of preventing the animal from being discharged, or the animal is cross tethered to the vehicle, or is protected by a secured container or cage, in a manner which will prevent the animal from being thrown, falling, or jumping from the vehicle.    http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc23117.htm

I’ve called the paper and asked them to publicize this code — as well as encouraging people to not take their dogs if they have to be left in the car. As of January 1, 2007, it’s illegal to leave your pet in a car unattended on a hot day in the Golden State.

When I think about where I got this role of protector, I think of my mom.   When did she start instilling in me how the initiative system works?  When I was 5-years-old.  When I was 5, the board of education wanted to bus kids away from their home districts. Mom had lived in Chicago and worked in a hospital. One day, my older brother came by to visit, which was odd because it was a school day.  His school was taking part in an assimilation experiment and one of the kids pulled a knife on the bus. Well, that was it.  Not only did the Chicago program come to a grinding halt, but that’s when my mom decided none of her kids would be subjected to this again.

So there I sat, at the kitchen table as a 5-year-old stuffing and sealing envelopes to convince other California voters to not allow this intiative to pass.

Thanks to those days around the kitchen table, I’ve developed a healthy appreciation for the political process. I was able to meet a President of the United States, a few representatives, two governors of California, work for a County Supervisor and meet more than my fair share of movers and shakers –each who was a force in her own right.

I think it’s ironic that virtually everyone of the people I mentioned above was an animal person.

So Mom, thanks for being a Protector and for all the opportunities.

When I started this blog, I made the Proverbs 12:10 my mission statement of sorts. Proverbs 12:10 reads: The righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.  So when I saw this message from teh Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), I signed the petition.  Give it a read. Visit the site. If you are compelled, take action!

“The Animal Legal Defense Fund is working to ensure that convicted animal abusers are exposed and prevented from harming new victims by promoting model legislation to establish an animal abuser registry in every community across America.”

FOLLOW THE LINK TO ADD YOUR VOICE AND LEARN MORE!  http://www.exposeanimalabusers.org/

Happy Dog. Photo by Steve Carragher

How would you like to write off up to $3,500 annually for taking proper care of your pet? You might be able to, but we need to get busy before we can GET HAPPY!  

I received an advocacy alert from the ASCPA telling me about the HAPPY Act (H.R. 3501) proposed by Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI). The ASPCA supports this act, and so do the inhabitants of The Red Dog Inn! 

If passed, HAPPY will amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (specifically, Part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1, add a  new section 224 and renumber accordingly.)  The new section 224 will read:

SEC. 224. PET CARE EXPENSES.

`(a) Allowance of Deduction- In the case of an individual, there shall be allowed as a deduction for the taxable year an amount equal to the qualified pet care expenses of the taxpayer during the taxable year for any qualified pet of the taxpayer.

`(b) Maximum Deduction- The amount allowable as a deduction under subsection (a) to the taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed $3,500.

`(c) Qualified Pet Care Expenses- For purposes of this section, the term `qualified pet care expenses’ means amounts paid in connection with providing care (including veterinary care) for a qualified pet other than any expense in connection with the acquisition of the qualified pet.

`(d) Qualified Pet- For purposes of this section–

•  
  `(1) QUALIFIED PET- The term `qualified pet’ means a legally owned, domesticated, live animal.

•  
  `(2) EXCEPTIONS- Such term does not include any animal–

•  
  •  
    `(A) used for research or owned or utilized in conjunction with a trade or business, or

•  
  •  
    `(B) with respect to which the taxpayer has claimed a deduction under section 162 or 213 in any of the preceding 3 taxable years.’.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking the last item and inserting the following new items:

•  
  `Sec. 224. Pet care expenses.

•  
  `Sec. 225. Cross reference.’.

(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2009.

What YOU can do!

The proposed legislation is so easy to read, even a member of Congress can understand it! I encourage you to visit the link below and read it for yourself.

After reading it, I hope that you’ll contact your Representative and Senators and encourage them to SUPPORT the HAPPY ACT! Then, tell your pet loving friends about HAPPY and encourage them to contact their representatives, too!

If you get a response, let us know about it!

What the HAPPY ACT does:

If passed, HAPPY will allow pet owners to deduct up to $3,500 annually from their taxes for “qualified pet care expenses” starting in the 2010 tax year.  

Links:

ASPCA: https://secure2.convio.net/aspca/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2605 

H.R. 3501 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3501: