BOYCOTT CENTRAL

Never underestimate the power of the people to influence change.  Margaret Meade said, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world.  Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has”.  So, with these sage words ringing in our ears, we endorse the following designated “Boycotts of Companies or others whom are seen to not be doing things in acceptable ways”.

If individuals will overcome their apathy, to take specific action, as requested, their voice will be added to countless millions of others, and in due course we will influence changes desired.  It follows, our initial goal, for Companies, is to impact upon a mere 20.0% of their “profits”, easily attainable, if you help but such an amount can have tremendous impact on a Company bottom line, which is often all many actually care about.  Do your part, get active and support our “Boycott Central”.

BOYCOTT    BOYCOTT     BOYCOTT     BOYCOTT     BOYCOTT    BOYCOTT

• SUPERMARKETS – Those Companies whom do not publicly embrace the objectives and goals of the Wholesome & Humane Program, “minimum standards” for Animals raised for Food.  Boycott LOBLAWS, REAL CANADIAN SUPER STORE & SAFEWAY from JUNE 1, 2011 til January 1, 2012 (we will review and apprise if the Boycott is to continue at OVERWAITEA & SAVE-ON – watch this space for details).  ASK THE STORE MANAGER OF YOUR FAVORITE SUPERMARKET (INFORM THEM OF YOUR PLAN TO BOYCOTT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THEY DIRECT THEIR SUPPLIERS TO ADOPT MORE HUMANE METHODS & PRACTICES IN THE PRODUCTION, TRANSPORT, ABATTOIRS OF ANIMALS RAISED FOR FOOD – check www.thecouncilclaw.ca/wholesomeandhumaneprogram.htm for details.

• SUPERMARKETS, FISH MARKETS, RESTAURANTS – Those companies that continue to sell “OPEN NET” Fish Farm Salmon.  Boycott until they cease selling this product.

• SUPERMARKETS & FRUIT MARKETS – Those whom continue to sell products from “Propane Cannon Farms”.  Write the Minister of Agriculture, to request that he exclude Propane Cannons from Right to Farm Act legislation.  Ask the Store Manager if they sell products from Propane Cannon Farms?  If they will not answer or the answer is “YES” apprise them you will not purchase from their store until they cease buying from Propane Cannon Farms.  For more details check web.site www.banthecannons.com   Start now but get organized for a mammoth Boycott of the 2011-12 growing season.

• PET STORES & OTHER OUTLETS  – Those whom continue to sell “Wild or Exotics Pets” as defined upon our APPENDIX “A”  (REFER www.thecouncilclaw.ca/ourpositiononissues.htm  POINT 24 & APPENDIX “A” following this segment).  Request the Manager or other person responsible, if they will cease selling and if the answer is “NO” apprise them of your plan to Boycott the outlet.  First Boycott between  JUNE 1, 2011 til January 1, 2012 (we will review and apprise if the Boycott is to continue, watch this space).  Our proposal is to “Prohibit the Ownership/Possession, Breeding, Sale, Trade or Exhibition of Wild or Exotic Animals”.  NOTE: It is perceived irresponsible, negligent and cruel for Municipal Councils to continue to permit Companies/Individuals to “make a profit at any cost”, to add to Public Health fears about increasing spread of disease from Animals to Humans (ie; West Nile Virus, SARS, MONKEYPOK, SALMONELLA, etc.); that wild & exotics do not fare well in artificial conditions & most purchasers are ill-equipped to look after, often resulting in Pets being killed or abandoned or for the few fortunate that end up at the overcrowded Rainforest Reptile Refuge (Refer for details www.rainforestsearch.com)   Qualified & accredited persons may entertain discussion with operators of the Rainforest Reptile Refuge, toward relieving “overcrowding” by “fostering certain species”, at the discretion of the Rainforest Reptile Refuge but otherwise no further sales should be permitted.

50 MILLION CONSUMERS WORLD WIDE PREPARE TO BOYCOTT FAST FOOD OUTLETS & FACTORY FARMS EFFECTIVE August 1, 2011.  NOTIFICATION REQUESTING COMPLIANCE TO ACCEPTABLE MINIMUM STANDARDS OF ANIMAL WELFARE DESCRIBED IN THE WHOLESOME AND HUMANE PROGRAM, www.thecouncilclaw.ca/wholesomeandhumaneprogram.htm HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO:

McDONALD’S RESTAURANTS, CANADA & USA

BURGER KING RESTAURANTS, CANADA & USA

KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN/YUM BRANDS, CANADA & USA

SMITHFIELD FOODS PORK PROCESSOR, VIRGINIA USA

HIGH GAS PRICES – If feasible, it would be beneficial to Boycott all Oil Companies but regrettably an impractical situation, except all “other products” but gas & oil, could be Boycotted everywhere.  Notify the Station Manager of your plan to Boycott until Gas Pump Prices are lowered.  To create some impact, we want you to “Focus upon one OIL Company, at a time”, that, should one Company lower their prices, others are likely to follow.  First selected Company due to international size & name recognition, will be to commence a Boycott against SHELL OIL COMPANY, from JUNE 1, 2011 til January 1, 2012 (we will review and apprise if the Boycott is to continue and/or to switch to another Oil Company, tentatively selected to be ESSO, then CHEVRON).

The Council Animal Advocacy (CLAW) make regular submissions to various levels of government across North America. From time to time, we could find a “cause” or “issue” benefit from a large “public response”, thus, we need your assistance and support to write to the government indicated to strongly impress upon recipients that we all care, we are concerned and we want their attention and action now.  To those of you whom care, and do something – please accept our heartfelt THANKS!

• MISSION/ ABBOTSFORD/ CHILLIWACK/FVRD, B.C. “RESIDENT ALERT”

The Council Animal Advocacy (CLAW) seeks the assistance of ALL RESIDENTS whom are compassionate about Animals, to get involved, demonstrate you do care and thus please encourage our elected Municipal Councils to be diligent, responsive to “Community needs” and compassionate toward our Pets.  How can you get involved? Contact our Municipal Councils and request that they act now and be responsive to proposals that have been made over and over again since 1995, by The Council Animal Advocacy (CLAW) to:

• ADOPT BYLAWS – to control the breeding of Cats, to adopt mandatory spay or neuter, identification and breeder permit bylaw; to stop the killing of healthy and adoptable pets as a means of population control and a means by which Abbotsford, Chilliwack & Maple Ridge SPCA Pounds can reduce “surplus” Cats, which may have been surrendered from Mission & elsewhere; to encourage “responsible” Companion Animal Guardians and end favoring the “irresponsible” pet owner; to demand Municipal Councils abandon their “indifference”

• NO-KILL SHELTER & “REGIONAL” LOWER-COST HOSPITAL to be established at Mission, B.C., as a Municipal Owned facility, possibly public/private joint-venture; to incorporate Animal Control Services, at Mission, for Dogs & Cats, plus other livestocks and the enforcement of the B.C. Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, affording local Veterinarians opportunity to participate and the SPCA to become involved in enforcement aspects.

• ANIMAL WELFARE COMMITTEE to be established at each Municipality, accordingly for the District of Mission to abandon planned Animal Control Task Force measures instead to expand parameters and mandate, to involve interested and informed Animal Welfare proponents, including the review, assessment and adoption of Bylaws proposed by The Council Animal Advocacy (CLAW).

• Viewers are encouraged to contact the following Municipal Governments:

1. Mayor J. Atebe & Councillors, District of Mission, Box 20 – 8645 Stave lake Street, Mission, B.C. V2V 4L9, Tel: (604) 820-3703; Fax: (604) 826-1363; email: info@mission.ca

2. Mayor George Peary & Councillors, City of Abbotsford, 32315 Sth. Fraser Hwy, Abbotsford, B.C. V2T 1W7; Tel: (604) 864-5505. FAX: (604) 853-1934; e.mail councilmembers@abbotsford.ca  YOUR DIRECT ACTION

DISCLAIMER & PERSPECTIVES FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION

The Council Animal Advocacy (CLAW)  and The Council Advocacy “For a Better North America” make all statements and publish material in this web.site to the best of our knowledge and belief information is correct, we do so “without prejudice” and in the context all statements are made impartially, from an apolitical perspective and solely altruistic, representing proposed actions by recipients that will be indicative of the most effective and workable solutions for society.

Being a private, self-financed, apolitical group we hold little patience or tolerance for government by ideology, advocating polarized perspective or political positions, closed-mind stubbornness or negative overtures.

We subscribe to the notion that “any level of risk” to health, safety, environment is too great and thus we demand Governments to err on the side of caution.  Indeed, should a Minister pursue into the area of “risk” they must be agreeable to forfeit their position and resign in the event any incident arises as a result of unnecessary risk taken as a result of perceived “foolhardy leadership decisions”.

With certain notable exceptions, Science is not always a ‘sound’ scientific basis for decision making, particularly where unequivocal agreement is not forthcoming, rather, decisions based upon such science is at best an approach advocated by certain, possibly self-serving scientists or government and thus holds no credibility at law or fact and is merely put forth by one or more groups affording what they perceive right from their perspective, at that time.

We tend to be cynical of government and indeed Scientists, Veterinarians or other Medical practitioners on a “government payroll” whom are unable to speak truthfully, possibly at fear of censor or job loss if they were indeed to speak out in protection of society versus “government-line” and where termination has resulted previously.  Thus, it is our sense ‘Independent” Professionals opinion tend to hold more substance and merits of view, that are in the interests of the Public safety or interests, thus we submit more credible.

We express our views based upon research and public accounts, based upon high principles, ethics and integrity, from altruistic motives, thus, by providing “links” to other organizations we do so for public convenience and thus unless otherwise stated, inclusion is not an endorsement of any such views.

PLEASE VIEW OUR WEB.SITE MONTHLY OR MORE OFTEN, IF YOU DESIRE, TO VIEW UPDATES OR NEW ISSUES FOR “YOUR DIRECT ACTION”.  We seek to sometimes be provocative, to put forth ideas and positions that are progressive and enlightening, that hopefully stimulate viewers to get involved, abandon possible apathetic positions and come to the realization to ‘complain to people whom can’t or won’t do anything is counterproductive’, so, following the leadership of The Council Advocacy or The Council Animal Advocacy (CLAW) will go along way toward convincing levels of government of the substance and merits of what we propose and may convince “leaders” to step forth and display leadership we expect.

In all cases, viewers are invited to get involved and contact their (Federal) Member of Parliament (MP) by writing to Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6 (NO POSTAGE NEEDED).

As well, to write to their Member Legislative Assembly (MLA) by writing to their Provincial Parliament Buildings (POSTAGE REQUIRED).  In British Columbia, write to Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B.C. V8V 1X4.

Fax numbers or direct e.mail addresses are available from local MP or MLA offices.

In the United States, write to State Governors; conversely to Senators by writing to The Honorable (insert State Senator name) United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510

As well, viewers are invited to write to their local Mayor & Councillors at the City or Municipal Hall, in their community.

In all cases, viewers can make their own submission and use their own words, otherwise can include reference to the facts, “we encourage (recipients) to understand, cooperate and adopt and/or revise legislation/bylaws to reflect the position advocated by either/or The Council Advocacy or The Council Animal Advocacy (CLAW) and if the (viewer) prefers, to specify a certain cause, issue, bylaw or legislation, that for ease of convenience and due to consolidation of material (viewers) can refer all levels of government to the specific section (s) of our web-site, as individuals with access to the Internet, around the World, have equal access to our web-site and given causes/issues are international in nature, whether abandoning the killing of healthy, adoptable ‘surplus’ dogs & cats, prohibiting exotic or wild Animals in a Circus, to abolishing inhumane “Factory Farming” practices, to prohibition of killing “Grizzly Bears” and the repugnant hunting for sport, trophies or parts, all issues are contained within our web-site and thus form the central resource site for people across North America to become informed and commence their action to rid North America of the shame we endure at the hands of apathy, indifference and leaders lacking courageous compassion to lead in progressive fashion with society and individuals and animal paramount in mind, accepting accountability for stewardship of Animals, while on their watch.

• YOUR DIRECT ACTION

GRIZZLY BEAR KILLING FOR PROFIT

The Council Animal Advocacy (CLAW) believe the killing of such a majestic creature for trophies, sport, animal parts or profit or any other reason is intolerable and unacceptable, indeed it is a repugnant act perpetrated by an ilk of society having no empathy for life and an ill-advised approach perpetrated by a morally bankrupt government decision lacking morals and conviction to do what is right, even though some 80% of British Columbian residents oppose such killing.  It is beyond comprehension why the B.C. moratorium would be lifted but upon viewing all actions taken todate it seems symptomatic of inept and uncaring people. Indeed, it matters not whether there are 3000 or 30,000 Grizzly Bears, scientific evidence or pure folly generated by the WildLife Branch of Government, it is the unnecessary act that is repugnant.  Viewers across North America are invited to contact Premier C. Clark, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B.C. V8V 1X4 and demand prohibition of further killing and similarly if the killing does not stop, do all possible to convince friends, family and business colleagues to both refrain from visiting British Columbia thus affecting our Tourism Industry and cease buying Canadian exports and contact your Government to abandon purchase/import of products and any import of Grizzly parts in any form by individual hunters or any other source.

“OPEN-NET” FISH FARMS ENVIRONMENTAL NIGHTMARE COMING

The Council Animal Advocacy (CLAW) believes the B.C. Government has ill-advisedly lifted the moratorium on “open net” Fish Farms and thus opened a pandoras box of future potential irreparable environmental harm.  No sooner was this retrograde step taken when a major diseased ‘fish kill’ and subsequent foolhardy attempt by Industry to dispose of same, a clear indication of what to expect in a ‘deregulated’ Industry.  Further, a serious viral disease, “IHN” has surfaced, which when compounded with fears surrounding the ever present ‘sea lice’, all uncontroversial mounting evidence that “open net” Fish Farms should be closed and while we support creating new sources of food and revenue, it must be done without unnecessary risk and thus only an inland self-contained facility is acceptable.  DFO evidence is seen as reflecting no credibility and B.C. Fisheries cavalier attempt at dismissing as “low risk” is indicative of ineptness.  The Fish Farm Industry, while allegedly enforced by B.C. Authorities is in fact perceived more as a “self-regulating” entity.  While Industry would claim acceptable ‘self-contained’ farms are “uneconomical” we feel all the more reason to only permit ‘self-contained’ facilities and to definitely ‘regulate’ operations; transfer of disease at low risk or otherwise remains an ongoing and inevitable circumstance that could well be the end of wild stocks as we have known them and while likely seen as expendable by DFO and Provincial Government, maybe even the Federal Fisheries (?) we submit “risk at any level is intolerable and unacceptable to society at-large”.  Viewers across North America are invited to contact Premier C. Clark (as above) and demand a moratorium on “open Net” Fish Farms, closure of existing “open net” Fish Farms by converting all entities to “Inland Facilities” within one (1) year not later than March 1, 2012 or forfeit by closure.  If not done, Viewers are encouraged to convince friends, families and business colleagues to cease purchase of Fish Farm products, to encourage Provincial, State or other Governments to cease import of Fish Farm products.  For additional insight to this important issue we encourage viewers to visit the David Suzuki Foundation web-site at www.davidsuzuki.org

September 15, 2002 More about FISH FARMS –   While existing Fish Farms pursue potentially troublesome “open net” farms ignoring the harm caused, emanating sludge into wild stock salt waters, excessive lice infestation upon fish, escaped fish and examples go on, with Government ill-advisedly lifting of the moratorium, we find “individuals making things happen” by the opening of an ideal “inland self-contained farm”.  Thrifty Foods Markets on Vancouver Island and Tsawassen, feature this product and must be commended for their diligence.  Please consult the THRIFTY FOODS WEB.SITE AT www.thriftyfoods.com for details.  WHAT ABOUT OTHER SUPERMARKET, FISH MARKETS & RESTAURANTS FOLLOWING SUIT?????

The ‘common denominator’ to explain, in part, the failure to protect the environment and seek to resolve or prevent known problems, to prohibit “open net” Fish Farms, is simple but common, “money motivated profits, at any cost”, a mindset with a good dose of ignorance and denial, blended with narrow Government vision & ideology inspired.  While slightly more costly initially, the “inland” OR “ocean based closed confinement systems” of self-contained farms are the long-term viable solution.

We hasten to add, we do not support increased use of fossil fuels and recommend that Fish Farm Operators use alternative energy providers, such as but not limited to tidal, solar and wind power resources.  Indeed, only “inland or ocean based closed containment systems are the only viable options”.

February 7, 2007 – PLEASE Boycott “Open Net” Fish Farm products owned by George Weston Ltd. commencing March 15, 2007.  People around the World are called upon to boycott the purchase of any “open net” Atlantic fish farm products imported from George Weston Ltd., Canada.  As well, Canadians are requested to boycott George Weston Ltd. stores across Canada, starting with LOBLAWS & THE REAL CANADIAN SUPERSTORE until George Weston Ltd., agrees to convert “Open Net” Fish Farms to either “Ocean based or inland closed confinement systems”.  We urge a ‘low profile’ approach first, inform your members, colleagues, friends & family via “Magazines & Newsletters” to just stop buying imported fish outside Canada and within Canada, stop buying at Loblaws & The Real Canadian Superstore.  The second phase will be to commence a media campaign and more visible information picketing and more!  DETAILS LATER!

SPCA MUST IMPROVE, RESPOND TO SOCIETY – STOP KILLING PETS

The Council Animal Advocacy (CLAW) believe the recently concluded “Public Consultation Process” accessible from the BC SPCA web-site at www.spca.bc.ca has afforded British Columbians the opportunity to express some views but it is our sense the action plan will pale in comparison to need, given historic operations and the fact a “complete house cleaning” has not transpired.  As recent as a week or so again, our correspondence and requests to both the BC SPCA Board of Directors and to the Chief Executive Officer have been ignored and this continues to reflect what we and the general public presumably have come to witness and consider arrogant, intolerable, rude, unprofessional behavior and thus needs to be addressed now.  By contrast, an informative, “independent” “critical analysis” has been concluded by a Kimberly Daun titled “This Dog Don’t Hunt” accessible from kdaum@telus.net or soon in your local Library.  The Council Animal Advocacy (CLAW) have been leading proponents calling for change at the SPCA, more public responsiveness and more Animal friendly policies, procedures since 1995; to operate “no-kill” Pounds”; to replace ‘conservative inaction’ and commence proactive lobbying to levels of Government, notably the B.C. Provincial Government to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act; to improve enforcement and prosecution of offenders and venture support of initiatives commenced by The Council Animal Advocacy (CLAW).  While we advocate a “house cleaning” we, contrary to some colleagues position taken, believe a revised and revitalized SPCA should be the focus of enforcement of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, operation of no-kill shelters for respective Municipalities, a force to educate the Public and given existing leaders abandon their foolhardy and rude behavior some incumbents may be worthy of retaining their position but to ignore our overtures is done at their peril.  Further, Government must accept accountability and abandon their abdication of stewardship for Animals approach by getting more actively involved and demanding accountability from Agriculture Ministry and SPCA personnel.  The Council Animal Advocacy (CLAW) encourage viewers to continue their reasonable demands to the SPCA to become proactive and responsive, to not accept intolerable personal behavior of arrogance, rudeness and indifference from SPCA personnel; to contact Municipal Councils to encourage their patience and cooperation toward demanding the SPCA function in a more enlightened manner, to continue using the SPCA to enforce laws and operate no-kill shelters.  To contact both the Minister of Agriculture,  at Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B.C. V8V 1X4 and Mr. C. Daniell, Chief Executive Officer, BC SPCA, Vancouver, B.C. to demand changes advocated by The Council Animal Advocacy (CLAW).  We refer viewers to the excellent web.site of the ANIMAL ADVOCACY SOCIETY OF B.C. for additional remarks about the SPCA dilemma, at www.animaladvocates.com

September 15, 2002 – The BC SPCA decision to lift its moratorium on killing healthy & adoptable Pets is seen as a retrograde step and certainly not meeting their mandates to “speak for those unable to speak for themselves”.  The “cop out” to not continue the moratorium on “killing healthy & adoptable Pets” is seen as an academic step by inept leadership and thus we must call for a resignation of leaders pursuing this unwise decision.  The newly named Companion Animal Management Policy (CAM policy) is the replacement vehicle that will be observed and seems indicative of the vast gap that exists between the Public and what they expect the SPCA to do and that which the BC SPCA seem to believe is desired.  This mindset stems from a dictatorial approach, denial, arrogance and until a reckoning occurs alienation is expected.  Some published & pertinent remarks by Dr. J. Lawson, Chief Animal Health Officer seem to sum up the public impressions and illustrate what needs to change, in part, to see the BC SPCA emerge as a viable and credible entity, namely, “The SPCA will continue to put down problem animals, animals that suffer from non-treatable aggression or would be at risk of having a healthy relationship with humans or other animals”; We’re not going to put out a product that we know isn’t going to bond well with an adopter” (a product); “Shelter workers will also determine what ‘treatment’ each animal requires, including euthanasia”; If shelters are bulging with animals and animals are in poor condition because of shelter conditions, animals will be euthanized”; “If we can’t supply appropriate resources, rather than have animals languish, we’ll put them down, if they are not doing well”; “If beyond our means, we’re not going to let them sit there and suffer”.  WOW! Sure wouldn’t want this Doctor to be my Doctor but clearly, while confusing and maybe redundant, remarks seem to justify the BC SPCA ‘doing whatever it wants to kill healthy & adoptable animals for whatever reason they deem appropriate and the whole fundamental basis of the SPCA as expected by society flies in the face of needs”.  The Council Animal Advocacy (CLAW) direct the attention of the BC SPCA to our 12 step plan, we suggest a more pro-active move to support motions made and to actively pursue changes to Municipal Bylaws to adopt mandatory spay/neuter/identification/breeder permit bylaws, to operate “no-kill animal shelters”, to change the Residential Tenancy Act to permit small Pets in Rental Accommodation and rather than be too quick relying upon their own “expertise” to kill Animals, liaise with other Animal Welfare Groups to see if their rehabilitation training might be more viable.  Simply, abandon killing as the population solution and instead pursue efforts to improve the infrastructure needed to first reduce quantity of Animals unwanted and subsequently arriving at shelter/pounds.

March 22, 2002 – Pets in Rental Accommodation – B.C. Solicitor General, Hon. R. Coleman is reviewing this important issue and which is seen as a major cause of “surplus” Pets at Pounds, as persons moving into certain Rental Homes are denied Pets.  This provision needs to be amended in B.C. Residential Tenancy Act and simply, Rental Accommodation must permit small Pets.  This important issue needs to be approached by all Provincial & State Governments to permit Pets in Rental Accommodation.  Viewers are encouraged to contact their Member of Parliament (MP) or State Governor to request amendments to Legislation that will achieve the goal of Pets in Rental Accommodation, which is also seen as an improved Health provision given Pets have a very calming effect upon Companion Animal Guardians.  WE REFER VIEWERS TO THE WEB.SITE OF “PETS OF BC RESIDENTS (POWER)” at www.powerpetsofbc.com

March 23, 2002 – Mass killing of stray Dogs in Bucharest, Romania – We complied with a request from WHITE FANG FOUNDATION FOR ANIMAL PROTECTION to email the Romanian Government and Bucharest Mayor to stop the mass killing upon the streets of Bucharest and we encourage viewers to similarly send a protest.  For additional details refer to web.site www.whitefang.platinumnet.ro  and take a look at our GALLERY OF HORRORS for some evidence of the terrible results affecting these innocent Dogs.

March 23, 2002 – PETA to Government: Factory-Farm Cruelty is illegal!   The Winter 2002 PETA’s ANIMAL TIMES includes a project close to our hearts namely “Factory Farming” and the inherent cruelty perpetuated by Governments failing to recognize the folly derived from a mentality that “seeks profit at any cost” and the horrendous acts perpetrated upon poor Animals raised for Food.  There are many examples described in our “Wholesome & Humane Program” and contained, in part, in this web.site but PETA talks about the Humane Slaughter Act declaring “the policy of the United States that the slaughtering of livestock and the handling of livestock in connection with slaughter shall be carried out only by humane methods”.  Pictures described Pigs “crammed together” in transport, piglets “mutilated”, steers “fire-branded”, Cattle castrated & other Animals mutilated without anesthesia or painkillers and the examples abound in not only the United States but Canada and elsewhere in the World , as well.  PETA has filed a legal petition against Factory Farms to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which we should all support.  The Council Animal Advocacy (CLAW) has similarly made a submission to the Canadian Federal Government and each Provincial Government by way of our “Wholesome & Humane Program” to prohibit certain acts and improve standards beyond the worthless “voluntary” Codes of Practice, which unfortunately exclude Factory Farming atrocities, as do certain Provincial Acts under the guise of excluding “normally accepted Farm Management practices”.  Refer to our IMPORTANT WEB LINKS for interesting PETA web.sites and OUR POSITION ON ISSUES point 22. for some of our comments.

March 24, 2002 – Criminal Code Bill C15-B – The Council Animal Advocacy (CLAW) along with hundreds of Canadians made impassioned pleas to the Minister of Justice to adopt this important Bill.  The new Minister Hon. M. Cauchon has now inherited the Bill C-15B and has met unbelieveable  opposition from certain misinformed members of parliament which has caused some delay in adopting this Bill, as is!  Viewers are encouraged to contact the Minister to request his careful consideration and expedient passing of this Bill, as is.   Letters (no stamp needed) to Hon. M. Cauchon, Minister of Justice, Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6, FAX (613) 995-0114, TEL: (613) 995-7691

March 24, 2002 – UPDATES, UPDATES, UPDATES

1.      CITY OF ABBOTSFORD, B.C IS CONSIDERING ADOPTION OF AN EXOTIC/WILD ANIMAL BYLAW TO PROHIBIT OWNERSHIP – MORE UPDATES AS DETERMINED.  WE ENCOURAGE ALL VIEWERS TO CONTACT THEIR LOCAL MUNICIPAL COUNCIL TO ADOPT THESE BYLAWS, AS DEFINED FURTHER IN “OUR POSITION ON ISSUES POINTS 24 AND 25”.

2.      DISTRICT OF MISSION, B.C. HAS RESPONDED TO THE NUMEROUS REQUESTS OF THE COUNCIL ANIMAL ADVOCACY (CLAW) BY CONSTITUTING AN ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES TASK FORCE (WE ADVOCATED AN ANIMAL WELFARE COMMITTEE TO REVIEW ALL COMPONENTS OF ANIMAL WELFARE, CARE & CONTROL, BYLAWS & SHALL PERSIST IN THIS DEMAND BUT AS AN INTERIM STEP, THIS “TASK FORCE” ADDRESSES, IN PART, SOME NEEDED CHANGES).  Some important components suggested include but are not limited to “increasing hours of operation, increasing public education, need for a municipal animal shelter that is not privately owned, taking in surrendered cats & dogs,  implementing a spay & neuter cost sharing program, consensus of the Task Force was to pursue partnership with Ferndale Institution site location preferred and the likelihood this Institution would incur the majority if not all capital funding for construction of the facility (additional details may be gained from District of Mission Minutes dated March 5, 2002).  The Council Animal Advocacy (CLAW) will update you as information is determined.  The major causes of Pet overpopulation have not yet been addressed, so The Council Animal Advocacy (CLAW) has submitted documentation to not only the District of Mission (pertaining to certain changes we deem needed and to be considered) but to most Mayors & Councillors in B.C. Municipalities to become a “part of the solution” by recognizing their important role as a perpetrator of the “population increase dilemma” and resulting killing of healthy adoptable Pets.  A submission has now been made March 19, 2002 titled “KILLING HEALTHY ADOPTABLE PETS” describing persons responsible for the problem and unfortunately, as the BC SPCA has called a moratorium on killing the expected “surplus of Pets” at Pounds has materialized and will take time to eradicate but this task is compounded by the following perpetrators whom need to change their behavior and minds, to become active parts of the solution:

1.  Irresponsible Companion Animal Guardians whom do not spay or neuter, tattoo Pets, permit to roam unaltered which leads to breeding and unwanted litters.

2.  Indifferent Municipal Councils whom do not adopt mandatory spay or neuter, identification tattoo, breeder permit Bylaws (to abolish ‘puppy & kitten mills’ & control breeding).

3. BC SPCA whom ‘did the killing’ rather than support The Council Animal Advocacy (CLAW) proposals to Municipal Councils & Provincial Governments to adopt needed laws and foster our concept “Legislation supported by Education” is the solution, in part, needed for long term success.

4. Indifferent Media and/or sporadic Media coverage of the issues, causes and solutions put forth by The Council Animal Advocacy (CLAW) and others

5. Procrastination by the BC Government to amend the Residential Tenancy Act permitting Pets in Rental Accommodation, which is seen as a significant contributor to the overpopulation at Pounds.

It is crucial that Bylaws are adopted and Pets permitted in Rental Accommodation, which, in part, are major causes of problems, so, viewers are encouraged to contact their local Municipal Councils across North America, to encourage them to adopt Bylaws (refer to OUR POSITION ON ISSUES section for descriptions of proposed Bylaws needed), encourage local papers to abandon their indifferent position and collectively seek to make the Public more aware of what they can do and thus pressure Municipal Councils to act proactively.

• YOUR DIRECT ACTION

BREEDERS

September 1, 2011 – We encourage “all” current and potential Companion Animal Guardians to ‘serve notice’ upon “unscrupulous & indiscriminate” Breeders that the Public will not tolerate this form of breeding.  We also call for an end of “backyard breeders”, “puppy & kitten mills” and other forms of indiscriminate breeding, sometimes derived from a “greed inspired make money at any cost” mentality.

There are many stories and we want to hear from Companion Animal Guardians whom can provide anecdotal evidence of abuses encountered.  There are many forms of health concerns but some include, trachea problems, ligament problems, various breathing problems, some mutilation and/or defamatory of original breed condition to meet certain breed specific characteristics and other ailments we want to hear about.  It also can involve many expensive operations, some “life-saving” operations and unfortunately euthanasia is too often the result when the Animal cannot be saved. The indiscriminate breeder is devoid of both caring or being held accountable for any expense incurred, as a result of their indiscriminate practices of breeding Animals and this is wrong!

It is our feeling that all Breeders should be licensed, registered and regulated.  In our mandatory Cat spay/neuter/identification bylaw proposal provision is similarly stated for a “Breeder Permit”, a process we advocate be expanded to include Dogs, as well.

All Breeders should be required to provide Companion Animal Guardians with a “disclosure statement” clearly informing of any and all “potential”genetic problems with the litter and that ‘no genetic problem exists with this litter’.  Conversely, in our opinion, if an Animal is sold with a known genetic problem, the Breeder is to be accountable for any subsequent operation deemed necessary to save the Animals life or correct any ailment accordingly.

It is our recommendation that “indiscriminate breeders’ should be prohibited from breeding any Animal.

We seek to address two major aspects; first, the potential of long lasting pain and suffering and second, the life threatening ailment that due to suffering the Animal is often euthanised.  In some cases, a very expensive operation is needed, often in the thousands of dollars, but no assurance of success is guaranteed.

Personally, we have encountered two situations, first, “ROCKY” a miniature Yorkshire Terrier whom we adopted two days earlier, had to be euthanized. The problem being a trachea that imploded and was inoperable, at this juncture of time.  However, when the problem was first diagnosed, an operation could have helped but the Companion Animal Guardian, at that time, could not afford the thousands of dollars to do so and apparently no concession or financial terms were discussed or agreed to with the attending Veterinarian..  This aspect will be discussed further in our series on Veterinarian fees.

Second, our current Toy Pomeranian “PEROGI” is starting to experience some trachea problems, a tell tale hacking has commenced and an x-ray indicated some narrowing of the trachea.  The first aspect to resolve some of the difficulty is weight loss and this is underway with Fibre Dog Food and exercise, which we hope will alleviate the difficulty.  If a later operation seems needed and warranted with a measure of improved standard of life, we would be hard pressed, as well, to cover such high costs.  Indeed, it is a dilemma and while some Pet Insurance Plans are available, limitations, exclusions, deductibles, pre-existing conditions tend to render, in part, many plans ineffective, but more later.  We are also informed, in addition to any known genetic problems, some circumstances like using a ‘choke collar’ often recommended by Dog Trainers for obedience and control, can stimulate pressure upon the trachea and be a cause of difficulties.  Similarly, obese conditions can cause organs surrounded by fat to press upon the trachea and produce some difficulties in breathing, so weight control is important.

We wish to for a moment to say while we accept and agree, in part, that any Companion Animal Guardian upon obtaining any Pet needs to accept responsible guardianship, including the provision of adequate for breed, food, potable water, shelter, ‘unfettered’ exercise, walking and so forth.  As well, to maintain good medical health and attention by a Veterinarian when ailments present themselves and this is the dilemma we allude to.  Simply, a person can be a well-meaning and good responsible Companion Animal Guardian but can ill-afford costly operations, a situation exacerbated by multi-family pets and the frequency of ailments encountered.  While every effort to improve the Animals life or standard of life is desired, some just do not have the money and this is an area we will be exploring further in our Veterinarian section series.

Indeed, some of the solution exists by prohibiting the indiscriminate breeder from knowingly breeding and selling Animals with known genetic problems.  To pursue certain solution we need the understanding, cooperation and support of Breeder Associations, Kennel Club Registrars and others, a conscientious move by all to eradicate abuses and eliminate the likelihood of grief later.

VETERINARIANS  – September 1, 2011 – Part One of a series

We recognize the Veterinarian as a professional just as valuable and respected a professional to Animals and their respective Companion Animal Guardian as any Medical Doctor is to their Human Patient.  We recognize in both instances we will find competent and less competent practitioners; we will find the professional in its truest form and less than professional; we recognize human attributes bring with them human emotions and this can breed altruistic motives and ‘greed’ inspired motives; we recognize some people will care first and foremost for the patient and others may place ‘getting paid first’ followed by patient care.

We recognize Veterinarians, like Medical Doctors are “businesspeople” and their continued ability to pursue their professions can rely upon reasonable profits, some would exclaim ‘excessive profits’ are the goal.  We recognize practices can vary, from the ultra modern and well equipped practice, with all the latest ‘bells and whistles’, such as x-ray, ultrasound and other diagnosis machinery to a ‘basic’ clinic but this raises one question, should a patient have to pay more for services in order for say, a Veterinarian, to operate an ultra-modern fully equipped hospital?

While Humans can rely upon a well funded national medical plan and extended benefit plans, often paid for by Employers, sometimes some cost-sharing by Employees or paid by Self-owned business owners.  Whereas, no national medical plan is available for Animals but many costs at a Veterinarian equal or sometimes exceed those same services performed upon Humans, such as Dentistry procedures which involve anesthetic administration and can add up to hundreds of dollars (for example one of our Cats needed all teeth extracted at a cost of $501.00).. Some Pet Insurance Plans can provide some relief but the jury is still out on benefits, costs and effectiveness, particularly concerning multi-pet families but we will discuss Pet Insurance Plans later.

We witness some Veterinarians offering low-cost fees for operations, such as spay or neuter whereas others charge varying fees, some seemingly exorbitant in comparison but we also hear some ‘corners are cut’ by the Veterinarian offering lower cost, such as type and use of anesthetics used.  We hasten to add, it is our expectations that in all cases the quality of care and professionalism of the Veterinarian is paramount and equally so, the Animal, its care and treatment is paramount.

We recognize some Veterinarians feel disposed to ‘become a part of the solution’ such as to work gratis, at much lower costs in order to stem or eradicate a serious existing problem, such as to spay or neuter Cats given their propensity to breed, the serious overpopulation dilemma that exists and is manifested at overcrowded Pounds/Shelter, some will participate in various forms of partnership to get the problem under control whereas, other Veterinarians may feel generous giving a 10-15% discount and not begin to touch the problem; sometimes leadership and coordination from Provincial VMA offices seems missing.

Indeed, we have stressed how negligent and indifferent some Municipal Councils have been, indeed remiss to adopt needed Bylaws that would seek to eliminate a major cause, namely irresponsible Companion Animal Guardians whom fail to have their Companion Animal spayed or neuters; failure to have a tattoo that can facilitate ease of return to rightful Companion Animal Guardians, we touched upon the ineffective SPCA and its similar failure to demand Bylaws but falling into line is the Veterinarian, the professional most equipped to resolve the dilemma by doing low cost operations, even for temporary durations, has for the most part not accepted responsibility nor displayed needed leadership to resolve the dilemma but let us hasten to add, some Veterinarians have done a commendable service performing low-cost services in conjunction with working with many Animal Welfare/Humane Organizations, a practice we find wanting and in need of some leadership from CVMA and VMA offices provincially.

We are appalled when we read about a Companion Animal Guardian incurring costs exceeding $10,000.00.  When we read  recently about a Doberman being ‘put down’ because the Companion Animal Guardian could not pay an up front $1200.00 demanded by the Veterinarian.  We allude to our case of “Rocky” wherein the Companion Animal Guardian could not afford several thousand dollars for an operation.  We are sure many examples abound and we welcome readers to let us know about any case where it became a “pay the Veterinary fee or kill your pet” scenario.  It may be argued, in some cases, such as an “Emergency Clinic” which may be regionally located, that the Companion Animal Guardian is ‘unknown’ and not a client/patient, that unless the fee is collected ‘up front’ it may be lost but while we find this a sound business dilemma it is, in our opinion, an inexcusable reason for failing to perform professional services upon an ailing Animals whom could have its life saved, except for a Veterinarians bent to be paid and maybe a Companion Animal Guardians inability to pay the total bill upfront, whereas, it is our sense ethics demand the Animal be placed first, perform life saving techniques, then worry about collecting the bill.  There are numerous business techniques available, pre-financing agreements and so forth, engaged in businesses every day and the Veterinarian is no exception, concerning financial aspects, financing and collection up to and including Small Claims Court, so it is our sense again save the Animal.

There is also a perception that a Veterinarian expects the Companion Animal Guardian to pay the bill but there seems to be a void insofar as presumably whatever the cost, which could be a nominal $50-$100 or may be $200-$300 or any amount, from $500 to $1000’s, the same impression is, possibly unwittingly in some case, that having been told the price the Companion Animal Guardian will ‘fork over the cash’ and this is what we allude to, on the one hand the Veterinarian is now a business and expects payment but there is a lack of empathy displayed insofar as the Companion Animal Guardian may not be able to or has possibly, in the case of multi-family pets, +just paid out several hundred or thousand dollars and in part, we are seeking some understanding and provisions to accommodate both parties.  We do believe costs and financing should be discussed in advance and indeed that various financing arrangements are developed.  To digress, we were visiting at a Veterinarians with a colleague and witnessed a Companion Animal Guardian experience a near heart attack, well not literally but the Receptionist very matter-of-fact asked the person to pay a bill amounting to $564.00, which apparently far exceeded the expectations of the Companion Animal Guardian, whom went white and exclaimed ,“you might as well keep the Dog”.  When we left the Veterinarian was arranging a payment scheme with $100 down payment but there is a difficult gap that exists which may be better broached in advance but to do so, some empathy needs to exist about costs and a Companion Animals apparent ability to pay.

We will be examining various cases, talking about Pet Insurance Plans, exploring cost-sharing plans, Veterinary underwriting schemes suggested, underwriting the ‘dead beat’ (we know some Companion Animal Guardians will seek to avoid paying Veterinarian bills just as many default paying other liabilities, it is a “part of doing business”) but let us hasten to add, in the case of a Veterinarian, we are dealing with the “lives of Animals” and when placing collection of fee first and rendering Companion Animal Guardians in the delicate position of not being able to afford, the Veterinarian takes on the form of being “mercenary, uncaring & devoid of compassion” and we find this unacceptable.  However, having said this, we seek a solution and “our demand and indeed quest is to find Animals placed ‘first’, in all instances, no exceptions and our equal quest is to do so having provision in place that the Veterinarian does not incur financial difficulties”, thus, it is our contention some changes in how business is conducted, financing is established with ‘safety-net’ financing available, certain Veterinary underwriting with caps on services available but this aspect will be discussed in future monthly updates of our web.site.  Part two – next month will explore some suggested financial plans, pet plans and we welcome any ideas from the VMA to resolve the dilemma we pose.

We hope saner minds will prevail, some introspection occur and we welcome informed debate but at the end of the day, we hope solutions will become evident, cooperation and leadership will emerge and parties will be fairly dealt with, with the primary beneficiary being the Animal, whom unfortunately is too often the recipient

of human failings and his price (the Animal) is sometimes being killed and this is morally repugnant and wrong.  Indeed, in this vein to make our point further, it is the irresponsible Companion Animal Guardian that does not spay or neuter their companion animal, whom then does what comes naturally and a litter of kittens appear, which, subject to conditions, may find a home or may find themselves getting older and rendered “surplus” at a Pound/Shelter only to be killed – this continued cycle of abuse in wrong!

September 15, 2002 “Updates” – PETA ENDS BOYCOTT OF SAFEWAY STORES.  PETA called a moratorium on its boycott of Safeway on May 15, 2002 and further indicated Safeway is expected to observe “standards” being developed by the FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE (FMI)  http://www.fmi.org a U.S. Food Industry Association, whom includes standards previously agreed to by McDonalds (US), Burger King & Wendy’s.  Safeway agreed to implement guideline within 6 – 18 months.  While we thank Safeway and PETA for taking this first step, we will hold praise until we actually see what transpires and if openness exists for future improvement.  We refer readers to PETA site at www.shameway.com/5-15victory.html for additional comments.  We also hasten to add, our Wholesome & Humane Program  at www.thecouncilclaw.ca/wholesomeandhumaneprogram.htm specifies what we deem to be “minimally acceptable standards” for each species of Animal raised for Food, Abattoirs, Livestock Transport and those that will afford Human Consumers the greatest in safe foods and assurances Animal raised for Food are from humane producers.   This program affords all participants the consistency needed, credibility needed and approaches to be followed in North America to bring us into leadership focus and similar to European Union Countries that are ‘light years’ ahead of North America.

The Council Advocacy “For a Better North America

YOUR DIRECT ACTION

BRITISH COLUMBIA

OPPOSITION PARTY STATUS

The Council Advocacy “For a Better North America” (1987) believe the B.C. Provincial Government erred in judgment not formally recognizing the two (2) NDP members as the “Official Opposition” and thus should act immediately to proclaim and restore this injustice.  Regardless of ones opposition to the NDP and the fact perceived mismanagement of the Province, it is redundant rhetoric in this case, they are in fact the opposition.

B.C. GOVERNMENT CUT-BACKS, BUDGET & PERCEPTIONS

The Council Advocacy “For a Better North America” believe the elected Liberal Party was elected to “create and manage change” that would be beneficial to the prosperity of residents and the Province; to be diligent, to create an environment of trust & confidence; no hypocrisy, deceit or lies, to do what they promised before the election and finally restore some confidence in the minds of the electorate that the term “Honorable” does apply to elected “politicians”; to lead the Province into prosperous times.  “It is a recognized fact, most economic recovery is due to external influence and while politicians of the day like to claim credit it is folly to do so” but having said this, government can create environments conducive to successful results.  Indeed, a sudden settlement of the soft-wood dispute returning Forest Industry employees to work will dramatically incur revenues; an advance in economic initiatives with the Pacific Rim could suddenly bring untold revenues; steps to revitalize our Mining Industry by creating the needed environment for exploration absence Government ‘red tape’ will bring new source of old-time wealth; the focus of Government needs to be in these areas of improvement and positive components of economic growth, not attacking the very valuable source of revenue the ‘lower and middle class citizen’ whom, while ‘small business’ is a ‘major engine’ in revenue and economic building, it is having more disposable income in the hands of lower & middle class citizens that is the major source of money into the economy and Government actions todate have been counterproductive, thus, we adopt the belief “they do not know what they are dealing with nor how to encourage and motivate people”, instead for some ideological bent favor “upper level” income earners whom clearly, while individuals “laugh all the way to the Bank” return on tax relief will not be forthcoming!

It is clear, more disposable income in the hands of the Consumer will result in increased prosperity, stimulate spending, stimulate job creation, increase government revenues via taxes but the blanket B.C. tax reduction is folly given the existing economic environment and done in isolation, and extended unwisely to upper level income earners, is folly, given, in part, (increases announced) are largely absorbing any tax relief, except for the upper level.  Further, without Federal tax reductions complimentary to the process, some of which The Council Advocacy have advocated, B.C. Government actions pale in comparison to need.  As well, the labor and employment environment is too rife with strife, unnecessary and prolonged confrontation and protest, unrest prompted by Government actions lacking acumen, consultation and empathy or understanding of the consequences of what they are doing, if indeed they even care?   Indeed, the uncertainty about possible or likely job loss is counterproductive to need and seeks to exacerbate an already untenable situation and thus will remain an albatross around Government neck.  The “hidden” high unemployment rate combined with ongoing increases caused, in part, by Government terminations but similarly economic downturns generally, has created a revenue source that is unable to provide needed spending that creates jobs.  Thus, adding any unemployment to this huge vacuum of lost revenue is tantamount to committing suicide economically if not politically.

Selective “attacks” upon contracts, largely Union agreements and/or lower/middle income level whereas favoring outlandish and out-of-touch agreements providing upper income people, such as Doctors with large arbitration award increases or equally repugnant, even moreso, paying exorbitant severance awards to individuals deemed redundant is seen as an obscene and outrageous, completely out-of-touch with reality scenario.  While we oppose “breaking any contract” due to the obvious violation of expected honor and trust, we hasten to add, having done so and created such an ill-advised precedence it is bothersome to see the “selective” application against lower income and/or Union but permitting an award to Doctors to stand unchallenged or a severance payment unchallenged and no apparent steps to immediately mediate such ridiculous situation and/or prevent any further occurrence, to perpetuate hypocrisy is unfounded and wrong  – period!  The vicious attacks against seniors, one being cancellation of “Bus passes” is repugnant and given the Government changed this decision is fine but bothersome it would have been made in the first place, which is the focus we all dwell upon.  Decisions reached in such isolation and uncaring forums and lacking empathy is bad.  Increases to medical expenses, such as eyecare and now medical services plan premiums, amendments to prescriptions, attacks upon the lower income welfare recipient are mean-spirited devoid of acumen that should have been displayed to consult, to assess and arrive at positive actions, not more retrograde, more taxes as the only solution rendered forth.

Indeed, to hear the Minister of Finance remark, “we must make tough decisions”, “there was no other way” raises the ‘hackles’ and is clearly an indictment of perceived ineptness – there is always another way and a better way!  The progress of society and the generation of wealth for its members is only limited to the imagination, intuitiveness, innovation, knowledge, empathy and courage of leaders to seek and have the “political will” to collaborate with informed people, consult with all stakeholders whom will be affected by decisions, to work in-concert with Unions, to cooperate not breed confrontation and mistrust.  So, statements like “we must make tough decisions” fall upon deaf ears.  Continually blaming the former Government is redundant and a strong sense of denial which needs to change, and accept ones role in the dilemma, not only blame others, that while, in part, is accurate per se such rhetoric seeks to confuse not build roads to successful economic  environments and pursue ideology inspired approaches is frought with pitfalls.

We, the electorate, demand our leaders display sound business acumen, to manage our finances, resources both human and otherwise, within a sense of compassion, empathy, respect, with ethics, integrity and within a cooperative environment of trust and sense of mutual purpose.  Several fundamental principles must be exercised, such as a move Federally and provincially to “Proportional Representation”, clearly stated, “Fixed term of office”, with consideration to following the United States model, permitting only “2 or 3 terms of office”, to put in place easily accessed and meaningful, not as at present, Recall Legislation”,  whereby electors can get rid of people whom lie, making promises before elected and then reneging upon promises after being elected, ineptness and unresponsive representation not as expected from the electorate, including expected ‘resignation’ of any incumbent doing so, any Minister whom would place in jeopardy, the safety, environment of humans or food resources, harm to natural resources, environmental damage, oil spills, water pollution, air pollution, causing extinction of endangered species and those at risk of being same, should be compelled to resign in the event of any forewarned incident occurs (ie; “open-net Fish Farms and so forth), and frankly, such callous disregard to embark upon such “risk” should subject the Minister to criminal prosecution, as we cannot tolerate arrogance nor see elected people protect by Legislation protections, when their actions are willful and contrary to informed knowledge and/or advice, to prohibit “Patronage Appointments”.

We fear results of so-called ‘independent’ studies that would indicate sale of such valuable Provincial assets as B.C. Hydro which to do so would become an economic disaster in the making and surely not in the interests of British Colombians but that Government would even entertain such a possibility is indicative of ineptness to the extreme but a situation we hope will not occur.  Some Crown Corporations are needed, some regulations are needed, particularly when we witness the integrity often displayed by deregulated Industries which are harmful, except to private industry whom benefit at profits at any cost and we therefore cannot tolerate a ideology inspired Government that, whether the Liberals in their first and maybe only term of office, should be permitted to erode Provincial benefits because of their ideological bent and relay no other sane rationale.

“Regulation” is not a panacea. “Deregulation” is not a panacea. “Centralization” is not a panacea. “Decentralization” is not a panacea.  The wisdom to adopt each scenario to meet the perceived need, to have the flexibility of mind, the intuitive sense and respect for others, abandoning so-called “dictatorial, autocratic management style” while understandable per se, given a persons mindset or experience, or receiving a majority government, can often lead the weak leader into taking draconian and retrograde steps to achieve their own egotistical behaviors at any cost and forsaking otherwise sane management leadership needed, sometimes reflected in a perceived arrogance and often resulting in moribund government or business.  Good leadership in each level of Government and Business generally is a major pitfall Canada and indeed North America suffers today but this does not have to be perpetuated.

The electorate was cautiously optimistic we would enter a “new era” and most were bent upon ridding the Province of inept and overdue replacement of the ruling NDP whether based upon fact of fiction, the goal was “don’t reelect” and in essence the Liberal Government won by default.  Liberal promises were perceived with cynicism given the track record of “politicians” but with no other show in town, most British Columbians took a chance and now, we find most lost!  But hey, the Liberals are the Government and when one searches desperately, one can find some good has been achieved but unfortunately compared to the bad and expectations of most British Colombians, results pale in comparison to need and expectations.  Noon really expects Business Community Representatives to criticize a “right wing” Government, regardless of perceived objectivity or need, as frankly “business is for business” and will not speak out against social injustice, nor maybe should we expect such an organization to do so.  However, media spin would imply “complete support” for government action and this is wrong!  Similarly, Unions are painted as “opposing” any government actions which in reality, in part, is correct per se but for the most part pure folly, when one looks at scenarios beyond pure union involvement and steps aside from their known ‘political’ persuasion, just as we would from Business, to objectively look at the issues.  It follows, many callers to talk shows or letter writers to papers, lack informed perspectives and we witness, as one might expect, rhetoric degrading the NDP government and human nature and combined with many factual accounts, emotion not the least of which is evident, many display opposing views about the NDP and this is fine per se.  It follows, some polls are interesting for the day and time frame taken and give some indication of feelings but the only poll that counts is the election day polling results that elects a Government.

We believe Government needs to pause, step back and recognize what is happening and then proceed in a more informed, compassionate and astute business fashion and our remarks are solely intended to prompt this retrospection.  It never hurts to take a “second look”, to broaden ones perspectives and move away from denial and the belief dictatorial power is a given in a democracy.

July 15, 2011 – BRITISH COLUMBIA VOTES NOVEMBER 19, 2011 FOR MUNICIPAL COUNCILS OF MAYOR & COUNCILORS.  WHOM SHOULD WE VOTE FOR TO MAKE OUR VOTES COUNT???????  First consideration, anyone whom has served two (2) or a maximum three (3) terms of Office should voluntarily ‘move on’ as change is indicated in order to attract new people, new innovative ideas and energy and commitment to proactively make changes needed in our Communities.  What has the Mayor or Councilor done for us the citizens of the Community to make our lives more better?  Have they raised our property taxes but then given themselves a raise no matter how small, it is the principle too!  Have they been ‘indifferent’ and tend to ignore the Public concerns of too much noise, such as, have they adopted an “Anti-Noise Pollution” Bylaw?  Have they adopted mandatory spay or neuter, identification tattoo and breeder permit Bylaws to ‘stop the unnecessary overpopulation and/or killing of our Pets?  Have they adopted a “Dangerous Dog” bylaw to protect citizens from likelihood of “roaming vicious Dogs”?  Have they adopted “aesthetic Bylaws’ to ensure properties are maintained to preserve and enhance property values and not permitted to be unkempt?  Simply, has your Municipal Council placed the “responsible citizen” foremost and not condoned or perpetuated favor, as in our ‘injustice system’ to favor the perpetrator and/or ‘irresponsible’ over the law abiding?  IT MAY BE TIME FOR CHANGE, THINK ABOUT IT AND MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT IN NOVEMBER 19, 2011 – MORE LATER!

JULY 15, 2011 – more on upcoming November 19, 2011 B.C. Municipal elections – Candidates need to inform voters about their platform to improve community values, some as described in our April  aforementioned comments but adding to those expectations we demand candidates to tell us what they will do to: ensure Animal Shelter/Pounds adopt a “No-Kill” policy that ensures no “healthy & adoptable companion animal will be killed”; that community Arts & Cultural needs will be developed on a meaningful and cost effective basis; that Police will be given a mandate to enforce laws to “prevent unnecessary noise, vandalism, speeding”; to state plans to improve “Tourist destinations” in respective communities, such as “Waterfront” (ie; like at Steveston, New Westminster, North Vancouver Quay) or “Historic sites” (such as at Fort Langley, Barkerville) where some former/existing industry existed; to improve the tax base by developing a more effective and current “Industrial Park” (ie; to attract Industry, such as Communication, enhance Railway or Waterways offerings available); to devote time and energy to coordinate business locales, to redevelop “Downtown Business” ventures placing demands upon “absentee landlords to do their part and get involved with redevelopment”, to seek themes, to co-ordinate various “Business Groups” into one viable and powerful force (ie: amalgamate Downtown Business organizations, Chamber of Commerce, Mall Associations, Small Business & Home Business Associations into a common force) permitting individual operations or expression but priority given to a “united community presence”.  COMMUNITY CHARTER PROVISIONS –  While we may agree to more delegated rights we encourage all to be wary about Provincial Government not unlike Federal Government, delegating of “new powers” and “tax revenue rights” to lower governments but doing so without existing sources of revenue and any reserves delegated, as well.  Tax payers face indiscriminate tax grabs by less than scrupulous peoples whom may lose sight of an already overtaxed body, that all tax revenues come from the same taxpayers and when faced with needs to raise revenue, very innovative schemes arise but again the money come from the same taxpayer source.  Refer to www.thecouncilclaw.ca/thecouncil advocacy.htm for additional comments on the “election process” & voter demands.

September 15, 2002 – We raise our voice in support of opponents of the ill-advised and redundant First Nations Treaty Referendum, as in addition to a costly and redundant venture, it places the majority in judgment of the minority, it presupposes one body at the table can usurp power of the other two parties and form some silly mandate for one party of negotiators, which flies in the face of needed respect and negotiation in its true place.  It is also a clear indication by questions asked that the outcome is manufactured to come out as the Government wanted. And is seen as folly.

September 15, 2002 – “unconscionable & unnecessary/uninformed government decisions on Health Care” – we cannot express too strongly our contempt toward MLA’s whom failed to protect Hospitals & Hospital care in Municipalities where such Hospitals were operated in an effective and cost-effective manner, where community donations of various equipment and ever present volunteer services formed an integral part of community living.  Thus, while we must accept the powerless nature of MLA’s being controlled and being placed in jeopardy of self-interest promotions to Cabinet and so forth, we nonetheless do not like unrepresentative or misrepresentation, particularly before being elected, that they would protect Hospitals only to renege on this promise.  It is our sense if recall is possible use it and for sure ‘do not be fooled and reelect the MLA’.  The Government fails to understand the “big picture” and how when something is not broken, do not fix it, by adopting an overall misguided approach, as has been done, which sees effective operations closed/curtailed/services transferred (particularly to ineffective operations) elsewhere.  Readers are asked to consider their own circumstance for their community, as media accounts have identified many, such as Kimberly, Delta, Mission and the list goes on.  We will dwell upon Mission, B.C. as a yardstick for comparison, given our proximity and more clear understanding upon that which existed before the “cleaver replaced the scalpel” but many components may exist elsewhere?  Our MLA stood strongly in support of our Hospital but now follows party-line.  Mission Memorial was a so-called “jewel” in the medical care offerings of the Province, we boasted an effective and well-run operation; we are a growing municipality and hospital care services were keeping pace with community needs and demands; we were proud of Maternity services; we boasted two (2) of the foremost Internists, particularly Dr. H. Baillie (Internal Medicine) whom any large metropolitan hospital would be eager to have on staff, indeed, he came from such a major facility to practice in Mission, B.C. quite an uncommon event.  When such an admired medical staff existed, such high morale and such high community admiration existed why would any sane government seek to destroy but that is exactly what the MLA and his Government has sought to do and for the most part, has done.  Dr. H. Baillie has left, Maternity Ward has left, along with apparently all donated equipment, morale and community spirit has plummeted, fear of job loss/services loss and/or hospital closure exists; like elsewhere in British Columbia, events unfolded from a dictatorial government perspective, great displays of arrogance and ignorance prevail, most steps were taken without community consultation and seem to ill-advisedly seem to be placed in some incredible “overall scheme” and misguided efforts by Government, to save money at any cost.  One major cost is the health and care of Mission, B.C. residents, whom I must count myself and family, as former patients of the well respect Dr. H. Baillie, whom has gone somewhere, at a major loss to myself, family and hundreds of former patients at Mission, B.C., whom we are told would need to venture to Abbotsford  or maybe Maple Ridge, which if hospitalized, visitors would need to venture some hour return trip or maybe two hours,  versus 10 minutes daily, or 20 minutes for two (2) visits, with no assurances as to the high quality of professionalism and expertise demonstrated by Dr. H. Baillie but these important aspects of health care are overlooked when unconscionable & unnecessary decisions are rendered by an inept Minister or Health Authority.  Simply, the Health Care fiasco is a manufactured event by unaware and frankly uncaring politicians.

It follows, the same criteria and efforts to save costs is manifested in many decisions wrongfully made by similar inept persons whom have no understanding or empathy, only “save costs at any cost” mentality; attack the Seniors by closing Long Term Care Homes, separating friends of many years, separating families and spouses of many years, just do so making human needs fit a government inspired mandate to save costs (media accounts of spouses separated tell an enlightening story of negligent and careless behavior by Health Care decision makers);  attack Seniors by cutting benefits and when a “human cry” arises, suddenly change minds; attack less fortunate, those on Welfare by cutting revenue and benefits, don’t  address the needs by paying meaningful revenue to live on or benefits, rather treat all in the same vain and “cut costs” rather than the informed reason and approach to eliminate abuse, demand retraining within a period of time, given retraining is in trades, etc., where employment exists .  Simply, when one level of society frowns upon a lesser level of society, we find decisions rendered that lack empathy and fail to address needs, but with a ‘save costs at any cost mentality’ and lacking empathy and awareness, let alone any business acumen, what else can we expect except what we are getting?

JULY 15, 2011 – Can you imagine some ‘brain dead irresponsible nerd’ sitting in a room somewhere, no life of his own likely, bent upon making peoples lives sheer hell by writing some ‘sick minded’ originated VIRUS?????  What is Government doing to prevent and/or penalize these perpetrators of misery?  Many businesses and some individuals have elaborate Anti-Virus programs, some work others may not.  My wife just got a virus at her work, it downloaded all the work she was doing (she had a Norton Anti-Virus Program) caused her inconvenience for two (2) days, caused her small Company to hire a Consultant to ‘clean the system’ at a $200.00 cost and why – just to satisfy some ‘sick minded jerk’ whom wrote and/or sent the virus with e.mail!!!!!  The Council Advocacy hereby call upon all Government to act in proactive fashion to make such crimes an indictable offense carrying a minimum fine of  $100,000.00 (more if you wish), electronic monitoring & house confinement, except for employment, a minimum five (5) years and complete restitution to victims.  As well, to impose restrictions upon Manufacturers that all Computers be programmed that all information received from any source must be identifiable that should a virus be received the originator is known and subsequent action may proceed.  As well, that such a program, at nominal cost, be made available to all existing Computer owners, that once and for all, the “responsible” person gains some justice and recourse, that the ‘sick minded’ get what they deserve in addition to the contempt felt toward them by a nation.