It's a proposal that would never even come near a referendum in other countries, but the measure's defeat Sunday disappointed animal rights advocates, who say Switzerland's elaborate animal welfare laws aren't being enforced.

Opponents of the proposal, including key farmers' groups and the government, had argued that existing laws are sufficient and appointing special lawyers to act on behalf of animals would be unnecessarily expensive for taxpayers.

"The Swiss people have clearly said our animal protection laws are so good we don't need animal lawyers," Jakob Buechler, a lawmaker for the centrist Christian People's Party, told Swiss television SF1.

Official results showed that 70.5 percent of voters cast their ballot against the proposal to extend nationwide a system that has been in place in Zurich since 1992. Some 29.5 percent of voters backed the proposal, with turnout at just over 45 percent.

According to the country's only animal lawyer, Antoine Goetschel, public prosecutors are often unsure about animal rights and shy away from pursuing cases even if there is clear evidence of abuse. He said the cost of Sunday's measure would have been less than 1 Swiss franc ($1) per person a year.

Tiana Angelina Moser, a lawmaker for the Green Liberal Party, said animal rights advocates would look for other ways to make sure laws against animal abuse are properly applied and those who hurt animals receive appropriate punishment.

"It's definitely disappointing, I thought it would have been a closer vote," said Moser. "I don't think it's a 'no' to animal protection, but a 'no' for this particular measure."

Already strict rules
Switzerland tightened its laws two years ago and now has among the strictest rules anywhere when it comes to caring for pets and farm animals.

The country's 160-page animal protection law states exactly how much space owners must give Mongolian gerbils (233 square inches) and what water temperature is required for African clawed frogs (64-72 degrees Fahrenheit).

It stipulates that pigs, budgies, goldfish and other social animals cannot be kept alone. Horses and cows must have regular exercise outside their stalls and dog owners have to take a training course to learn how to properly look after their pets.

Like in other countries, the law also forbids killing animals in a cruel fashion or for fun.

Swiss daily Tribune de Geneve reported earlier this year that a woman who decapitated four chickens and left their heads on the doorstep of her love rival received a 90-day suspended sentence.

Goetschel said he represents about 150-200 animals annually in Zurich, while in other cantons (states), only a handful of cases go to court each year.

Most of his clients are dogs, cows and cats, Goetschel told The Associated Press in a recent interview. Many cases involve the serious abuse of animals, such as deliberate wounding, rape and neglect.

But in one high-profile case last month, Goetschel represented a dead pike after an animal protection group accused the angler who caught it of cruelty for taking 10 minutes to haul the fish in.

The angler was found not guilty.

A proposed amendment to state rules regarding the presence of animals at food service establishments would allow for pets in outdoor dining areas under certain provisions: Pets could not pass through indoor areas of the restaurant or establishment or come in contact with employees engaged in the handling of food. And they could not have contact with utensils or other items that may result in contamination of food or food contact surfaces.

If the amendment is adopted, it would be the discretion of restaurant owners whether or not to allow pets on their patios or outdoor dining areas.

The cold weather has put a damper on outdoor dining for the winter, but Beaufort resident Carolyn Morris sees the waterfront community as "dog friendly" and said she would support the amendment.

"I don't see a problem with it," she said.

In Beaufort, where restaurants such as the Dock House and Boardwalk Cafe border the boardwalk along Front Street, it's not unusual to see residents and visitors with their dogs. Morris said it would be nice to be able to sit down at a patio or porch table without having to tie up the pet somewhere else or leave them behind.

She said she owns cats rather than a dog but wouldn't mind dining outside with customers with pets.

Whether residents are for the idea or against it, they are invited to let state officials know how they feel. The N.C. Division of Environmental Health held a public hearing Feb. 16 in Raleigh and is continuing to accept written comments through April 5 on the issue.

Larry Michael, head of the division's Food Protection Branch, said the proposed amendment was developed during efforts to clarify current rules regarding the presence of animals at food service establishments.

Michael said they recognized that ambiguity in the wording of the rules has created some differences in interpretation among counties.

He said that the state's interpretation of current rules has been that pets are prohibited from restaurants, with exceptions such as service animals and patrol dogs accompanying police or security officers.

The proposed changes to the rule include a clarification of wording as well as the amendment regarding pets in outdoor dining areas.

Michael said that under the proposed amendment, pets would still be prohibited inside unless they are a service dog or patrol dog. However, restaurants would have the option to welcome pets to their patio.

Michael said the proposed rule clarifications and amendment will go before the Commission for Public Health at its May meeting. If the rule changes are approved, he said, they could take effect around August.

That would be fine with Andy Hopper, owner of Chefs 105 restaurant on the Morehead City waterfront, which has outdoor dining.

"I have no objections to pets on the patio. If it is passed, it would be a welcome change," he said.

Anyone wishing to submit written comments can do so by mailing them to: Larry Michael; Food Protection Branch head; 1632 Mail Service Center; 2728 Capital Boulevard; Raleigh, NC 27604-1630. Or e-mail them to Larry.Michael@ncdenr.gov.

For example, new AVMA data shows that veterinarians are increasingly seeking board certification as specialists, a trend that is in direct response to a demand for a higher level of care by pet owners. Statistics from specialty colleges show that there were 9,826 active board-certified diplomates in 2009, a 15.46 percent increase in veterinary specialists from 2006. Even more striking, the number of specialists in the internal medicine specialty went up by more than 11 percent in just one year, from 2008 to 2009.

"The increasing demand for veterinary specialists is something that we've known was happening for some time, but this data helps us understand and track this trend," explains Dr. Larry R. Corry, president of the AVMA. "As the human-animal bond continues to grow, veterinarians are being asked by pet owners to provide increasingly advanced treatments, and this is driving them into specialties like internal medicine, neurology and oncology.

"The AVMA is constantly conducting research and compiling data about our profession and our members as a means of giving us a better understanding of how we can serve their needs," Dr. Corry continues.

The latest data shows that there are now 80,825 members of the AVMA, more than ever before, and that, for the first time in history, there are more female than male veterinarians. The tipping point came in 2009, when, according to AVMA data, female veterinarians (44,802) surpassed the total number of male veterinarians (43,196). In 2008, men had still outnumbered women in the profession.

"About three years ago, based on our ongoing research, we were able to predict that women would soon outnumber men in the veterinary profession," explains Allison Shepherd, AVMA senior manager of marketing research in the Communications Division. "We conduct and collect an enormous amount data that we are continually mining for trends and insights. We understand that our data and other resources are useful and interesting to our members, the media and the general public. As a result, we make these statistics available, free of charge, on our Web site."

For more information on AVMA's latest membership data and to review a compilation of data from recognized veterinary specialty organizations, visit the AVMA Web site at: http://www.avma.org/reference/marketstats/usvets.asp; http://www.avma.org/reference/marketstats/membership.asp; and/or http://www.avma.org/reference/marketstats/vetspec.asp. For any other information about veterinary medicine, please visit http://www.avma.org/.

That's the message that Dr. Ron DeHaven, chief executive officer of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and a former head of the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, delivers in a new video which can be viewed on http://www.avmatv.org/, the AVMA Media Library (http://www.avma.org/) and YouTube.  "I have a number of concerns," Dr. DeHaven says in the video.

Last month, the USDA announced that it was going to scrap the eight years of work and $120 million it poured into creation of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).  Instead, the USDA announced it will restart the process and begin developing a new state-based animal identification system.  

"By having an animal ID program in place, we can more quickly contain and eliminate disease.  Doing so not only minimizes the economic impact, but by minimizing the number of animals affected, we reduce animal suffering," Dr. DeHaven says in the video.  "In the case of zoonotic diseases - diseases that can spread from animals to humans - we reduce the potential that the disease will spread to humans."

Dr. DeHaven says that one of the biggest problems with this announcement is that there will be no animal ID system during this new development period, which could take years.  DeHaven is also critical of the USDA announcement that cattle branding—an outdated form of theft deterrent—will be an acceptable form of animal identification in the new system.  "It's hard for me to imagine how this ancient technology will fit into a modern, interstate system to trace animals," DeHaven says in the video.

As opposed to NAIS, which is a national program, the new system will be administered by individual states and tribal nations. Each state and tribal nation will be allowed to use its own system of identification.  

"Will these systems developed by individual states and tribal nations be compatible with each other?" Dr. DeHaven asks in the video. "Will we actually be able to trace animals as they move from state to state with different systems in each state or tribal nation?"

The full video can be viewed at the AVMA's video site, AVMA-TV, at http://www.avmatv.org/, and a downloadable version of the video is available to journalists through the association's media library, http://www.avmamedia.org/.  As with all its Web videos, the AVMA encourages bloggers and journalists to freely post and quote from this video.  AVMA-TV offers a full library of videos about veterinary medicine—from veterinary careers to food safety and brushing your pet's teeth—open for use by the public.  

Police say that Akira Honda, manager of a pet shop in Fukuoka City, told them he was in debt and that he had planned to sell the animals.

Honda is suspected of stealing a capybara (worth 150,000 yen) from Fukuoka's Uninonakamichi Seaside Park on Nov 1 last year and a squirrel monkey (also worth 150,000 yen) from Nagasaki Bio Park on Jan 18.

According to police, after stealing the capybara, he kept it until December, when it died. The squirrel monkey was sold to someone in Yokohama.

A pacu is a breed that's related to the piranha - and this pacu has lived twice as long as the average member of his species. Steve Gruebel, owner of the Cameo Pet Shop in Queens, N.Y., said he got Buttkiss in 1967 when the fish was just a wee little thing, and he sold him a year later when Buttkiss was 2 inches long. Buttkiss was returned to the pet shop in 1970 when he outgrew the buyer's tank.

Now 23 inches long, Buttkiss eats a steady diet of 25 goldfish every other day and lives in a 75-gallon tank that isn't much longer than he is: just 4 feet. Gruebel said he's afraid to transfer him to a bigger tank because he may not survive the changing environment.

Buttkiss has been a local celebrity for years, but he's now enjoying a measure of fame across the country since National Public Radio broadcast a feature story about him.

"He brings a lot of people into the shop," Gruebel, 60, told the New York Daily News. "But I wish they would buy something too."

Gruebel said he named the fish after Hall of Fame football player Dick Butkus. He also noted that Buttkiss is beginning to show his age. He has arthritic gills and glaucoma in his right eye.

"He's not for sale," Gruebel explained. "He is mine."

Some aquarium owners — particularly those in families with toddlers and young children — say pacus can be dangerous pets because of their powerful teeth and jaws. But many, like Gruebel, have found pacus to be enduring, friendly pets.

One pacu - a fish named Swish - lived happily for nearly 20 years in a restaurant aquarium in Seattle's International District until the tragic night in 2006 when his tank sprung a leak. Swish was 32 pounds and at least 31 years old at the time of his death.

Peter Korch worked for the aquarium company that regularly maintained Swish's tank.

"He was like a pet everywhere he went," Korch told The Seattle Times. "People would walk up to the aquarium and look in and he'd swim up and look back. He'd rub his body on your arms, kind of like a dog."

A Texas jury awarded Frank Bowers $4,440.75 in the small claims court action he filed against Hartz Mountain Corporation. In this David-versus-Goliath court battle -- believed to be the first small claims court action of its kind --- Bowers alleged that Hartz Ultra Guard Pro Flea and Tick Drops caused the death of his beloved Olde English Bulldog, Diesel.

The six-member jury deliberated less than 30 minutes before reaching a unanimous decision in favor of Bowers, who was widely considered the underdog in the case.

"When the bailiff walked in the courtroom and said we have a unanimous decision, I nearly passed out," said Bowers, who represented himself in the court action. "The jury said 'we find Mr. Bowers' integrity outweighed what was presented by (Hartz) attorney. He lost an animal of value and all costs he's out are awarded to him.'"

"I just literally went numb," Bowers added. "I caught up with three jurors in the hallway after the hearing. All I said to them was: 'thank you, thank you, thank you.' And they just said: 'we did our job.'"

Hartz told ConsumerAffairs.com that it believed the case was "without merit," but did not appeal because of the time and cost involved.
Sense of justice

For Bowers, the jury's decision brings closure and a sense of justice to an emotional issue that started at 8:30pm on August 7, 2008. On that warm summer night in Texas, Bowers applied Hartz Ultra Guard Pro Flea and Tick Drops to the 14-month-old, 68-pound, Diesel.

"I nipped off the top of the tube and put it on his back," Bowers recalled. "I precisely used it as directed – nothing more, nothing less than directed." By early the next morning Diesel had become gravelly ill.

"I went to my garage to work and I smelled this odor from excretion," Bowers said. "Diesel was laying on the floor. He was shaking and having spasms of some kind. And he was passing a horrible odor of diarrhea." Bowers called his daughter, who told him to immediately take the ailing dog to the vet.

Diesel's health continued its rapid decline during the ride to his vet's office, Bowers said.

"He continued to have bowel movements on the way. When we got to the vet's office, he couldn't walk. They got one of those stainless steel tables and took him back to an exam room."

The veterinarian asked Bowers a battery of questions about Diesel, including one that caught him off guard.

"The vet asked me if I'd put any flea treatment on him," Bowers said. "And I said: 'yes, last night.' I told him what it was and went back to the store to get a tube to show him."

The vet, he said, took one look at the Hartz Ultra Guard Pro Flea and Tick Drops and shook his head. "He said: 'Oh, my God. He's going to have kidney failure.'"

By 4 o'clock the next morning, Diesel's kidneys had shut down.

"He was in total renal failure," Bowers said. "The vet wanted permission to euthanize him. I said you know what's best and I don't want any animal to suffer. "I picked Diesel up around 7am and took him out in the country and buried him on my daughter's 10 acres."

This painful chapter in Bowers' life happened in less than 35 hours – from the night he applied the flea and tick drops to the morning of Diesel's death.
He wanted answers

Bowers wanted answers. He wanted to know why Diesel's health deteriorated so quickly.

The plain-spoken Texan went straight to the source. He called Hartz.

"But they did not care to discuss this with me," Bowers said of the company's customer service representatives. "They insinuated that I did something wrong. "At that point, I said my dog is dead and I need you pay. It's about $4,000."

Hartz balked at his suggestion, Bowers said.

"They said we won't pay that, sir. It's a risk you take when you use our products. I asked for this person's supervisor, but she hung up on me."

Bowers then sent the company a letter about Diesel's death.

"I got no response," he said. "This irritated me. They acted like I didn't exist.

"About two months later, someone (from Hartz) called me and told me it was my fault (that Diesel died) or neglect that caused the death and they were not responsible."

Bowers contacted a few attorneys to see if they'd take his case. "But none wished to be bothering Hartz as there was not enough money," he said. The determined pet owner, however, didn't give up or back down.

He took matters into his own hands and represented himself in court, specifically Small Claims Court, Precinct 3, in Travis County, Texas. Consumers in the Lone Star State can seek damages of up to $10,000 in their small claims court proceedings. Texas also allows jury trials in small claims court actions.

"I filed papers in small claims court," said Bowers, who lives in Austin, Texas. "But the court called me a while later and said I needed to re-file my case because Hartz did not respond."

Bowers filed his case again on July 28, 2009. "And this time, Hartz did respond to the court," he said. "The court sent the company a registered and non-registered letter about my case. An attorney contacted the court and said she represented Hartz."

The court wanted Bowers and Hartz to resolve the case through mediation. But that process wasn't too productive, Bowers said.

"I looked at the girl (Hartz' attorney) square in the eyes and said: 'do you have a check for this amount -- $4,400?' She said no. I said 'then this mediation is over. At this time, there is nothing to negotiate.'"

Bowers and Hartz' attorney then went back and talked to the judge.

"The judge said we'll have to reschedule for another appearance," Bowers said. "But I told the judge that I wanted a trial by jury. She said that's your privilege. The attorney (for Hartz) didn't like it. She wanted to settle this between her and I.

"Here I am -- 72-year-olds old. I have a high school education. I don't have a law degree. But I still wanted a trial by jury. The judge asked me if I thought I could get a jury verdict in my favor and I said I wouldn't be here if I didn't."
Day in court

Bowers' day in court finally arrived on January 12, 2010.

Before the trial, each side had a chance to question a pool of potential jurors.

"I chose not to ask them any questions," Bowers said. "But Hartz' attorney kicked a few potential jurors off because they had pets. She also asked the jurors if they'd had any problems in the past with pet medications. She didn't want any pet owners or people who had problems with pet medications on the jury. There were also no vets on the jury."

In the end, a jury of three men and three women heard the case.

"The trial took less than two hours," Bowers said. "I wasn't able to tell the jury everything I wanted to."

The judge, for example, wouldn't allow Bowers to enter into evidence any of his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) documents about the adverse reactions dogs and cats have experienced from topical flea and tick products. The vets he wanted to call as witnesses also couldn't make it to court that day.

"I had no witnesses," Bowers said. "I was riding the brass rail by myself." And he was up against Hartz' savvy attorney, who he learned had taken a special course on flea and tick products to prepare her for the case.

"Hartz had all kinds of statements about flea and tick products and they had everything notarized so it could be entered into evidence," Bowers said. "I didn't know I needed to do that (get documents notarized). Hartz had statements from their vets, too."

During the trial, Hartz also cross-examined Bowers about Diesel's death. He's glad they did.

"That's when I got in the information that they wouldn't let me enter," Bowers said. "I entered it by blurting it from the witness box. The attorney asked me a question like 'how did I know it was Hartz that killed my animal?' And I said Hartz has killed many other animals.

"The attorney was screaming to get me to shut up and I just kept talking," Bowers added. "The judge then told me to shut up. At that point, I looked at the judge and said 'I'm sorry.' And then I looked at the jury and smiled."
Used as directed?

Hartz' attorney also suggested that Bowers didn't apply the flea and tick drops as directed.

"They screamed that over and over," Bowers said. "But I precisely used it as directed."

Hartz and other makers of fleas and tick products often cite the misuse of these treatments for adverse reactions. Pet owners, they say, may put a flea and tick product intended for a dog on a cat. Or they may apply too much flea and tick product on their pets.

Last summer, the ASPCA's Animal Poison Control Center also studied its data on topical flea and tick products. That study revealed the likelihood of severe adverse reactions was significantly less when dogs and cats were treated according to directions.

"From the data we have collected, the adverse reactions tend to be mild, like skin sensations and stomach upset," the ASPCA's Dr. Steven Hansen said after the organization released its study. "We don't have very many cases of true neurological issues when these products are properly used."

Bowers, however, repeatedly told ConsumerAffairs.com that he used the Hartz flea and ticks drops as directed when he applied them to Diesel. He also told us the court didn't give him the chance to cross-examine any of Hartz' witnesses during the trial. "I wasn't asked to," he said. "I asked the judge why I could ask any questions and she said 'that's procedure.'"

The jury, however, wasn't swayed by the witnesses or documents Hartz used in its defense.

After deliberating for less than 30 minutes, the jurors ruled in Bowers favor.

"I didn't know what to think when I heard that," he said, adding the $4,440 he won covers the cost of Diesel and the dog's vet bills. "I was dumbfounded."

Bowers is convinced the jury sided with him because of one issue that surfaced during the trial: whether the chemical Phenothrin, which is in Hartz Ultra Guard Flea and Tick Drops, is the same or similar to the chemical Permethrin. Bowers said he argued that, according to his "carnal knowledge," those two are the same chemical compound.

"I kid you not, that is the thing that saved my case," he said.

Hartz vehemently disputes that contention, saying those are completely different ingredients.

"The trade name for Phenothrin is Sumithrin," the company's spokeswoman, Anne Isenhower, told ConsumerAffairs.com. "Permethrin is a completely different ingredient that Hartz does not use in any of our on-animal products in the United States."

Hartz also downplayed Bowers' allegations and the jury's decision. "This case was without merit and the allegations weren't supported by evidence (presented in the trial)," said Isenhower, senior vice president, with GolinHarris, Hartz' public relations firm. Hartz, however, did not appeal the jury's decision because of the time and cost involved to pursue such action, Isenhower said.

Asked if Bowers' case marked the first time a consumer has successfully sued Hartz over one of its topical flea and tick products, Isenhower said: "Yes, we believe so. We are not aware of any verdict against Hartz flea and tick drops."

She had an identical comment when asked if Bowers' case was the first small claims court victory against Hartz. "Yes, we believe so. We are not aware of any verdict against Hartz flea and tick drops."
Safety defended

In spite of the jury's decision, Isenhower defended the safety of Hartz flea and tick products.

"We've conducted extensive analysis of the adverse event reporting on our products as well as all topic treatments in the market," she said. "Although Hartz is the leader in flea and tick retail sales, we are less than three percent of all adverse effects reported to the EPA in 2008 for topical dog flea and tick treatments."

The safety of topical or "spot-on" flea and tick products has come under "intensified" scrutiny by the EPA for the past 11 months.

The agency started that probe last April, saying it had received more than 44,000 reports of adverse reactions associated with spot-on flea and tick products.

"Adverse reactions reported range from mild effects such as skin irritation to more serious effects such as seizures and, in some cases, the death of the pet," the EPA said.

The agency told ConsumerAffairs.com that it planned to release its findings last fall. The EPA, however, has since delayed that release date.
"Due to the large amount of data and the complex technical issues associated with the review of the data, our report is not ready for public release," the agency's spokesman, Dale Kemery, told us in December 2009. "We anticipate publicly releasing the document in early 2010."

The EPA will post its findings about topical flea and tick products, and any regulatory action it may take, on its Web site.

In the meantime, animal experts recommend pet owners consult their veterinarians about which flea and tick product to use on their dogs or cats.
Beware

Back in Texas, Bowers warns pet owners to be "earthly" aware of any topical flea and tick products they put on their animals.

"I think I'll utilize just plain soap and water," he said. "I use Head and Shoulders shampoo on my dogs now. I bathe them every time I see them scratching. "We used to get Myrtle Bush when I was a child growing up in Louisiana," he added. "It was a natural killer of fleas."

Bowers is also keenly aware that his legal victory could have ripple effects in courtrooms across the country. He suspects his case may serve as a rallying call for other pet owners who've seen their dogs or cats suffer burns, blisters, seizures, neurological problems, or even die after using topical flea and tick products.

His case, he said, may open the floodgates for similar lawsuits nationwide.

"I think this case will make pet owners wonder why they have not gone forward with their cases in small claims court," Bowers said. "And if they do, my advice to them if get a trial by jury; I would never accept a non-jury trial."

The amount of money consumers can recover in small claims court varies by state. And some states do not allow trials by jury in small claims court. ConsumerAffairs.com has a comprehensive small claims court guide.

"I cannot walk into my house by myself. I tried it one time by myself, but the whole time, I was jumping like somebody was behind me and just started shaking."

In a lawsuit filed this week, Iannelli claims that her mortgage company mistakenly targeted her house for foreclosure, and she said she came home one day to find that she had been locked out and someone had gone inside, cut the utilities, poured antifreeze into the drains and taken her bird.

"If you or I did to Bank of America what Bank of America did to my client, we would be in prison for 10 years," said Iannelli's lawyer, Michael Rosenzweig, partner at Edgar Snyder & Associates.

Team 4 reported that, in a lawsuit filed Monday, the homeowner says she was up to date on her mortgage payments -- and out of the blue, Bank of America sent a contractor to invade her home in October and then padlock it.

For 20 years, Iannelli has maintained a residence on Fountainwood Drive. She says she never had a problem with her mortgage -- always making the payments to Bank of America on time.

Iannelli told Team 4 investigator Jim Parsons that she got no notice from anyone at Bank of America that anything was wrong. The first time she realized something was amiss was that October day when she arrived home, took out her key, went to put it in the lock and realized that the locks had been changed.

"Without notice, and in violation of Pennsylvania law, Bank of America came in and forcibly took over her house, changed the locks and basically took possession of her home," said Rosenzweig.

Iannelli said it took a week to get her bird back, and much longer for her peace of mind. She's living with a family member and said she's still fearful about returning to her home.

"I'm very angry," she said.

Iannelli's lawsuit accuses Bank of America and its local contractor of "cutting various water lines and electrical wiring, damaging her furnishings, carpets and floor coverings, adding dangerous chemicals to sinks and water fixtures and stealing the plaintiff's pet parrot."

"Took her family pet of 10 years and denied any involvement in it for over a week before they finally told her how she could seek retrieval of her pet," said Rosenzweig.

Bank of America's contractor padlocked the house and posted a notice on the front door saying the house had been repossessed, said Rosenzweig.

Iannelli is suing for trespass, negligence, libel and defamation. No dollar amount is requested in the lawsuit.

"They think they're above the law," Rosenzweig said. "And unless somebody lets them know that their bad conduct is going to hit them right in the pocket book, they are never going to stop."

"I hope this stops it from happening to anybody else," Iannelli said.

Bank of America originally blamed its local contractor for mistakenly repossessing the house. But now, the lending giant is accepting full blame.

Bank of America gave the following statement to Team 4 on Wednesday afternoon:

-Bank of America sincerely apologizes for Ms. Iannelli ‘s experience.
-Since this incident occurred in October 2009, we have taken steps to repair physical damage and we made multiple attempts to reach out to Ms. Iannelli and her attorney to address their economic concerns.
-We will move quickly to review the allegations in the lawsuit, the actual events that led to them and the causes of those events, and consider any hardship that resulted.
-Bank of America works with third-party contractors to inspect and maintain more than one million properties each month. While in that context very few problem lockouts have occurred, we have zero tolerance for this kind of error.
-Bank of America is in the process of mandating a stronger system of policies, procedures and controls for the independent contractors that perform these services. These improvements include additional formal training, an expanded checklist and additional authorization for securing the properties. We are also establishing a 24-hour hotline for homeowners and contractors if an immediate need arises.

Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product should contact their healthcare providers.

Pets with Salmonella infections may become lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, or vomiting. Some pets may experience only a decreased appetite, fever, or abdominal pain. If your pet has consumed any of the affected products and is experiencing any of these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.

The recall includes the following products with a "Best If Used By" date of 10/29/10 or 11/9/10:

-UPC#7 69949 60131 9 – Chicken Formula 0.75 lb trial sized medallions
-UPC#7 69949 60130 2 – Chicken Formula 3 lb medallions
-UPC#7 69949 60120 3 – Chicken Formula 6 lb patties
-UPC#7 69949 60121 0 – Chicken Formula 2 lb single chubs

In an abundance of caution, Nature's Variety has als-chosen t-expand this voluntary recall t-include all Chicken Formula and Organic Chicken Formula Raw Frozen Diets for dogs and cats with any "Best If Used By" date on or before 2/5/11. Nature's Variety has elected t-clear the market of raw frozen chicken diets as it implements a state-of-the-art new food safety process called High Pressure Pasteurization for use on all Nature's Variety Raw Frozen Diets.

The products included in the expanded recall are any Chicken Formula or Organic Chicken Formula Raw Frozen Diet with a "Best If Used By" date on or before 2/5/11, including:

-UPC#7 69949 60131 9 – Chicken Formula 0.75 lb trial sized medallions
-UPC#7 69949 60130 2 – Chicken Formula 3 lb medallions
-UPC#7 69949 60120 3 – Chicken Formula 6 lb patties
-UPC#7 69949 60121 0 – Chicken Formula 2 lb single chubs
-UPC#7 69949 50121 3 – Chicken Formula 12 lb case of chubs
-UPC#7 69949 60137 1 – Organic Chicken Formula 3 lb medallions
-UPC#7 69949 60127 2 – Organic Chicken Formula 6 lb patties

The "Best If Used By" date is located on the back of the package above the safe handling instructions. The affected product was distributed through retail stores and internet sales in the United States and Canada.

N-other Raw Frozen Diets are involved in this expansion other than chicken, and n-other Nature's Variety products are involved.

Nature's Variety now uses High Pressure Pasteurization on their Raw Frozen Diets as a unique process t-kill pathogenic bacteria through high-pressure, water-based technology. Having incorporated this state-of-the-art technology on a portion of their raw product offerings in late 2009, Nature's Variety was able t-confidently implement the process universally on all Raw Frozen Diets after the 2/11/10 recall in order t-enhance food safety. Nature's Variety als-utilizes a test and hold protocol t-ensure that all High Pressure Pasteurized Raw Frozen Diets test negative for harmful bacteria before being released for sale.

"Nature's Variety believes replacing all raw frozen chicken products on the market with new raw frozen chicken products that use High Pressure Pasteurization is an important and responsible step in order t-reinforce consumer confidence and trust," stated Reed Howlett, CE-of Nature's Variety. "By recalling all raw frozen chicken products with ‘Best If Used By' dates on or before 2/5/11, we can provide our pet parents with new raw frozen chicken products that have been processed through High Pressure Pasteurization. Adopting High Pressure Pasteurization is an important step t-ensure that our products meet the strictest quality and food safety standards."

Howlett stated, "Our commitment t-consumers in the future is the same as it's been in the past – t-offer Raw Frozen Diets made from the highest quality ingredients, made in our own plant in the Midwest, by people wh-care deeply about pet nutrition, health, and happiness."

If you are a consumer and have purchased one of these products, please return the unopened product t-your retailer for a full refund or replacement. If your package has been opened, please dispose of the raw food in a safe manner by securing it in a covered trash receptacle. Then, bring your receipt (or the empty package in a sealed bag) t-your local retailer for a full refund or replacement.

Consumers with additional questions can call the Nature's Variety dedicated Customer Care line 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at 800-374-3142. For additional resources about High Pressure Pasteurization or other Nature's Variety food safety protocols, visit www.naturesvariety.com.

Abuse against animals would include “malicious and intentional maiming, mutilation, torture, wounding or killing of a living animal.” “It would also target pet hoarders and operators of animal-fighting rings (such as dog-baiting and cockfighting) who have felony convictions,” according to Time Magazine.

Senate majority leader, Dean Florez introduced the California bill in February.

"We think California is primed for this kind of a bill. We've progressed to the point where we as a legislature are moving in a direction of this bill, which is ultimately, How do we in essence prevent repeat offenses when it comes to cruelty to animals in the state of California?"

Florez estimates that 60% of California residents have pets, and when farm animals are added that number jumps to 80%. Humans care about pets and animals in a profound way and Florez thinks that California is ready for a law such as this.

In Utah, an animal bill is currently under review that would require shelters and animal adoption agencies to attempt to reunite pets with their owners. Under the current system, if a lost dog comes in most shelters do not take the steps to contact the owner, even if the animal is wearing a licensing tag.

- I'm allergic to cats and dogs.
- I'm not much of a pet person.
- I've never had a pet, but I think they're nice.
- I like fish - does that count?

Call me an animal snob, most people do anyway, but I know that anyone who will be in my life for any length of time will need to love pets as much as I do. I think most true pet people would agree.

If you're looking for love from a pet, please come to the Humane Society of Huron Valley and adopt, but if you're looking for human love, we might be able to help in that category as well!

One day many of the staff members at the Humane Society of Huron Valley (HSHV) were talking about how they meet compatible people to date, and out of that conversation came an idea that we hope single pet people will embrace - Speed Dating for Animal Lovers.

Help animals in need at HSHV and meet other pet lovers by attending "Speed Dating for Animal Lovers" on Tuesday, March 23.

This fundraiser will benefit HSHV's Hardship Fund, which pays for critical veterinary services for low-income pet owners in our community that need assistance. Registration is $75, and includes appetizers and non-alcoholic drinks. All proceeds from the event go to the Hardship Fund. The event will take place in Ann Arbor and specific details on location and time will be given at the time of registration.

How Does it Work?
The structure of the event is quite simple. Singles are paired up to begin their first "date." Following seven minutes of conversation, a bell is rung, and the men move on to meet their next date. Following each date, participants mark on a card whether they would have an interest in meeting their date again. If (and only if) a mutual interest is noted, speed-dating organizers provide each party with the other's email address and/or phone number the day after the event.

How to Register
The easiest way to register for "Speed Dating for Animal Lovers" is to register online. You can also register by calling 734-661-3525. In both cases, we'll ask you a few questions about yourself and who you're looking for. After you've registered, you'll receive information on the exact time and location of the event. Please note, you must be 21 or older to register.

PETA previously announced it would erect a billboard in Windermere — near Woods' home — with his picture and the words: "Too much sex can be a bad thing ... Always spay or neuter!"

The group, which is known for edgy campaigns, says it decided to put the Woods billboard on hold after talking with the golfer's attorneys.

PETA wouldn't say whether Woods' attorneys threatened to sue.

Instead of Woods, the ad will feature South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, whose widely known dalliances have also made frequent headlines.

Best Friends Animal Hospital is allowing pet owners to bid on spay and neutering procedures. For the next nine days, the hospital is offering two options for pet owners. There is a choice to either neuter any size dog for $100 or spay any size dog for $150.

Dr. Muhammad Bajwa, who works at the hospital, believes that many animals get put down because they haven't had the proper procedures performed.

"I noticed that there were a large number of pets being euthanized just because of the spays and everything so this is just helping our goal to reduce the pet population," said Bajwa.

Lisa Luksa, who works alongside Bajwa, appreciates how the hospital is trying making a difference.

"I think it's great everyone uses a computer these days. So hopefully the opportunity to do this, will help encourage people to help spay and neuter their animals", said Luksa.

This bid will last for the next nine days.

Guilford County Animal Control officers seized the dogs and cats after being alerted to “unsanitary conditions” at Battleground Pet Inn, said Leigh Anne Garrard, an animal control field supervisor.

Garrard planned Friday to file animal cruelty charges against the business owner, Kaye Jones of 830 Wiley Lewis Road. Jones operates the business from her home. All of the animals taken were Jones’ personal pets, and most of them were dogs.

The state Department of Agriculture also revoked Jones’ license to board, Garrard said.

The animals were at the Guilford County Animal Shelter late Friday, Garrard said, where they were being checked by a veterinarian. “It was obvious that the animals were in need of medical attention,” Garrard said, but she did not provide specifics.

Friday was not the first time animal control officers had visited Jones’ business. “I know that we have been out there multiple times,” Garrard said. “It was the same thing — unsanitary conditions.”

But Jones said there was nothing wrong that couldn’t have been remedied quickly or that warranted taking her animals away from her.

She said the inspector arrived at her home between 8 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. Friday, before the business opened. The inspector raised concerns about dirty runs.

Jones said bad weather had blown leaves and limbs around her runs, and that the weather also had prevented her from clearing out the debris.

She also admitted that a few of her dogs needed haircuts and one had matted hair.

About two-thirds of the animals had up-to-date rabies shots, she said.

Jones said most of the animals taken are older than 12 and had been abandoned or were headed to the shelter to be euthanized, but instead were living out the rest of their lives on her property.

They included Maltese, poodles, and Siamese cats. “I can give them what they need and what they love,” Jones said. “Is death better than being alive?”

Jones said she hasn’t boarded any animals in more than a year. She only had a few animals that she was grooming on site Friday.

Jones said animal control previously had visited her property for noise complaints. A disgruntled customer also made a complaint about the condition of her cages, Jones said.

Records on the N.C. Department of Agriculture’s Web site show that Jones’ pet boarding business passed its annual inspection in February 2009.

"Denis can't watch Animal Planet," Ann tells Animal Radio(r) listeners, "He's afraid of seeing any animal cruelty."

Ann told Animal Radio(r) producer Judy Francis that when Denis made it big, he bought her a horse. Her furry family includes 4 dogs and 3 horses. She says she constantly has to keep her animal hoarding tendencies in check at all times.

Ann says she loves being a guest host on Animal Radio(r). "You know how I ended up on this show? Your producer emailed me to get Denis on, I said ‘how about me?' I pulled a real Lucy Ricardo move!"

Ann's writing and talking about animals is second only to her love for them. "As soon as I get off the air, I'm gonna tweet about Animal Radio, you need a lot more followers and I love to Twitter. I'm on all the time. There are so many people that tweet about their animals."

Hear this special Animal Radio(r) broadcast on XM Satellite Radio ch. 158 (America's Talk) Saturday March 13th at noon EST and rebroadcast Sunday the 14th at 5pm EST. Animal Radio(r) also broadcasts on 99 AM/FM radio affiliates, including KOST 103.5 Los Angeles. See more listening options at AnimalRadio.com