Animal Rights WATCH 2008 page 1
American Sporting Dog Alliance ***
October 2008 Newsletter
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@csonline.net
Dog Owners Stare Down HSUS And PETA
A SAOVA message to sportsmen, pet owners and farmers concerned about protecting their traditions, avocations and livelihoods from anti-hunting, anti-breeding, animal guardianship advocates. Forwarding and cross posting, with attribution, encouraged.
Steve Kopperud has special expertise in agriculture and food issues. Prior to joining Policy Directions Inc., he was the senior vice president of the American Feed Industry Association (AFIA) for more than 18 years, where he headed state and federal government affairs programs, and was treasurer of the Feed Industry Political Action Committee (FIPAC). Steve is also former president of the Animal Industry Foundation (AIF), and chairs the Farm Animal Welfare Coalition (FAWC).
Kopperud’s comments and analysis defining the animal rights movement strategy in this Cattle Network interview below is a must read for all.
Cattle Network 11/7/2008 9:48:00 AM
Jolley: Five Minutes with Steve Kopperud, Senior V.P., Policy Directions
Kopperud has spoken to audiences in North and South America about the threats to food production mounted by such well-funded organizations as HSUS and PETA. At each appearance, Kopperud explains the threats behind the recent successes of animal activism and what is means to future of beef producers.
He tells a blunt and take-no-prisoners story about the very effective but sometimes questionable public relations techniques employed by animal activist groups.
Q. Steve, we know the animal rights organizations tend to be well-funded, sophisticated communicators. Let's define them, first. What are the organizations we should watch and what are their agendas? Tell me about the size of their memberships and their war chests.
A. Fifteen years ago we were confronted by about 150 animal rights organizations, subject to infighting and competition. Today, the movement is defined by the Humane Society of the U.S. and its president, Wayne Pacelle. When Pacelle joined HSUS as vice president, he declared he would create the “NRA (National Rifle Assn.) of animal rights, and he’s well on his way. The organization leverages its public image as a dog/cat, spay/neuter, pet adoption group, positioning itself as “moderate” in comparison to the PETAs of the movement. When you peel away the layers of public image, you’re left with an HSUS agenda that is anything but moderate, and not too radically different than that of PETA. You need only look at the organization’s legislative agenda, the comments of some of its officers, to see where HSUS would eventually hope to see animal agriculture wind up.
HSUS claims to have about 10 million members – 20,000 per congressional district – and has an annual budget in excess of $130 million. Through mergers with smaller organizations, HSUS has grown, and under Pacelle’s watch, created the Humane Legislative Action Fund (HLAF) not-for-profit association with no limits on its lobbying activity – HSUS, by virtue of its 501(c) (3) status, is limited by IRS rules to about spending 20% of its previous year’s program spending on “advocacy,” so the HLAF is an important tool. On the international front, Humane Society International works as an arm of HSUS.
PETA continues to be the noisemaker; its apparent role is to keep the issue in the press, thereby keeping it mainstream. Its income each year continues to hover in the
$20-30 million range, allowing it to maintain its global network of offices and harassment. However, PETA has so marginalized itself in policy discussions as to be almost a non-player.PETA continues to frighten corporate targets, major brands which fear PETA will begin boycotts, pickets, disrupt annual meetings, etc. PETA’s outrageous behavior and unrealistic demands enable groups such as HSUS to contact the same target companies, offering itself as the “moderate” group with which the company can work. The company believes that by working with HSUS, it’s somehow protected from PETA. Not so. The company is only protected as long as it toes the line, issuing public statements about animal housing, care and such. The worst thing any company can do is try to negotiate with any animal rights group. It signals weakness and fear and sets the company up as a perpetual target for other groups.
Farm Sanctuary, with a budget of about $1 million a year, operates almost as an independent subsidiary of HSUS, acting as HSUS’s foot soldiers on the ground in the various states in which HSUS has begun referenda campaigns, etc.
FULL INTERVIEW AT THE LINK ...
Please share this message widely.Susan Wolf
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance - http://saova.org
Issue lobbying and working to identify and elect supportive legislators
http://nathanwinogr
ad.blogspot. com/2008/ 09/dubious- deals-at- hsus.html
http://tinyurl.com/3vrywj
Tuesday, September 16, 2008 **** Dubious Deals at HSUS
While Gulf State shelter Tangipahoa Parish continues to kill animals, it
will soon do so in a room built to kill animals paid for by the Humane
Society of the United States. The nearly $30,000 price tag for the kill
room will be paid for with monies HSUS raised ostensibly to help the
animals of Hurricane Katrina years ago (an estimated $20 million of
which is still unspent, not including interest and investment dividends).
Not only did HSUS provide political cover for the killing, not only did
HSUS chief Wayne Pacelle deceive the public into falsely believing that
there is "a new dawn" for the animals of Tangipahoa (which will never
arise for over 170 of them because they are DEAD), his HSUS is paying
for a room to kill even more of them.
If that is not enough, MuttShack Rescue recently completed a large-scale
rescue of animals in Louisiana because of Hurricane Gustav. Instead of
supporting the effort, HSUS claimed the rescue as their own. According
to MuttShack: "[We] just completed the largest animal evacuation in the
history of New Orleans. After its completion, HSUS drove their trucks up
in front of the whole deal, shot some footage and has posted it [on
their website] as their own rescue."
Still sitting on over $20 million dollars of unspent funds from
Hurricane Katrina, using money earmarked to save the lives of animals to
build rooms to kill them, HSUS then fundraises off of the success of
others; and in doing so, diverts funds meant for the true heroes of
Hurricane Gustav to its untold millions piling up in HSUS bank accounts.''Sue
GOOD NEWS IN MICHIGAN *** September 9th!!!!!!!!!!
September 8, 2008 ***
Forwarding is OK
Fanciers; I'm pleased to report the author of Michigan HB 6395, Representative
Bill Caul, has announced that the bill will be withdrawn. Staff members said
they
were surprised with the negative reaction to the proposal....
introduced on September 3, 2008. This proposal would require anyone
who sells or OFFERS to sell more than two cats/dogs OR more than ONE
litter within any 12 month period to obtain a Pet Seller License from County
Animal Control and comply with facility standards. Thank you to all those who
made their views known quickly and effectively!
CFA Legislative Coordinator
THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE BILL CAUL FOR SEEING THE LIGHT!!!!!
Responsible Pet Owners
Alliance
900 NE Loop 410 #311-D
San Antonio, TX 78209
Phone: (210) 822-6763
Website:
www.responsiblepetowners.org
$15 Annual dues (January - December)
To share information, subscribe or unsubscribe,
e-mail
rpoa@texas.net.
SEND YOUR LETTERS, PHOTOS, ARTICLES, INVITATIONS TO DOG SHOWS TO BILL CAUL -- MICHIGAN REPRESENTATIVE!
MICHIGAN ALERT!!!!!!
Thursday,
September 04, 2008
Yesterday, Representative
Bill Caul of Mt. Pleasant introduced Michigan
House Bill 6395, which proposes to strictly regulate virtually all
responsible dog breeders. It is imperative that all concerned
responsible dog breeders in Michigan contact the members of the House
Agriculture Committee, which currently has cognizance of the bill, and
their elected Representatives and express their vehement opposition to
this bill.
The American Kennel Club opposes the concept of breeding permits,
breeding bans, or mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we
support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and
health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and
owners who take their responsibilities seriously.
If adopted, HB 6395 would:
* Define anyone who sells or offers for sale more than two dogs per
year, or more than one litter of dogs per year, as a "pet seller."
* Mandate that those who qualify as pet sellers to acquire an
annual pet seller license from their county animal control shelter at a
cost of
$200/year.
* Require an applicant for a pet seller license to submit his or
her fingerprints with a license application for a criminal history and
FBI background check.
* Give discretion to county animal control shelters to deny
applications for pet seller licenses, regardless of outcome of
background investigation.
* Call for pet sellers to comply with administrative rules
regarding housing that will be financially detrimental to responsible
breeders who operate out of their homes.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Michigan residents should contact the members of the House Agriculture
Committee and their elected Representatives and express
their strong opposition to this onerous legislation.
For more information, contact AKC's Government Relations Department at
(919) 816-3720, or e-mail
doglaw@akc.org.
E-mail Address:
billcaul@house.gov Welcome to my Web
Site:
http://house.gov/bcaul
Lansing Office Mailing Address:
S1288 House Office Building
Box 30014
Lansing, MI 48909-7514
Fax: 517-373-5491
Phone: 517-373-1789
Position Paper House Bill 6395
We oppose House Bill 6395. It is difficult to analyze this bill
because it appears to be a solution in search of a problem.
Accordingly, we have decided to list the unfortunate consequences
should this bill pass.
Each year, every hobby breeder in Michigan would be forced to spend
hundreds of dollars in application fees and costs for annual criminal
background checks/. It is generally acknowledged that hobby breeders
produce the best quality purebred pet and working dogs. As these
thousands of breeders stop breeding, Michigan would experience a
serious decline in its most valuable domestic animal.
There is no evidence to suggest that dog breeders are more likely to
be members of the criminal class than members of other groups, yet
they would be required to submit to the most intrusive and expensive
background investigations.
Even having submitted to this lengthy, expensive and intrusive
process, breeders would be completely dependent on the arbitrary
decisions of their local animal control officer. There is no appeal.
Those hobby breeders who raise their dogs in a home environment
would be forced to build commercial-style kennel facilities. This
would force many breeders of small companion breeds to quit breeding
or move out of their homes into locations with zoning for kennel buildings.
As someone with significant experience in the world of dog breeding
and dog legislation, I am completely unable to determine what problem
exists in our state that requires such an imposition on the community
of dog breeders. Our shelter figures as reported by law to the
Department of Agriculture show a steady decline in the number of
unwanted dogs in the state, so there is no justification for a law
that would significantly affect people's ability to breed their dogs.
On the other hand, there is every reason to support and encourage the
responsible breeding of purebred dogs. Dog breeding and ownership
brings millions of dollars to the state of Michigan through taxes paid
on products for dogs. In addition, few states offer a wider variety of
activities for dogs and their owners than Michigan. Every weekend,
Michigan citizens and thousands of tourists enjoy coon hunting,
hunting upland birds, terrier races, weight pulls, mushing, lure
coursing, dock diving, conformation dog shows and a myriad of other
pleasant activities with their dogs. What possible reason could exist
for hounding out of existence those Michigan breeders who produce the
dogs themselves.
In addition to the unacceptable burden placed on Michigan hobby
breeders, this bill will add to the burden of animal control officers
across the state, many of whom are struggling with reduced budgets to
perform their primary tasks.
Established in 1898 and headquartered in Kalamazoo, the United Kennel
Club is the largest all-breed performance-dog registry in the world,
registering dogs from all 50 states and 25 foreign countries. More
than 60 percent of its 13,000 annually licensed events are tests of
hunting ability, training and instinct. UKC prides itself on its
family-oriented, friendly, educational events. The UKC has supported
the "Total Dog" philosophy through its events and programs for over a
century. In Michigan, where the dog is the most economically important
domestic animal, UKC's shows and performance events bring in millions
of tourist dollars each year and promote responsible dog ownership.
Prepared by:
Cindy Cooke
Legislative Specialist
United Kennel Club
2097 SE 4th St.
Kalamazoo MI 49009
Phone: 269-375-0427
Fax: 09 269-375-0427
E-Mail:
doglaw@charter.net
September 7, 2008
Permission to forward
--- Fanciers;
AB 1634 was voted on the Senate Floor at 9:33 AM Pac. time and it FAILED !!
Levine asserted several times on the floor that AKC was "neutral". Thanks
to all your calls and letters and the huge increase in the oppose list
published this week - the Senators understood the facts.
Many groups and organizations have contributed enormous time, money and
energy to defeat this bill - WE APPRECIATE THE LOBBYISTS' EFFORTS, THE
CLUBS,
ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS WHO WORKED TOGETHER. Thank you cat fanciers.
Thank you dog fanciers. Thank you everyone who has put their life aside for
this bill for the sake of their cats and dogs over the last 18 months.
Persistence, good points, excellent letters, personal visits to Senate
offices paid
off. YOU DID IT!! Joan Miller
CFA Legislative Coordinator
_JMillerArt@
CROSSPOSTED WITH
PERMISSION:
Chicago's Proposed Mandatory Spay/Neuter Ordinance Is Scary Stuff!
By Ursula Hoeft ** August 19 2008
Be sure to read the information from Margo Milde about Chicago's
proposed mandatory spay/neuter ordinance in this edition of Paw
Prints. While Margo gives us the nitty-gritty about the proposed
legislation, I'd like to add my two cents worth and tell you about
my experience with it.
First, let me say that I wasn't particularly concerned about the
spay/neuter ordinance being considered by Chicago. I don't live in
Chicago, I don't breed dogs, and I don't plan to ever have an intact
dog. I figured the ordinance, if it was passed, wouldn't affect me.
And besides, unless the procedure would endanger its health, I
believe every pet dog or cat should be spayed or neutered.
But the night before the matter was to be addressed by the Chicago
City Council, I decided to go watch the proceedings, just to
experience the process. Well, let me tell you, my "adventure" turned
out to be incredibly interesting, informative ? and scary!
As soon as I entered the lobby of Chicago City Hall I was greeted by
a charming, attractive young lady who offered me a sticker to wear
proclaiming support for the proposed ordinance. I told her "no
thanks," that I was more inclined to favor its defeat. Once I got
upstairs to the floor where the Council Chambers are located, I was
approached by more pro-ordinance people ? they were everywhere ? and
they all wanted to convince me that the ordinance would be the
greatest thing since sliced bread.
I joined Margo and the other "anti" folks who were already seated in
the Chambers. My guess is that we were outnumbered about three to
one. I really expected to see more "dog folks" there to indicate
their opposition to the ordinance.
My feelings about the ordinance were pretty dispassionate when I got
to the meeting, but that quickly changed when I heard the tirade
delivered by Bob Barker, retired host of the TV game show The Price
is Right. The folks who support spay/neuter legislation apparently
see him as their hero. They gave him a standing ovation when he
entered the Chambers. Barker didn't mince words. He proclaimed that
laws like the one Chicago is considering, which have already been
enacted in Los Angeles and a couple of other U.S. cities,
will "sweep the country" and will soon be in place everywhere. This
man is a seriously scary dude! He's an excellent orator ? he should
be, he's a professional ? and listening to him, one thought kept
going through my mind: Heaven save us from fanatics! Judy Mancuso,
who followed him, was no less frightening, nor was Paula Fasseas of
PAWS Chicago. (Barker and Mancuso were imported from California;
Fasseas is from Chicago.) The gut feeling I got listening to these
people was that they hate dogs, hate dog owners, and that they're on
a "species cleansing" mission ? the species being the domestic dog.
Before hearing these scary people, I "pooh-poohed" claims being made
by some folks that Chicago's proposed ordinance and the one passed
in
Los Angeles represents efforts to eventually prevent the breeding of
dogs in the U.S. That such a thing could happen seemed impossible to
me. I still hope that it is, but after attending the meeting and
carefully reading the proposed ordinance, especially the section
that's supposed to list exemptions, I'm not so sure any more. If dog
owners continue to be as complacent as they seem to have been so far
about these initiatives, we may have to go to Europe ? or China ? to
buy our next dog.
Chicagoans: if you haven't already done so, let your Aldermen know,
in person or by sending him/her a letter, that you oppose the
ordinance. Sending letters to some of the others won't hurt either.
Get your friends and relatives to write letters, too.
Margo plans to let us know when the matter will again be addressed
by the Chicago City Council. If you can make it, attend the meeting,
and make it obvious that you oppose the ordinance.
Black Wednesday For Dog Owners
Animal Rights Wins In Dallas,
California, Pennsylvania
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@csonline.net
Wednesday was a black day for dog owners all across
America, as
animal rights extremists posted legislative victories in Dallas,
California and Pennsylvania.
Dog owner advocacy groups fought hard in all three contests and had
clear majority support, but animal rights groups such as People for
the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Humane Society of the
United States cashed in political chips with elected officials.
PETA and HSUS have been infiltrating local and state advisory boards
for many years, backed by a war chest exceeding $150 million,
hundreds of paid employees and thousands of volunteers.
Apathy remains the greatest problem faced by dog ownership advocacy
groups.
Wednesday's votes also highlighted what is rapidly
becoming a
partisan division on animal rights legislation. In general, almost
all Republicans voted against the legislation, and almost all
Democrats voted for the bills. The Democratic Party appears to be
lining up behind the animal rights agenda in support of its
presumptive presidential candidate, Barrack Obama. Obama has
expressed strong support for animal rights.
Here is a summary of the four issues decided this
week:
B7 In Dallas, City Council voted 10-3 to pass an animal control
ordinance requiring mandatory pet sterilization, expensive permits
to own intact dogs and cats, mandatory microchipping and pet
ownership limits. The ordinance also bans tethering of dogs and
imposes strict requirements for keeping dogs outdoors. Home
inspections also are authorized.
In California, the Senate Local Government Committee voted 3-
2 to approve AB1634, which now will be sent to the Senate
Appropriations Committee. If this committee approves, it will be
sent to the legislature for a vote. This bill allows any person to
act as a vigilante and report any dog owner for an unsubstantiated
violation of any animal law. If any animal control officer agrees,
the accused person will have a choice between paying a fine or
sterilizing the animal. People who are accused of anything have no
right to defend themselves or to appeal. An accusation is automatic
guilt.
In Pennsylvania, the House Rules Committee voted Tuesday to
approve HB2532, which is a de facto ban on tail docking, dewclaw
removal and ear cropping. In the absence of proof that the procedure
was performed by a veterinarian, the mere possession of a dog that
has had one of those three procedures subjects an owner to a
criminal citation for animal cruelty. This bill would destroy many
rescue operations, dog shows, competitive events and field trials in
Pennsylvania and result in the deaths of thousands of dogs. This
bill now goes to the full House for a vote, and then to the Senate.
Also in Pennsylvania, the House Agriculture Committee
approved amendments to the state dog and kennel law that fall short
of changes that were promised to dog owner advocacy groups. The
actual text of this legislation was not available at this writing,
and a follow-up report will be issued when the revised legislation
is available. This bill now goes to the full House for a vote, and
then to the Senate.
Please see below for more detailed descriptions of all four issues.
Dog ownership advocates clearly outnumbered animal rights
sympathizers in public hearings on all four pieces of legislation,
as well as in written comments, emails and phone calls received by
elected officials. However, many of those officials chose to ignore
our voices, and that is doubly true of the Democrats. We are not
saying this to be partisan, as many of our officers and members are
loyal Democrats. We simply are stating a fact. Democrats voted
against animal owners this week by a shocking margin, and we urge
dog owners who are registered with this party to work to reverse
this policy.
Advocates of dog owners' rights also were hurt by the apathy of many
people who support us, but who did little or nothing to voice that
support to elected officials.
Apathy by the large but silent majority of dog owners is a major
component of the animal rights strategy. While we outnumber them 100-
to-one, most of us don't get involved. In contrast, animal rights
groups rely on an almost religious fanaticism by their supporters to
gain a high percentage of participation.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges every dog owner in America
to join one or more of the several fine organizations that are
fighting for your rights. Each of these organizations has its own
niche, but all are excellent and deserve your support.
We welcome your membership and hope you will participate fully in
our programs. Please visit us online at
http://www.americansportingsdogalliance.org.
Please stand up and be counted now!
We also ask all dog owners who belong to field trial clubs,
sportsmen's organizations, show specialty clubs, breed clubs and
event clubs to urge those organizations to take an active political
role to defeat animal rights legislation.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also is urging dog owners to
boycott all dog events in the City of Dallas for their own safety.
Under the terms of the ordinance, even a visitor to the city is
subject to citations, fines and dog confiscations. It is known that
PETA plans a protest at a July dog show in Dallas, and we expect
them to report show dog owners for alleged violations of the
ordinance. Because the Dallas animal commission is dominated by PETA
members, we expect that there will be a move to raid this dog show.
All professional handlers would be in violation of the possession
limit of six dogs, and none of the dogs are expected to have a
required Dallas breeding or intact permit.
If the Pennsylvania and California legislation
becomes law, it will
not be safe for anyone to attend a field trial, dog show or
performance event in those states, or even to visit, pass through or
take a hunting trip there.
We urge all clubs to cancel or move planned events in Dallas now,
and also in Pennsylvania and California if their legislation is
signed into law. We believe that clubs have an ethical obligation to
protect the safety of participants and their dogs.
Continued apathy
and non-involvement will doom dog ownership in
America, as well as hunting, field trials and other dog events. We
can't do it without you. John Yates
PLEASE --- donate $$$ to the American Sporting Dog Alliance!!!
We are in the fight of our lives *** The American Sporting Dog Alliance
is our army!
Hearings This Week On Proposed
Let the Ohio Government know
this is despicable legislation!
Your opinion counts!
Let them hear your voices from around the world!!!!!
OHIO DOG AND KENNEL LEGISLATION!
Please Contact Your Legislators And Senators
by JOHN YATES ** American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
COLUMBUS, OH – Hearings are scheduled for Tuesday and Thursday on two pieces of legislation that would have a severe impact on all dog owners and hobby breeders in Ohio.
The Senate State and Local Government and
Veterans’ Affairs Committee will receive a reported substitute bill for S.B.
173 (House version is H.B. 223) on Tuesday
at 10 a.m. in the South Hearing Room. Testimony will not be taken on this
new bill. This legislation imposes heavy financial and legal burdens on
kennel owners.
On Thursday, at 8:30 a.m. in the Finance
Hearing Room, a hearing will be held to review reported amendments to H.B.
446, which affects all dog owners.
The House Local Municipal Government and Urban Revitalization Committee
reportedly will take testimony at this hearing. The reported amendments were
not
made available to the public by Monday morning.
It appears that an attempt is being made
to ram these two bills through the legislative process as quickly as
possible. These two bills take a giant step toward
fulfilling the extreme animal rights agenda of the eventual elimination of
the private ownership of animals. They would drastically reduce the number
of puppies
available in Ohio by sharply curtailing hobby breeding of purebred dogs.
A Senate fiscal analysis of S.S. 173 shows
that additional licensing costs will exceed $300,000 for an estimated 2,000
kennels that would be classified as small
hobby breeding kennels.
Under the legislation, a small breeding kennel is defined as having between nine and 15 dogs, which would impact most hobby kennels.
In addition, the analysis shows, a new
supervisory position would cost about $60,000, and an unspecified number of
dog wardens would have to be hired
at $43,000 each. Estimates of the number of new dog wardens needed to
enforce the law range from a minimum of 17 ($700,000 a year) to 88 ($3.8
million a year),
plus numerous start-up costs.
These and other expenses would come out of
the pockets of kennel owners. Our prior reports have contained detailed
analysis of this legislation, and this report will
only summarize. For readers who want an in-depth analysis, please contact us
at
asda@csonline.net.
S.B. 173 (companion to H.B. 223) has the potential to destroy hobby breeding of purebred dogs in Ohio in a misdirected effort to curtail “puppy mills.”
H.B. 446 mandates licensing for puppies at
eight weeks of age, increases fees, reduces the age for a spay/neuter
differential to six months, gives county auditors
the power to revoke kennel licenses, and makes it much harder for good
Samaritans to help lost dogs.
Testimony on the bills has been mixed,
with only a few people attending previous hearings. However, some of the
legislators and senators asked some hard questions
and expressed doubts. Others, however, have signed on as cosponsors to this
legislation.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is
supporting Ohio dog and kennel owners in an effort to defeat this
legislation, and has offered strong testimony in opposition
to the two bills. Ohio Valley Dog Owners President Norma Bennett Woolf has
addressed the hearings on behalf of dog owners. Ms. Woolf has worked
tirelessly to
defeat this destructive legislation, and she is one of the true heroes of
the movement to protect dog owners’ rights.
We strongly urge all Ohio dog and kennel
owners to take an active role. Your participation and support are crucial.
We cannot emphasize too strongly that this legislation
stems from an extreme animal rights agenda that aims to greatly reduce the
number of dogs as a giant step toward eliminating dog ownership altogether.
S.B. 173 --
This legislation (a companion to H.B. 223)
claims to target “puppy mills,” but would have a devastating impact on every
kennel that has nine or more
unsterilized adult dogs that could be construed as a “breeding dog.” Because
of the definition and required burden of proof, almost all small hobby
breeders will be affected.
A breeding dog is defined as any male or
female dog that is intended for breeding or has produced one litter in a
year, either as a stud dog or a mother.
The law does not define standards for this definition or for the burden of
proof, and the burden of proof rests with the kennel owner. We see this as a
“Catch 22,” as there
would be no way to conclusively prove the purpose for keeping any dog. It
would a matter of convincing the dog warden to take the owner’s word.
This unvarnished animal rights legislation
also grants dog wardens the power to confiscate any dog for which there is
probable cause to call a breeding dog.
The standards for probable cause are not defined, but could be construed as
any dog that has the potential for being bred.
To obtain a breeding license, a kennel
owner would have to pay an annual fee ranging from $150 to $750, submit to
inspections by state officials,
provide proof of insurance, purchase a bond guaranteeing financial
liability, submit to a personal background check by the police, be
fingerprinted and obtain and use
an approved vendor number to advertise or sell a dog or puppy.
Inspections would open any area that
houses dogs to state officials without a warrant, including the owner’s
home. Papers, documents and bank records also
could be examined or subpoenaed. Citations can be given and fines levied
for violations or “threatened violations,” which are not defined.
Any hearing, trial or appeal of an action must be done through only one Ohio
court, in Franklin County. The inspections would be based on providing a
specified level of physical care in housing, sanitation, medical care and
food and water.
They would require a kennel to be cleaned
every 12 hours, mandate professional veterinary care for even minor
conditions, injuries or ailments, require
grooming and nail trimming, mandate vaccinations, deworming and heartworm
prevention, and require available water at all times, even in freezing
weather.
Here is a link to the actual text of this legislation: http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=127_SB_173 .
We urge dog and kennel owners to submit written comments to each member of the committee. Emails, letters and phone calls all are important. This is urgent!
This link will take you to a list of
the committee members:
http://www.senate.state.oh.us/committees/com_state.html
.
A page will open up giving you a link to each senator’s email and mailing
addresses.
HB 446 Every dog owner will be affected by HB 446. It says:
-
Puppies must be licensed for $10
apiece at eight weeks of age, and also must wear a collar and license
tag at that age.
A puppy must be registered and licensed before it can be sold or transferred. Unlicensed puppies and dogs can be confiscated.
-
Individual dog licenses would rise
from $2 to $10 per year, and kennel license costs would rise from $10 to
$50.
The extra charge for licensing for a dog that is not spayed or neutered will be imposed on dogs at six months of age, instead of the current nine months
-
Kennel licenses would be required for
anyone who raises a single litter of hunting dogs. The bill says: “A
kennel owner is a person, partnership, firm,
company, or corporation professionally engaged in the business of breeding dogs for hunting or for sale.”
-
A particularly onerous part of the
legislation gives county auditors the unrestricted power to revoke
kennel licenses (this includes anyone
who raises a single litter of hunting dogs) for unproven allegations of animal cruelty. County auditors do not have the qualifications to make judgments
about animal cruelty, and the guilt or innocence of a dog owner facing such accusations should be determined only in a court of law. This power is given
to auditors “if the auditor determines” that a violation of animal cruelty statutes has occurred. No limits are placed on this power, and the legislation does
not define any criteria for an auditor to use. In fact, the law gives an auditor the power to revoke a license if he/she simply feels that a kennel owner may
have violated cruelty statutes, or even extra-legal personal opinions about what constitutes cruelty.
-
Good Samaritans who find a stray dog
must notify authorities within two days and turn it over to the animal
control agency within 10 days,
and do not have the option to give the dog to a no-kill shelter or rescue group, or find someone to take the dog if its owner cannot be found.
This exposes the dog to a high probability of euthanasia.
Other provisions regulate dogs that are declared dangerous, cats, ferrets and other animals.
The purpose of greatly increased fees is
to make law-abiding dog owners pay for the cost of animal control in Ohio.
The unfairness and irrationality of this approach
is that responsible dog owners and breeders, who are perhaps the least
likely cause of the problem, are the people who are being forced to pay for
it.
Breeders and owners of purebred dogs
rarely burden animal control agencies and animal shelters. Moreover,
purebred puppies almost never are found
in municipal animal shelters. This legislation makes responsible dog owners
and breeders the “cash cow” that will be milked to pay for animal control
efforts directed
at irresponsible people who ignore the law. ASDA regards this as the
unethical exploitation of law-abiding citizens.
People who actually violate the law should
pay for the cost of enforcing it, through fines and other penalties. This
cost should not be borne by law-abiding dog owners.
We should not be held responsible for the actions of others, over which we
have no control.
We urge dog and kennel owners to submit written comments to each member of the committee.
Here is a link to the text of the legislation: http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=127_HB_446.
This link will take you to a list of
the committee members:
http://www.house.state.oh.us/jsps/Committee.jsp?ID=21.
Please click on each member’s name. A page will open up giving you a link to
the legislator’s email and mailing addresses.
Please feel free to use any information contained in this report, and also to cross-post it and forward it to your friends.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance
is the unified voice of sporting dog owners and professionals in America. We
work at the grassroots level to defeat unfair legislation
and policies that are harmful to dogs and the people who own and work with
them. Our work to protect your rights is supported solely by the donations
of our members.
Your participation and membership are vital to our success. Please visit us
on the web at
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org.
new legislative alert
has been posted on the AKC's web site.
To view
this alert, please click on the following link, or cut and paste it into
your web browser.
http://www.akc.
The Dallas, Texas City Council will soon consider major changes to the
Dallas animal control ordinance.
The changes include breeder permitting, limits on the number of pets that
can be owned, stricter dangerous dog language, and a ban on tethering.
Breeder Permitting
This proposed ordinance mandates that you spay or neuter your dog unless you
obtain a breeder permit for each intact dog.
Breeder permits will only be issued to owners of dogs of "recognized"
breeds.
The permit will cost $500 per year and will restrict breeding to one litter
per permit per year. Further, breeders are prohibited from
selling puppies until they reach eight (8) weeks of age and have been
immunized. In order to redeem a dog from impoundment, it must
be spayed or neutered or the owner must purchase a breeder permit for that
animal. Breeder licensing fees place an undue burden on
responsible breeders and owners and fail to address irresponsible
individuals who neither comply with existing law nor will comply with
new regulations. Such fees therefore punish responsible breeders who give
the care and attention that puppies need in order to grow into healthy,
well-adjusted companions and neighbors. Responsible local breeders also
provide a support system to new owners; assisting them with
housebreaking, training questions, behavior issues and basic new puppy care
inquiries. Further, mandatory spay/neuter is an ineffective solution
to animal control problems because it fails to address the heart of the
issue?irresponsible ownership. Mandatory spay/neuter laws are extremely
difficult
to enforce and can be evaded by irresponsible animal owners by not
licensing their pets. More regulations increase the workload of already
financially
strained animal control offices, making it even more difficult for them to
perform their duties.
For the rest of the article refer to the AKC web site.
http://www.akc.
Government Relations Department
American Kennel Club
5580 Centerview Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
919-816-3928
919-816-4275 fax
In case you did not have the time to read the actual legislation that Palm
Beach County passed,
here is a small part. Those of us in this area of Florida think there is
a very good chance that
similar laws are coming to your town too. Suzanne Grinnels
Fines for Violation of
Section 29
1st offense $100.00
2nd offense $250.00
3rd and subsequent $500.00
Section 29 of the Palm Beach County Code entitled Interference with 2 Enforcement is renumbered as Section 31. A new Section 29 entitled Hobby Breeder Permits is hereby created as follows:
(a) Hobby breeder permits.
(1) No person shall breed a dog or cat or offer a dog or cat for breeding or stud purposes without first obtaining an appropriate breeding permit issued by the Division. The cost of the permit and other related fees shall be established by the Board by resolution.
(2) Hobby breeders shall:
a. Not breed more than two litters or more than nineteen (19) dogs, cats, puppies, or kittens during a calendar year;
b. Not offer for sale, sell, trade, receive any compensation for or give away more than two litters or more than nineteen (19) dogs, cats, puppies, or kittens during a calendar year;
c. Keep records for the duration of the hobby breeder permit and all permit renewals as to the birth of each litter of puppies or kittens and shall make such records available for review by the Division upon request;
d. Keep records including but not limited to records concerning rabies vaccinations, all other inoculations and any medical condition(s) of each dog, cat, puppy or kitten intended to be sold, given away, or otherwise conveyed;
e. On a quarterly basis, the name, address, and telephone number of the new owner of any dog, cat, puppy or kitten placed in the county shall be provided to the Division. The term quarterly basis shall reflect the calendar quarters ending March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31;
f. Furnish to each new owner of a dog, cat, puppy or kitten the hobby breeder permit number so the new owner has proof and assurance that the animal was legally bred;
g. Not offer a puppy or kitten under the age of eight (8) weeks for sale, trade, other compensation or free giveaway, with the exception of animals taken to an animal shelter;
h. Recommend to each new owner that any animal sold, transferred or given away be examined by a licensed veterinarian within one (1) week of the date of transfer and notify the new owner of state requirements for rabies vaccinations;
i. List the person’s hobby breeder permit number on all advertisements and literature concerning the sale or free giveaway of any dog, cat, puppy or kitten of the hobby breeder;
j. Adhere to minimum standards regarding the care and manner of keeping of animals as provided in Section 24 – ANIMAL CARE; MANNER OF KEEPING; and
k. Allow the Division to inspect the premises wherein an animal that is the subject of a hobby breeder permit is maintained and to view any animal that is the subject of the permit, if the Division has a reasonable basis to believe that a violation of Section 24 – ANIMAL CARE; MANNER OF KEEPING exists. Such inspection will be limited to that necessary to ascertain compliance with Section 24 – ANIMAL CARE; MANNER OF KEEPING. If a hobby breeder refuses to allow the Division to perform an inspection as provided herein, the Division may apply for a warrant pursuant to Chapter 933, Florida Statutes. All reports of such inspections shall be in writing and maintained by the Division.
(3) A hobby breeder permit is valid for a period of one (1) calendar year and must be renewed annually. Renewal applications for permits shall be made within thirty (30) days prior to expiration.
(4) A hobby breeder permit is not transferable, assignable, or refundable.
(5) Each person owning an animal intended to be used for breeding or studding shall obtain a hobby breeder permit prior to using any dog or cat for breeding or stud purposes. A hobby breeder must obtain an unaltered license tag for each unaltered dog or cat covered under the hobby breeder permit.
(b) Obtaining a hobby breeder permit.
(1) A person seeking a hobby breeder permit shall apply to the Division on a form approved by the Division.
(2) The permit application shall include but is not limited to the following information:
a. The name, address and telephone number of the applicant;
b. A statement as to whether the applicant has ever been convicted of the offense of cruelty to animals or had a final judgment entered against the applicant under Section 828.073, Florida Statutes, or any other statute prohibiting animal neglect or mistreatment;
c. A description (species, breed, sex, age, coloration) of each animal under the permit; and
d. A description of the activity for which the permit is requested.
(3) If the applicant withholds or falsifies any information on the application, no permit shall be issued and any permit previously issued based on false or withheld information shall be revoked.
(4) No person previously convicted of cruelty to animals or who has had a final judgment entered against him/her pursuant to Section 828.073, Florida Statutes, shall be issued a hobby breeder permit.
(c) Permit procedures.
(1) The permit applicant shall complete an application, supply all information requested by the Division, and pay the applicable permit fee established by the Board by resolution.
(2) Permit applications shall be valid for thirty (30) days in order for applicants to make corrections to meet minimum compliance specifications.
(d) Violations.
(1) Failure to apply for a permit prior to operating as a hobby breeder shall constitute a violation.
(2) Failure to reapply for a permit within thirty (30) days of expiration of the existing permit shall constitute a violation.
(3) Refusal to allow an animal control officer to inspect an animal or the premises as provided in Section 29(a)(2)k. shall constitute a violation.
(4) It shall be a violation of this Ordinance to counterfeit a hobby breeder permit or official certificate of veterinary inspection or to maliciously destroy a hobby breeder perm
Feel free to cross
post...MARCH 21, 2008!!!!
Dog owners in SC and surrounding states need to
fight this!
The South Carolina legislature almost certainly influenced by animal rights
groups has quietly slipped a new section into the anti tethering bill that
they have been working on for two years. The bill is S833.
The new section is an ANTI CRATING amendment.
The bill will allow animal rights groups and law enforcement to go after any
dog that is caged in any way. Crate, kennel, cage, x pen, tether.
It has the standard stuff about adequate water and sustenance but it is very
broad with a sentence saying anyone who "should know better" can be
punished. This is of course DELIBERATELY non definable ad broad.
The original bill had an exclusion on tethering for hunters. That has been
removed.
This is the current version of the bill as of Thursday. Section 1B was
added Thursday:
http://tinyurl.com/yv63fp
Some of us have experienced ARs coming to dog events and releasing dogs out
of crates. With this bill they can come with measuring tape instead.
MARCH 4, 2008 *** Forward
with permission. Folks,
he Spay/Neuter bill is being heard tomorrow in the Colorado State
Senate Ag Committee. This bill would require any shelter or rescue
to spay/neuter any animal prior to the animal going to it's
prospective new home. While on the surface this may sound to you
like a good thing the bill in my opinion has some unintended
consequences. I'm also concerned that if a bill like this becomes
law it all too easy to change the language to add any animal going
to a prospective new home and that would affect each of us who
participate in rescue or breeding.
Please contact each member of the Senate Ag committee. Member's
names, telephone numbers and emails are listed below. Please be
very sure to be respectful in your email and telephone
communications. At this time it is only necessary to place the
telephone call and tell them that you oppose HB 08-1185 the
Spay/Neuter Bill. You can make this phone call anytime tonight and
leave a message on their voicemail. The same is true for email.
Staff members will tabulate this information and make it available
for the committee members. Remember tact, respectful comments make
the largest impression.
Colorado State
Senate
Agriculture, Natural Resources and Energy Committee
Members
Senator Jim Isgar, Chairman..telephone 303-866-4884, email:
isgarsenate@frontier.net
Senator Gail Schwartz, Vice Chair, 303-866-4871, email:
gail.schwartz.senate@state.co.us
Senator Greg Brophy, 303-866-6360, email:
greg@gregbrophy.net
Senator Dan Gibbs, 303-866-4873, email:
dan.gibbs.senate@state.co.us
Senator Ted Harvey, 303-866-4881, email:
ted.harvey.senate@senate.co.us
Senator Chris Romer, 303-866-4852, email:
chris.romer.senate@senateco.us
Senator Jack Taylor, 303-866-5292, emial:
jack.taylor.senate@senateco.us
Remember, respectfully ask them to oppose HB08-1185. You do not
need to leave a long detailed message as at this stage the aids will
take the comments and put them in a column For or Against.
If you are interested in attending the hearing tomorrow or have any
questions please email and I'll get the info to you asap.
hanks in advance, Cindy Knox
Cinergy Boxers
www.cinergyboxers.com
Some GOOD NEWS for a change!!!!
Judgment handed down in
Louisville, Kentucky!
Animal Control ordinance passed on 12/19/06 & all amended versions passed later
are VOID!
ALL license fees, permit fees, fines & actions taken under this ordinance are
VOID & ILLEGAL!
Those who have suffered citations, fines, or impounded dogs under this ordinance
can sue for
the lost value of the dogs that LMAS forced people to have altered, for lost
animals LMAS
impounded or destroyed & any other actions that were taken under this ordinance
that caused
loss. All fees are to be refunded. A VICTORY IN LOUISVILLE!!!!
http://www.animalfolksmn.org<http://www.animalfolksmn.org/>
for all of the latest
legislative alerts!
From: "Bernadette Quercio"
<articluv@earthlink.net>
To: "Kim Savala" <savalak@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: URGENT CROSSPOST THIS
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:07:59 -0000 ****
Help CDOC End Anti-dog Legislation
A while ago I emailed you a plea for a donation to help the Concerned Dog
Owners of California fight AB 1634 in California and to help us in our battle
with the Los Angeles City Council. You are probably aware that Los Angeles
did pass the Mandatory Spay/Neuter bill. Other cities in California and
in the nation are following the lead that the passing of this bill in this
major city now serves as a model for them to do likewise. Like legislation has
been
introduced in at least 20 other cities and the HSUS (Humane Society of the
United States) is now trying to get a matching piece of federal legislation
introduced.
It is not difficult to see the pattern of a concerted effort from PETA and the
HSUS to end the breeding of dogs. To spay or neuter a dog at 16 weeks of age can
be devastating to their health. Go to:
http://www.cdoca.org/HealthIssues.html
and look at the dozens of articles about the damage, physically, mentally
and behaviorally that occurs when spay and neuter are done too early.
CDOC is in favor of spaying and neutering, but at what age should be a decision
between the owner and their veterinarian. \ Legislation that is so
detrimental to our dogs needs to be stopped. Such legislation also raises
constitutional
issues on the rights of individuals in respect to ownership. It seems that
the only way to stop this is through a lawsuit that will stop this legislation
on a state
and national level. It is on the serious constitutional issues that CDOC
hopes to base a lawsuit. CDOC have recently spoken to attorneys who have advised
us that we have good grounds for filing a lawsuit. We have hired the law
firm of Roberti, Jensen whose firm specialize in clients with issues before the
California state government, California state departments and California state
agencies in Los Angeles and Sacramento. David Roberti is intimately familiar
and knowledgeable with government and regulatory matters. His 28 years of
service in the legislature and 13 years of service as President Pro Tem of the
California State Senate provide superior understanding of the nature and
process of governmental actions. He is well known as one of California's most
prominent
legislators. John Jensen has extensive experience in drafting and negotiating
contracts, assisting businesses with government regulation and compliance
and advising upon all aspects of business affairs. He has drafted and
negotiated complex three party agreements in regulatory contexts, successfully
argued
administrative actions at the state level and negotiated various beneficial
financial settlements. Los Angeles is the battleground for the State and for the
Country!
If we can stop this here, our victory will become the law for California
and the issue of mandatory spay/neuter will be dead! If we win on
constitutional issues,
the law will apply across the country.
Countrywide,
we need your help! We need to raise $100,000.00 in a matter of weeks.
Please send your contribution to: CDOC
Action at 22647 Ventura Blvd., #108, Woodland Hills, CA 91364.
You can also donate on line at:
www.cdocaction.org.
If your check is for $500.00 or more,
please make it out directly to Roberti Jensen and send it to the same address.
If your check is for a smaller amount (all donations are gratefully
accepted - give what you can, but give!)
make your check out to CDOC Action and we will write a combined check to the law
firm. CDOC Action is a 501c4 and contributions are not tax deductible.
Where ever you live in
the country, our success or failure will have a direct bearing on what happens
in your community. Please make a generous
contribution as quickly as you can. Don't let a law that will damage the
health of dogs stand as the law of the land! I cannot emphasize how important
this
is. I am asking all of you to do as I have done. Please modify and
forward this letter to everyone you know who loves dogs and ask them to make a
contribution
as well. We are not PETA or the HSUS; we don't have millions to spend in
fundraising. We and the dogs are counting on you. Thank you! Carol Esterkin
Vice President, Concerned Dog Owners of California
President, Los Encinos Kennel Club
Secretary, Western Sighthound Combined Specialties
URGENT - CALIFORNIA RESPONSIBLE
"Preserving our PET OWNER'S Constitutional
Rights" COALITION ** February 2008
Dear Pet Owner:
We're at war! It's a war we didn't want, but the City of Los Angeles has
declared war on us, on our right to own and care for our pets, and our
right to responsibly breed them and make appropriate healthcare
decisions for them without intrusive government intervention.
On February 12, 2008, the City of Los Angeles passed a compulsory
sterilization ordinance. We must not let the Humane Society of the
United States (HSUS), animal rights lobbyist Judie Mancuso, termed-out
Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (author of the awful AB 1634), LA Animal
Services' Director Ed Boks, and other animal rights extremists go
unchallenged in the second largest city in the United States. If we fail
to stop this terrible law here, it could spread to every city and county
in this country!
This law will do nothing to curb "pet overpopulation" or encourage
responsible pet ownership. It will do nothing to reduce stray dogs or
feral cats. It will squander millions of taxpayer dollars to wage war
against already responsible pet owners. It will adversely affect anyone
who owns a dog or cat; enters a dog or cat in any show or performance
event; or wants to responsibly breed a dog or cat in Los Angeles.
The good news is that we can challenge this law's constitutionality.
Pet owners in Louisville, Kentucky are facing a similar law and are in
federal court contesting that city's ability to interfere with the
rights of responsible pet owners. A coalition of Louisville kennel clubs
and responsible pet-owner groups is funding a lawsuit, which has a good
chance of having that city's ordinance declared unconstitutional.
Fighting the good fight doesn't come cheap; it has cost that coalition more than
$100,000.
To mount that kind of battle here, against animal
rights extremists and the politicians who enable them, will cost us at
least that amount of money and probably considerably more.
CaRPOC (California Responsible Pet Owners' Coalition) is your family,
friends, and neighbors. We
are the same group of outraged dog and cat
owners who fought AB1634 last year. BUT THE FIGHT AGAINST THIS ORDINANCE
IN LOS ANGELES IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE FIGHT AGAINST AB 1634.
Compulsory sterilization ordinances are a lethal epidemic that could do
what the extremists who wrote AB 1634 want most --destroy the rights of
responsible owners and breeders of dogs and cats everywhere. To wage
this fight, we need your support NOW!
We are fortunate to have been able to engage the international law firm
of Greenberg Traurig, LLP to represent us. Since its founding in 1982,
the Sacramento office of Greenberg Traurig has had more than 25 years
experience influencing government. During that time they have
represented pharmaceutical companies, consumer product manufacturers and
other for profit and nonprofit entities in connection with animal
legislation and regulation. Their experience goes far beyond animal
issues, including more than 25 years of holding government accountable.
They have successfully invalidated both statutes and regulations when
government has overreached its authority or otherwise infringed on
legally protected rights.
This battle isn't about purebreds or pedigrees, or even just about Los
Angeles --it's a battle for ALL of our pets EVERYWHERE - cats and dogs,
working, performance, show, service, therapy, law enforcement, couch
potatoes, mixed breeds, purebreds and pedigrees.
To mount this challenge, good wishes, reasoned arguments and outraged
letters aren't enough. We need money to battle this entrenched and
well-funded enemy, which is intent on destroying the rights of
responsible pet owners nationwide. We need to raise a minimum of $25,000
within the next 10 days to begin this fight. CaRPOC has asked Jack
Bradshaw, whose family has been superintending dog shows for well over a
century in California and the Southwest, to oversee the funds collected,
lending our efforts an unexcelled reputation for fairness and integrity.
Here's what you need to do immediately: Write a check made payable to: CaRPOC
Mail that check today to: CaRPOC
11301 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite #121-596
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Forward this letter to friends and fellow pet-lovers ASAP and ask them to
donate.
Make copies and distribute this call to action at events, gatherings,
club meetings and in front of your local market. This affects every pet owner in
Los Angeles.
On behalf of the pets that we love and the future of pet-ownership in LA
and beyond, thank you in advance for joining with us and for your support now
and in the future.
For more information, visit:
www.carpoc.org
email CaRPOC
Subject: This is now happening in Palm Beach - ads for Volunteer Informants - SNITCHES!
Subject: [afghanbreeders] [wethepeoplepets] Report YOUR neighbor! Palm Beach
Volunteer Pet Patrol
Subject: [wethepeoplepets] Palm Beach Volunteer Pet Patrol
Palm Beach Animal Control Citizens Animal Patrol
Application is on-line http://www.pbcgov.com/publicsafety/animalcare/
Here's an article
http://www.bocaratonnews.com/news/local/048-palm-beach-pet-sterilization.php
about their MSN and the ""Citizens Animal Patrol" volunteer program for
public education."
Palm Beach county is now hiring deputized volunteers. They call the
volunteer corp, Citizens Pet Patrol. These volunteers will act as puppy
buyers, call on ads, call clubs for referrals, roam the neighborhoods, and
yes, even dog shows. If they find anything they "THINK" might be wrong or
against their agenda, they will run to get a warrant to enter your home. The
hobby breeders who have a permit from the county have already given implied
consent to these people to enter their homes by signing the permit.
Here is some language directly off the volunteer application:
*You must have a car and be able to volunteer 4 hours a day two days a week.
*Responsibilities involve setting up educational booths at pet supply
stores, special events in the county (dog shows, perhaps?) and schools.
Additional roles include patrolling known problem areas for non-compliant
issues and report findings to AC.
measure passed the Virginia House on 2/12/2008. It will clear our Senate within days. HSUS is about to gain in Virginia what it couldn't
in years of Washington lobbying the Santorum Pet Animal Welfare Statute - AKA PAWS. VAPAWS (HB538) requires hobby dog breeder
licensing and inspection for anyone selling puppies at retail as well as wholesale, if they're over a certain size. Virginia has an early, very
short and frenetic legislative session. Its 2008 agenda included over 30 animal rightist supported bills. HB538 was HSUS's top priority.
coordinated local semi-pro anti activists. HB538 duplicates and supplants the federal licensing system that registers and inspects all large
dog breeders and investigates any dog breeder with four (4) or more females about whom a tip or a legitimate complaint has been received.
USDA-APHIS has 5700+ Class A breeders that it monitors and inspects at least once per year, including 14 in Virginia. The federal government
did10,000 inspections last year, checking compliance with 60 pages of detailed dog care standards.
press. Horton's Dogs in Carroll County, Virginia, the HSUS "Virginia is for Puppy Mills" cause célèbre, was well known to local authorities and the
animal control officer (ACO) for years. He had a business license, a 500 dog kennel permit, five employees, bought dog food by the ton and
advertised puppies in newspapers and on the Internet. He sold both retail and to pet stores and should have been federally licensed and inspected
by law, but wasn't. On that there's no dispute. That situation was a local political problem, not a federal law or enforcement shortfall. Someone
could have brought Horton to the USDA's attention at any time. Three months after the well-publicized HSUS November "raid," there still hasn't
been a complaint lodged with USDA, nor has the local ACO returned to that facility, which continues to sell puppies. Horton remains in business
and still meets the USDA definition of a licensed "dealer." The fourteen USDA licensed and inspected VA dog breeders are listed on the
USDA-APHIS website. This isn't some mysterious, unknown or unaccountable animal welfare service, just one the State Veterinarian's Office
and ACOs need to learn about, rather than being asked to supplant, or duplicate the federal program at great cost to local taxpayers and risk to
responsible dog owners.
HB538 requires local
county ACOs to review pet store records and to enforce both new state
dog kennel inspection standards and those of USDA-APHIS.
This is totally absurd, as the bill has internal self-contradictions,
as well as numerous conflicts with federal animal care regulations.
Further,
the new inspection system will cost $ millions to implement, none of
which has been budgeted. The counties and cities have been saddled with
another
unfunded mandate from Richmond. The bill's precise details may be found
at
http://vhdoa.uplandbirddog.com/stater.html Suffice it to say that
Virginia's
new "commercial" breeder definition includes many hunt clubs, those
with co-owned dogs and other responsible breeders that aren't "puppy
mills."
One of my
disappointments while lobbying against this bill over the last three
weeks was the refusal of top USDA-APHIS management to take position
on HB538. Even more discouraging, a few dog owner groups supported
HB538, to the point they joined the animal rightist speaking panels and
heavily
lobbied members one on one. Included among these individuals were the
fired professional lobbyist of the AKC Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs
and
Breeders (VFDCB) and another Richmond lobbyist representing a MFH hunt
club. The Legislative Chairman of the Virginia Veterinary Medical
Association
also supported this anti-dog breeding measure. Unfortunately, the
American Kennel Club's HB538 opposition letter arrived too late to be
useful.
Despite all of this
opposition, it's usually easier to stop a bill than it is to pass one.
That didn't happen in Virginia, for the second significant time in
three years. We lost the crucial committee vote (9-Y 8-N). The Old
Dominion dog groups opposed to HB538 failed to cooperate with each
other,
coordinate their efforts, or compensate for the adverse actions of
VFDCB's dismissed lobbyist. Our lobbying effort was very frankly
embarrassing.
The lessons learned during our 2005 PAWS opposition fight were
forgotten. HSUS announced last year that it was taking its PAWS
anti-breeder effort
to the states and that Virginia was its first target. Please learn from
our mistakes and prepare to better defend your sport and your
dogs.Freely
forward and cross post. Sincerely, Bob
Kane, President, Virginia Hunting Dog Owners' Association, Chairman
Emeritus, Sportsmen and
Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
http://vhdoa.uplandbirddog.com
http://saova.org
