Thank You Vice-President Elect Joseph Biden for choosing a purebred puppy from a BREEDER!
AP Malia and Sasha Obama apparently aren’t the only ones who were promised a puppy if they stuck it out through the presidential election.
Vice President-elect Joe Biden picked out a German shepherd pup last weekend from a breeder near his Delaware home, according to a local newspaper report.
Biden was reportedly promised the post-election dog by his wife, Jill, who would tape pictures of different dogs on the back of the seat in front of Biden on his campaign plane.
The vice president-elect picked out a month-old male German shepherd from a breeder in Chester County, Pa., according to the Daily Local News. The breeder told the paper Biden wanted a family dog that was social and obedient and said Biden's granddaughters will name him.
The puppy will be delivered to the Bidens at the vice presidential residence after the Inauguration and after the breeder trains him, the paper reports.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Unintended Consequences
When laws are enacted based on emotion, and not on necessity, there are often unintended consequences. If you are a proponent of the new dog law, was it your intention that hobby breeders "put down" older dogs just to keep the numbers down? I think not. I think it was your intent that breeder would stop having young dogs. Well, one unintended consequence may just be fewer older dogs.
Here is a question that was posed on a list the other day from a hobby breeder in PA. "Where does that leave us who have Hobby Kennels who are not commercial.... . We breed for show. What should we do with our older dogs who add to the numbers but have lived here for 10 to 15 years? They are neutered, should we put them down to reduce our numbers? They have a right to live out their lives the way they were used to living."
No matter what your good intention (you person who insisted that Numbers of dogs are the manner for which Kennels should be defined)- all actions come with consequences. For one, the consequence of feeling pressure to keep the number of dogs within some arbitrary number (determined not by the person is is actually caring for the dogs, but by someone else who is judging that person by the number of dogs they have) is fewer older dogs.
Here is a question that was posed on a list the other day from a hobby breeder in PA. "Where does that leave us who have Hobby Kennels who are not commercial.... . We breed for show. What should we do with our older dogs who add to the numbers but have lived here for 10 to 15 years? They are neutered, should we put them down to reduce our numbers? They have a right to live out their lives the way they were used to living."
No matter what your good intention (you person who insisted that Numbers of dogs are the manner for which Kennels should be defined)- all actions come with consequences. For one, the consequence of feeling pressure to keep the number of dogs within some arbitrary number (determined not by the person is is actually caring for the dogs, but by someone else who is judging that person by the number of dogs they have) is fewer older dogs.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Good Pet colum gets bad comments from a Law Maker
This good article was pulished in the Pittsburg Post-Gazette
Pet Tales: Shelter dog or purebred puppy? Either can be a responsible choice
Thursday, November 13, 2008
By Linda Wilson Fuoco, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A puppy is coming to the White House! Official confirmation of this came on election night and during the president-elect's first press conference Friday.
"Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us to the White House," president-elect Barack Obama said during his victory speech in Chicago.
Those little girls beamed and smiled as they appeared with their parents on that historic night. I'm guessing that at their age (Malia is 10 and Sasha is 7), the puppy is the best part of the election victory.
Won't it be wonderful to have young children in the White House again? Amy Carter lived part of her childhood there, but we didn't see too much of her.
It's been decades since the Kennedy era brought two young children and a menagerie of pets to the presidential residence, including a pony named Macaroni and a Welsh terrier named Charlie.
Now thousands of individuals and dozens of organizations are weighing in on what kind of canine the Obama family should choose, and where they should obtain the soon-to-be-high-profile puppy.
Animals rights and animal welfare groups are lobbying for adoption from a shelter or a rescue organization that finds new homes for dogs whose owners are unable or unwilling to continue caring for them. Those groups include People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Humane Society of the United States, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Best Friends Animal Society.
Those organizations and animal shelters across the country generally urge people to give a second chance, and a new home, to adult dogs that may otherwise be euthanized.
Puppies are a relatively rare and precious commodity in the shelter and rescue world. There is often a waiting list for puppies, especially purebred puppies. But when your daddy's the president, you can probably move to the top of the adoption list.
The soon-to-be first family has expressed an interest in a purebred pup because one of the girls has allergies. Some breeds, including poodles and some of the terrier breeds, have hair, rather than fur, that is less likely to cause an allergic reaction.
The bottom line is this: The Obama family, like all pet-seeking families, needs to find the pet that will fit their lifestyle, needs and desires. It sounds like they have been doing some research and giving this a lot of thought. When they pick their puppy and bring it into their new home, I hope everyone respects their decision and is happy for Malia and Sasha.
We all have the right to choose the pet we want. And those who have their heart set on a puppy should not be condemned for getting one, even if the puppy comes from a "responsible" breeder.
PETA and other animal rights groups say there is no such thing as a responsible breeder. They say that when someone buys a puppy from a breeder, a shelter dog is euthanized. That's not necessarily true because some people don't want to adopt from a shelter, for whatever reason.
Some animal rights groups and individuals say that all breeding should stop. If they get their way, there would be no more dogs or cats in 15 or 20 years.
What is a responsible dog breeder? Here's my opinion and definition. Their dogs and puppies live in their house, where they are well-socialized and much-loved. Only the best, the brightest and the healthiest dogs are used for breeding. While there's no guarantee that all puppies will live long and healthy lives, many genetic tests can be administered to the adults used for breeding. Dogs that "flunk" should not be bred because they will pass on genetic conditions, including hip and knee problems, to their puppies.
The best breeders don't allow a litter to be conceived until prospective buyers are lined up. Responsible breeders don't make a profit on their puppies because the genetic testing and veterinary care for the breeding dogs and puppies will exceed the price charged for the puppies.
Here's the bottom line: If you take a puppy or dog into your home and care for it until the day it dies, you're part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Linda Wilson Fuoco can be reached at lfuoco@post-gazette.com or 412-263-3064.
First published on November 13, 2008 at 12:00 am
Washington Letters to the Editor
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Lawmaker disagrees with pet columnist
In her Nov. 16 Pet Tales column ("Shelter dog or purebred puppy? Either can be a responsible choice"), Linda Wilson Fuoco missed a great opportunity to reinforce the importance of adopting pets from shelters as opposed to purchasing them from pet stores or breeders. Instead, she used the column to chide those who are encouraging the president-elect's family to adopt their new dog, arguing that either choice is responsible as long as the dog is well cared for. She is wrong.
Ninety-five percent of puppies sold in pet stores come from large-scale breeding operations. These mass breeders produce puppies for profit with little regard for demand, health or any other factor. The notion that ending these mass-breeding operations would lead to the disappearance of dogs and cats within 15 or 20 years is nonsense. The fact is the dog-breeding industry has led to a huge overpopulation of dogs in this country, and many of these dogs eventually end up abused, abandoned or in shelters. People who purchase from pet stores -- even with the best intentions -- support this breeding industry and, therefore, are part of the problem.
Besides saving a dog's life -- nationally, about half the animals in shelters are euthanized because a home cannot be found for them -- adopting a pet from a shelter is the more responsible choice for a number of reasons. Animal shelters evaluate each dog for health, temperament, behavior and other issues and will work with a family to help determine what type, breed and age of dog is right for them. Many shelters also provide adoption counseling and follow-up services, such as training classes and medical assistance. You won't find that at a pet store.
Shelter adoption fees are usually a lot less than the price tag at a pet store, and pets adopted from shelters are much more likely to be vaccinated, de-wormed and spayed or neutered. Finally, plenty of purebred dogs are available for adoption. On average, 25 percent to 35 percent of dogs in shelters are purebreds, so the Obamas and other families should have no problem finding the puppy they desire through adoption.
JAMES E. CASORIO JR.
Editor's note: The writer is a state representative for the 56th District in Westmoreland County and the prime sponsor of House Bill 2525, which placed more stringent regulations on dog kennels and commercial breeders.
Dear James E. Casorio Jr.
Your comments clearly belie your alliance to the very Animal Rights groups which Ms. Fuoco talks about when she stated, “PETA and other animal rights groups say there is no such thing as a responsible breeder.” Further, your use of the traditional sound-bites that these organizations expound also demonstrates that you feel that not everyone should have a choice in where they get the next family pet.
I am sorry sir, but it is you who is missing the point and it is you who is wrong. First of all, Ms. Fuoco never mentioned Pet Stores as a viable place to purchase a pet. She was very clear that if purchasing a pure-bred dog, it should come from a “responsible breeder”. In your published comments, discussion of “mass breeders” and pet stores- changes the point of her article. You have removed the responsible breeder from the equation and instead only discuss Pet Stores as places to purchase purebred dogs. Again, it reinforces Ms. Fuoco’s statement that animal rights members/organizations say there is no such thing as a “responsible” breeder.
Mr. Casorio, please re-read the article Ms. Fuoco wrote, and pay particular attention to what she says about “responsible breeders”. They do exist, and they are not part of the problem. Mr. Casorio, the problem is abandonment, not overpopulation.
Pet Tales: Shelter dog or purebred puppy? Either can be a responsible choice
Thursday, November 13, 2008
By Linda Wilson Fuoco, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A puppy is coming to the White House! Official confirmation of this came on election night and during the president-elect's first press conference Friday.
"Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us to the White House," president-elect Barack Obama said during his victory speech in Chicago.
Those little girls beamed and smiled as they appeared with their parents on that historic night. I'm guessing that at their age (Malia is 10 and Sasha is 7), the puppy is the best part of the election victory.
Won't it be wonderful to have young children in the White House again? Amy Carter lived part of her childhood there, but we didn't see too much of her.
It's been decades since the Kennedy era brought two young children and a menagerie of pets to the presidential residence, including a pony named Macaroni and a Welsh terrier named Charlie.
Now thousands of individuals and dozens of organizations are weighing in on what kind of canine the Obama family should choose, and where they should obtain the soon-to-be-high-profile puppy.
Animals rights and animal welfare groups are lobbying for adoption from a shelter or a rescue organization that finds new homes for dogs whose owners are unable or unwilling to continue caring for them. Those groups include People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Humane Society of the United States, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Best Friends Animal Society.
Those organizations and animal shelters across the country generally urge people to give a second chance, and a new home, to adult dogs that may otherwise be euthanized.
Puppies are a relatively rare and precious commodity in the shelter and rescue world. There is often a waiting list for puppies, especially purebred puppies. But when your daddy's the president, you can probably move to the top of the adoption list.
The soon-to-be first family has expressed an interest in a purebred pup because one of the girls has allergies. Some breeds, including poodles and some of the terrier breeds, have hair, rather than fur, that is less likely to cause an allergic reaction.
The bottom line is this: The Obama family, like all pet-seeking families, needs to find the pet that will fit their lifestyle, needs and desires. It sounds like they have been doing some research and giving this a lot of thought. When they pick their puppy and bring it into their new home, I hope everyone respects their decision and is happy for Malia and Sasha.
We all have the right to choose the pet we want. And those who have their heart set on a puppy should not be condemned for getting one, even if the puppy comes from a "responsible" breeder.
PETA and other animal rights groups say there is no such thing as a responsible breeder. They say that when someone buys a puppy from a breeder, a shelter dog is euthanized. That's not necessarily true because some people don't want to adopt from a shelter, for whatever reason.
Some animal rights groups and individuals say that all breeding should stop. If they get their way, there would be no more dogs or cats in 15 or 20 years.
What is a responsible dog breeder? Here's my opinion and definition. Their dogs and puppies live in their house, where they are well-socialized and much-loved. Only the best, the brightest and the healthiest dogs are used for breeding. While there's no guarantee that all puppies will live long and healthy lives, many genetic tests can be administered to the adults used for breeding. Dogs that "flunk" should not be bred because they will pass on genetic conditions, including hip and knee problems, to their puppies.
The best breeders don't allow a litter to be conceived until prospective buyers are lined up. Responsible breeders don't make a profit on their puppies because the genetic testing and veterinary care for the breeding dogs and puppies will exceed the price charged for the puppies.
Here's the bottom line: If you take a puppy or dog into your home and care for it until the day it dies, you're part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Linda Wilson Fuoco can be reached at lfuoco@post-gazette.com or 412-263-3064.
First published on November 13, 2008 at 12:00 am
Washington Letters to the Editor
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Lawmaker disagrees with pet columnist
In her Nov. 16 Pet Tales column ("Shelter dog or purebred puppy? Either can be a responsible choice"), Linda Wilson Fuoco missed a great opportunity to reinforce the importance of adopting pets from shelters as opposed to purchasing them from pet stores or breeders. Instead, she used the column to chide those who are encouraging the president-elect's family to adopt their new dog, arguing that either choice is responsible as long as the dog is well cared for. She is wrong.
Ninety-five percent of puppies sold in pet stores come from large-scale breeding operations. These mass breeders produce puppies for profit with little regard for demand, health or any other factor. The notion that ending these mass-breeding operations would lead to the disappearance of dogs and cats within 15 or 20 years is nonsense. The fact is the dog-breeding industry has led to a huge overpopulation of dogs in this country, and many of these dogs eventually end up abused, abandoned or in shelters. People who purchase from pet stores -- even with the best intentions -- support this breeding industry and, therefore, are part of the problem.
Besides saving a dog's life -- nationally, about half the animals in shelters are euthanized because a home cannot be found for them -- adopting a pet from a shelter is the more responsible choice for a number of reasons. Animal shelters evaluate each dog for health, temperament, behavior and other issues and will work with a family to help determine what type, breed and age of dog is right for them. Many shelters also provide adoption counseling and follow-up services, such as training classes and medical assistance. You won't find that at a pet store.
Shelter adoption fees are usually a lot less than the price tag at a pet store, and pets adopted from shelters are much more likely to be vaccinated, de-wormed and spayed or neutered. Finally, plenty of purebred dogs are available for adoption. On average, 25 percent to 35 percent of dogs in shelters are purebreds, so the Obamas and other families should have no problem finding the puppy they desire through adoption.
JAMES E. CASORIO JR.
Editor's note: The writer is a state representative for the 56th District in Westmoreland County and the prime sponsor of House Bill 2525, which placed more stringent regulations on dog kennels and commercial breeders.
Dear James E. Casorio Jr.
Your comments clearly belie your alliance to the very Animal Rights groups which Ms. Fuoco talks about when she stated, “PETA and other animal rights groups say there is no such thing as a responsible breeder.” Further, your use of the traditional sound-bites that these organizations expound also demonstrates that you feel that not everyone should have a choice in where they get the next family pet.
I am sorry sir, but it is you who is missing the point and it is you who is wrong. First of all, Ms. Fuoco never mentioned Pet Stores as a viable place to purchase a pet. She was very clear that if purchasing a pure-bred dog, it should come from a “responsible breeder”. In your published comments, discussion of “mass breeders” and pet stores- changes the point of her article. You have removed the responsible breeder from the equation and instead only discuss Pet Stores as places to purchase purebred dogs. Again, it reinforces Ms. Fuoco’s statement that animal rights members/organizations say there is no such thing as a “responsible” breeder.
Mr. Casorio, please re-read the article Ms. Fuoco wrote, and pay particular attention to what she says about “responsible breeders”. They do exist, and they are not part of the problem. Mr. Casorio, the problem is abandonment, not overpopulation.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Abandonment is not just a dog and cat issue
By Cadie Pruss, Humanitarian and animal lover
See how people are! When the behaviors become intolerable, just give the beast to a shelter (or the Hospital). No, I am not talking about dogs- I am talking about CHILDREN.
THANK YOU NEBRASKA. You have clearly demonstrated that if it is made legal, people will even give up THEIR OWN KIDS. On July 18, 2008 legislation was passed in the State of Nebraska (Bill 158) "For an Act relating to children; to prohibit prosecution for leaving a child at the hospital; .....
Section 1. No person shall be prosecuted for any crime based solely upon the act of leaving a child in the custody of an employee on duty at a hospital licensed by the State of Nebraska. The hospital shall promptly contact appropriate authorities to take custody of the child." Well there you have it.
Nebraska Lawmakers had NO IDEA that people would ABANDON "children"- they were thinking BABIES! "Safe Haven" laws have been enacted in 47 states and Puerto Rico. The focus is on Newborns, but poor Nebraska- their well-intentioned lawmakers didn't want to appear to be protecting 2 day old babies, but not 3 day old babies, so they made their law a little vaguer than other States.
From July 24 (when the law was enacted) to October 31, 24 children- NONE of them Newborns- were abandoned in Nebraska hospitals. Parents from three other states have traveled great distances to abandon their children without prosecution. One of those abandon children was 17 YEARS old!! Don't worry- it will soon be illegal in Nebraska too. Lawmakers will be meeting November 14 to revise the law and set an age limit (tired of your children?, moving?, can't pay for college?- better abandon them quickly- time is running out!)
Answer quick now: Wayne Parcel is to shelter dogs as ______________ is to children in the welfare program?
Don't know? Yeah- me either.
Seriously- MILLIONS of dollars are donated to support HSUS. THOUSANDS of people give small amounts of money at a time to "help homeless dogs and cats". What are those same people doing for unwanted children? I am not talking about the $5 you gave to "feed the starving child in Africa"- I am talking about the children right here in our country who are doomed to poverty, jail, drugs, crime, and other social problems because they were not wanted or cared for.
You want to make a difference for People AND animals- lets talk about RESPONSIBILITY! Abandonment is NOT responsible. We don't talk about "having babies" as irresponsible (unless you are an Animal Rights activist talking about people who breed animals). The act of bringing new life is not what is irresponsible. The act of no longer caring for that life is what is irresponsible. Abandonment of all kinds is Irresponsible- animals or people. That is the TRUE and ONLY issue.
Caring for people makes for a "Humane Society".
Sources:
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/safehaven.cfm
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/triage/2008/09/father-leaves-n.html
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2008/10/31/abandon.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/22/nebrasks-safe-haven-law-a_n_120757.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2203780/entry/0/
See how people are! When the behaviors become intolerable, just give the beast to a shelter (or the Hospital). No, I am not talking about dogs- I am talking about CHILDREN.
THANK YOU NEBRASKA. You have clearly demonstrated that if it is made legal, people will even give up THEIR OWN KIDS. On July 18, 2008 legislation was passed in the State of Nebraska (Bill 158) "For an Act relating to children; to prohibit prosecution for leaving a child at the hospital; .....
Section 1. No person shall be prosecuted for any crime based solely upon the act of leaving a child in the custody of an employee on duty at a hospital licensed by the State of Nebraska. The hospital shall promptly contact appropriate authorities to take custody of the child." Well there you have it.
Nebraska Lawmakers had NO IDEA that people would ABANDON "children"- they were thinking BABIES! "Safe Haven" laws have been enacted in 47 states and Puerto Rico. The focus is on Newborns, but poor Nebraska- their well-intentioned lawmakers didn't want to appear to be protecting 2 day old babies, but not 3 day old babies, so they made their law a little vaguer than other States.
From July 24 (when the law was enacted) to October 31, 24 children- NONE of them Newborns- were abandoned in Nebraska hospitals. Parents from three other states have traveled great distances to abandon their children without prosecution. One of those abandon children was 17 YEARS old!! Don't worry- it will soon be illegal in Nebraska too. Lawmakers will be meeting November 14 to revise the law and set an age limit (tired of your children?, moving?, can't pay for college?- better abandon them quickly- time is running out!)
Answer quick now: Wayne Parcel is to shelter dogs as ______________ is to children in the welfare program?
Don't know? Yeah- me either.
Seriously- MILLIONS of dollars are donated to support HSUS. THOUSANDS of people give small amounts of money at a time to "help homeless dogs and cats". What are those same people doing for unwanted children? I am not talking about the $5 you gave to "feed the starving child in Africa"- I am talking about the children right here in our country who are doomed to poverty, jail, drugs, crime, and other social problems because they were not wanted or cared for.
You want to make a difference for People AND animals- lets talk about RESPONSIBILITY! Abandonment is NOT responsible. We don't talk about "having babies" as irresponsible (unless you are an Animal Rights activist talking about people who breed animals). The act of bringing new life is not what is irresponsible. The act of no longer caring for that life is what is irresponsible. Abandonment of all kinds is Irresponsible- animals or people. That is the TRUE and ONLY issue.
Caring for people makes for a "Humane Society".
Sources:
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/safehaven.cfm
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/triage/2008/09/father-leaves-n.html
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2008/10/31/abandon.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/22/nebrasks-safe-haven-law-a_n_120757.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2203780/entry/0/
Pet Friendly Ordinance
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/PetFriendlyGuide.pdf
This is a link to a 26 page guide to constructing successful "Pet Friendly ordinances".
It is well done and much needed. If you find your local community thinking about changing any of the local pet ordinances- then you need to print this out and go meet with your local folks.
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/NAIAModeDoglLaw.pdf
This is a link to a Model Animal Control Law. If your state is thinking about revising the dog laws, print this out and make a personal visit to your local Congressmen to discuss this Model Law.
These are some useful tools. GOOD LUCK
This is a link to a 26 page guide to constructing successful "Pet Friendly ordinances".
It is well done and much needed. If you find your local community thinking about changing any of the local pet ordinances- then you need to print this out and go meet with your local folks.
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/NAIAModeDoglLaw.pdf
This is a link to a Model Animal Control Law. If your state is thinking about revising the dog laws, print this out and make a personal visit to your local Congressmen to discuss this Model Law.
These are some useful tools. GOOD LUCK
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Great Idea- Be Proactive!
http://www.ncraoa.com/OliverBook.html
Be proactive. Send a book and letter with one click and a small ($10) donation.
Daniel Oliver’s book, “Animal Rights: The Inhumane Crusade” is a definitive expose of the animal rights movement, leaders, and the organizations that will stop at nothing to eliminate the human use of animals for clothing, food, entertainment, and research. Daniel Oliver is a research associate at the prestigious Capital Research Center in Washington, D.C. where he edits the monthly newsletter Alternatives in Philanthropy.
NCRAOA will mail the book to the legislator of your choice and include a standard cover letter with your name.
Fill in your legislator's name in the space below and proceed thru PayPal to make payment. Credit card options available.
Be proactive. Send a book and letter with one click and a small ($10) donation.
Daniel Oliver’s book, “Animal Rights: The Inhumane Crusade” is a definitive expose of the animal rights movement, leaders, and the organizations that will stop at nothing to eliminate the human use of animals for clothing, food, entertainment, and research. Daniel Oliver is a research associate at the prestigious Capital Research Center in Washington, D.C. where he edits the monthly newsletter Alternatives in Philanthropy.
NCRAOA will mail the book to the legislator of your choice and include a standard cover letter with your name.
Fill in your legislator's name in the space below and proceed thru PayPal to make payment. Credit card options available.
Do your REALLY want to help animals? Support NAIA
The NAIA Trust is a nonprofit 501 (c) 4 organization established under the Internal Revenue Code to promote responsible animal care and ownership and reasonable laws, policies and regulations to protect animals and the people who care for them.
NAIA Trust provides information about animals and animal husbandry, animals in education and entertainment, scientific advances in animal and human medicine, wildlife management, hunting and fishing and pet ownership. It also sounds the alarm about threats to animals and to the human-animal bond caused by people who mistreat animals and by animal rights and environmental zealots. NAIA Trust counters the effects and misinformation of radicals in the animal rights and environmental movements through education, legislation and the courts.
The Trust also advances the well-being of animals and the rights of responsible animal owners by promoting reasonable animal control laws that target irresponsible owners while protecting humane practices by
helping animal owners defeat existing or pending laws that unjustly restrict or ban breeds and species, unfairly limit the number of animals an owner can keep, limit the responsible breeding of pets, place exorbitant fees on maintaining intact dogs and cats, codify pet guardianship as an alternative to ownership, or place restrictions on ownership that are impossible to meet
urging passage of strong laws that target vandalism, harassment, arson, bombing, and other types of domestic terrorism committed in the name of animal rights and environmentalism
The NAIA Trust needs your support to fulfill its mission on behalf of animals, animal owners, and professionals. Please browse our position statements, and, if you like what you see, join now. For more information, contact patti@naiatrust.org.
NAIA Trust provides information about animals and animal husbandry, animals in education and entertainment, scientific advances in animal and human medicine, wildlife management, hunting and fishing and pet ownership. It also sounds the alarm about threats to animals and to the human-animal bond caused by people who mistreat animals and by animal rights and environmental zealots. NAIA Trust counters the effects and misinformation of radicals in the animal rights and environmental movements through education, legislation and the courts.
The Trust also advances the well-being of animals and the rights of responsible animal owners by promoting reasonable animal control laws that target irresponsible owners while protecting humane practices by
helping animal owners defeat existing or pending laws that unjustly restrict or ban breeds and species, unfairly limit the number of animals an owner can keep, limit the responsible breeding of pets, place exorbitant fees on maintaining intact dogs and cats, codify pet guardianship as an alternative to ownership, or place restrictions on ownership that are impossible to meet
urging passage of strong laws that target vandalism, harassment, arson, bombing, and other types of domestic terrorism committed in the name of animal rights and environmentalism
The NAIA Trust needs your support to fulfill its mission on behalf of animals, animal owners, and professionals. Please browse our position statements, and, if you like what you see, join now. For more information, contact patti@naiatrust.org.
CA: Proposition 2- Even the Vets think it's a bad idea
PRESS RELEASE
Back
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Tom McPheron
Phone: 847-285-6781
Cell: 773-494-5419
e-mail: tmcpheron@avma.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 26, 2008
AVMA issues statement on California Proposition 2
SCHAUMBURG, Ill.
— The largest and most respected veterinary association in the United States is cautioning that the California ballot initiative, Proposition 2, while admirable in its attempt to address the behavioral needs of animals, contains livestock confinement standards that may hurt the animals they are intended to help.
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) issued a statement (PDF) today, which, in part, reads: "The AVMA believes Proposition 2, 'Standards for Confining Farm Animals,' is admirable in its goal to improve the welfare of production farm animals; however, it ignores critical aspects of animal welfare that ultimately would threaten the well-being of the very animals it strives to protect."
"Proposition 2 may have negative impacts on animals, consumers and the industry if it's passed," explains Dr. David McCrystle, AVMA Executive Board chair. "We fully agree that more attention needs to be paid to the behavioral and social needs of food animals, and Proposition 2 is laudable in that it attempts to address these needs, but the standards in this ballot initiative fall short in improving animal welfare because they fail to adequately consider other factors. Animal welfare is a complex issue and demands that decisions be based on science, tempered with compassion, and take into account all aspects of welfare. Changing housing standards without consideration of how this may affect other aspects of animal welfare, such as protection from disease and injury, will not be in the animals' or society's best interest."
For more information, please visit www.avma.org.
Back
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Tom McPheron
Phone: 847-285-6781
Cell: 773-494-5419
e-mail: tmcpheron@avma.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 26, 2008
AVMA issues statement on California Proposition 2
SCHAUMBURG, Ill.
— The largest and most respected veterinary association in the United States is cautioning that the California ballot initiative, Proposition 2, while admirable in its attempt to address the behavioral needs of animals, contains livestock confinement standards that may hurt the animals they are intended to help.
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) issued a statement (PDF) today, which, in part, reads: "The AVMA believes Proposition 2, 'Standards for Confining Farm Animals,' is admirable in its goal to improve the welfare of production farm animals; however, it ignores critical aspects of animal welfare that ultimately would threaten the well-being of the very animals it strives to protect."
"Proposition 2 may have negative impacts on animals, consumers and the industry if it's passed," explains Dr. David McCrystle, AVMA Executive Board chair. "We fully agree that more attention needs to be paid to the behavioral and social needs of food animals, and Proposition 2 is laudable in that it attempts to address these needs, but the standards in this ballot initiative fall short in improving animal welfare because they fail to adequately consider other factors. Animal welfare is a complex issue and demands that decisions be based on science, tempered with compassion, and take into account all aspects of welfare. Changing housing standards without consideration of how this may affect other aspects of animal welfare, such as protection from disease and injury, will not be in the animals' or society's best interest."
For more information, please visit www.avma.org.
Monday, August 4, 2008
IL- Chicago City Council- mandatory spay/neuter & criminal background checks for those who want to breed dogs
The Chicago City Council is meeting to consider a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance requiring all dogs and cats to be spayed or neutered unless the animal qualifies for a specific exemption.
Passage of this ordinance will negatively impact responsible dog breeders and owners. It will make it almost impossible for Chicago residents to purchase a healthy, well-bred pet from a local breeder.
The ordinance will require that all dogs cats and over the age of six months be spayed or neutered unless they qualify for one of the following exemptions:
* A licensed veterinarian certifies that the animal’s health would best be served by spaying/neutering after a specified date, or that due to age or poor health it is unsafe to sterilize the animal at this time.
* The owner of the dog or cat has a valid $100 breeding permit.
Applicants are required to undergo a criminal background check.
Residents are permitted to whelp only 1 litter per year unless they receive a special exemption from the commission. A separate permit is still required for each animal, even if it is not being bred that year.
This permit is in addition to the $50 intact license fee.
The breeding permit number must be displayed in any advertisement for sale.
Breeders are required to provide contact information for new owners to the city and to present the new owner with an application for a pet license.
* The dog or cat is registered with a registry approved by the commission and is kept for the purposes of competing in legitimate shows or competitions. (It is unclear how an owner would demonstrate this.)
* The dog has earned, or is actively being trained and is in the process of earning an agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, hunting, working or other title from an approved registry or association. (It is unclear how a resident would prove an animal is being “trained.”)
* The dog is trained or in the process of being trained as a guide, signal or service dog or is enrolled in a licensed breeding program for these activities.
* The dog is trained or in the process of being trained and is actively used by law enforcement agencies or the military.
The ordinance makes a variety of findings, many of which are related to dangerous dogs and dog fighting. It is not reasonable to believe that individuals who are engaging in dog fighting, which is a felony under Illinois state law, would comply with animal control regulations, the violation of which generates only the issuance of a citation. Enactment of this ordinance would only serve to punish responsible dog owners and breeders for a problem they did not create.
The proposal allows animals to be impounded simply because they are not sterilized, a situation that is likely to increase the number of animals in shelters, not decrease it. To reclaim an animal it must be sterilized and microchipped and the owner must pay the full costs of those procedures in addition to penalties. Again, this is likely to force more abandonments and increase shelter populations.
What You Can Do
IT'S NOT TOO LATE TO CONTACT ALDERMAN ED BURKE- WRITE OR CALL HIM NOW.
a vote by the Chicago City Council's Finance Committee, in consideration of a proposed mandatory spay/neuter ordinance, was put off by committee chairman Alderman Ed Burke. After several hours of testimony, Alderman Burke delayed a vote to allow more testimony to be heard. No new hearing date has been set.
Chicago residents, send a letter to the Alderman who represents your district. Remember that this letter must be personalized and you need to include your full name and mailing address so you will be recognized as a constituent. To find out who represents you, please click here.
Fanciers who have traveled to Chicago to attend dog events, please personalize this sample letter and send it to the authors, Aldermen Burke and Rugai as well as Alderman Schulter, Chair of the Committee on Licensing and Consumer Protection.
Club Officers please have your club author a letter opposing this ordinance and send it to the Aldermen listed below. A sample letter to personalize can be found here.
Contact Information for the Aldermen Burke, Rugai and Schulter
Alderman Edward Burke
Chair, Committee on Finance
121 N. LaSalle St., Room 302
Chicago, IL 60602
eburke@cityofchicago.org
FAX: (312) 744-1955
Alderman Virginia Rugai
121 N. LaSalle St., Room 300
Chicago, IL 60602
vrugai@cityofchicago.org
FAX: 773- 238-9049
Alderman Eugene Schulter
Chair, Committee on License and Consumer Protection
121 N. LaSalle St., Room 300
Chicago, IL 60602
ward47@cityofchicago.org
FAX: 312-744-1509
Passage of this ordinance will negatively impact responsible dog breeders and owners. It will make it almost impossible for Chicago residents to purchase a healthy, well-bred pet from a local breeder.
The ordinance will require that all dogs cats and over the age of six months be spayed or neutered unless they qualify for one of the following exemptions:
* A licensed veterinarian certifies that the animal’s health would best be served by spaying/neutering after a specified date, or that due to age or poor health it is unsafe to sterilize the animal at this time.
* The owner of the dog or cat has a valid $100 breeding permit.
Applicants are required to undergo a criminal background check.
Residents are permitted to whelp only 1 litter per year unless they receive a special exemption from the commission. A separate permit is still required for each animal, even if it is not being bred that year.
This permit is in addition to the $50 intact license fee.
The breeding permit number must be displayed in any advertisement for sale.
Breeders are required to provide contact information for new owners to the city and to present the new owner with an application for a pet license.
* The dog or cat is registered with a registry approved by the commission and is kept for the purposes of competing in legitimate shows or competitions. (It is unclear how an owner would demonstrate this.)
* The dog has earned, or is actively being trained and is in the process of earning an agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, hunting, working or other title from an approved registry or association. (It is unclear how a resident would prove an animal is being “trained.”)
* The dog is trained or in the process of being trained as a guide, signal or service dog or is enrolled in a licensed breeding program for these activities.
* The dog is trained or in the process of being trained and is actively used by law enforcement agencies or the military.
The ordinance makes a variety of findings, many of which are related to dangerous dogs and dog fighting. It is not reasonable to believe that individuals who are engaging in dog fighting, which is a felony under Illinois state law, would comply with animal control regulations, the violation of which generates only the issuance of a citation. Enactment of this ordinance would only serve to punish responsible dog owners and breeders for a problem they did not create.
The proposal allows animals to be impounded simply because they are not sterilized, a situation that is likely to increase the number of animals in shelters, not decrease it. To reclaim an animal it must be sterilized and microchipped and the owner must pay the full costs of those procedures in addition to penalties. Again, this is likely to force more abandonments and increase shelter populations.
What You Can Do
IT'S NOT TOO LATE TO CONTACT ALDERMAN ED BURKE- WRITE OR CALL HIM NOW.
a vote by the Chicago City Council's Finance Committee, in consideration of a proposed mandatory spay/neuter ordinance, was put off by committee chairman Alderman Ed Burke. After several hours of testimony, Alderman Burke delayed a vote to allow more testimony to be heard. No new hearing date has been set.
Chicago residents, send a letter to the Alderman who represents your district. Remember that this letter must be personalized and you need to include your full name and mailing address so you will be recognized as a constituent. To find out who represents you, please click here.
Fanciers who have traveled to Chicago to attend dog events, please personalize this sample letter and send it to the authors, Aldermen Burke and Rugai as well as Alderman Schulter, Chair of the Committee on Licensing and Consumer Protection.
Club Officers please have your club author a letter opposing this ordinance and send it to the Aldermen listed below. A sample letter to personalize can be found here.
Contact Information for the Aldermen Burke, Rugai and Schulter
Alderman Edward Burke
Chair, Committee on Finance
121 N. LaSalle St., Room 302
Chicago, IL 60602
eburke@cityofchicago.org
FAX: (312) 744-1955
Alderman Virginia Rugai
121 N. LaSalle St., Room 300
Chicago, IL 60602
vrugai@cityofchicago.org
FAX: 773- 238-9049
Alderman Eugene Schulter
Chair, Committee on License and Consumer Protection
121 N. LaSalle St., Room 300
Chicago, IL 60602
ward47@cityofchicago.org
FAX: 312-744-1509
Thursday, July 24, 2008
PETA - what do they really want?
If you give money to this organization, you need to watch this video to the end (15 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19ijLulwUTY
This video contains adult language.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19ijLulwUTY
This video contains adult language.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Letter to Sen. Bob Casey- D (PA)
Senator Bob Casey March 1, 2007
Dear Senator Casey,
Re. Changes to Dog Laws
I am writing to you to address my concern over the recent trend in changes to dog laws across the country, and Pennsylvania specifically. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendel has proposed changes to the dog laws in Pennsylvania that would affect far more than just the “puppy mills” that he vocally opposes. These proposed changes are currently in the comment period and I, along with countless other dog fanciers, are working to fight the changes that have been proposed.
At a time in history where the “threat of terrorism” is behind every door, it is painfully obvious that Americans can still terrorize each other as “special interest groups”- in this case the “Animal Rights” groups. Vice President Chaney stated, “Our way of life is not negotiable”- did he mean oil only? Or is my way of life, raising quality dogs in my home, protected too? I urge you to help stop domestic terrorism that threatens American’s ability to live freely without injury to others. My dogs are not a threat to anyone, but this type of legislation is a threat to my quality of life and the quality of life that my dogs currently enjoy.
Your predecessor, Senator Rick Santorum, had proposed similar legislation, SB 1139 called the Pet Animal Welfare Statute (PAWS) and before that he proposed the “The Puppy Protection Act”, both of which received nationwide opposition. Organized kennel clubs around the state (and around the country) worked to support you and vote out Senator Santorum over his proposal and support of this legislation. It has become obvious that this issue is by-partisan. I am a registered Democrat, however I can not support any Democrat that supports this type of social over regulation that has no bearing on public health and safety.
As a dog breeder and life long dog enthusiast, I do think that dogs produced in “commercial” dog kennels, i.e. kennels producing dogs for profit and the purpose of resale only, often have deplorable conditions. Our country prides itself on the “market economy”. If the public continues to support such conditions by purchasing these animals, then these “commercial” kennels will continue to exist. The buying public should demand better. Current proposed legislation intends to improve the living conditions of these poor dogs, however, they miss the mark and will not in fact accomplish that goal, but will instead, support only the commercial kennel that can jump through the hoops and will eliminate the hobby breeder who genuinely cares about the dogs. This will reduce the choices of the buying public and impede the “market economy”.
I have included a copy of the Pennsylvania proposed changes along with my concerns (found in red on the document) and letters that I have written to my local Senator, Representative, and the Dog Czar. I met with PA Senator Jake Corman and PA Representative Adam Harris in person to discuss my concerns about this issue.
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Sincerely, Cadie Pruss
Dear Senator Casey,
Re. Changes to Dog Laws
I am writing to you to address my concern over the recent trend in changes to dog laws across the country, and Pennsylvania specifically. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendel has proposed changes to the dog laws in Pennsylvania that would affect far more than just the “puppy mills” that he vocally opposes. These proposed changes are currently in the comment period and I, along with countless other dog fanciers, are working to fight the changes that have been proposed.
At a time in history where the “threat of terrorism” is behind every door, it is painfully obvious that Americans can still terrorize each other as “special interest groups”- in this case the “Animal Rights” groups. Vice President Chaney stated, “Our way of life is not negotiable”- did he mean oil only? Or is my way of life, raising quality dogs in my home, protected too? I urge you to help stop domestic terrorism that threatens American’s ability to live freely without injury to others. My dogs are not a threat to anyone, but this type of legislation is a threat to my quality of life and the quality of life that my dogs currently enjoy.
Your predecessor, Senator Rick Santorum, had proposed similar legislation, SB 1139 called the Pet Animal Welfare Statute (PAWS) and before that he proposed the “The Puppy Protection Act”, both of which received nationwide opposition. Organized kennel clubs around the state (and around the country) worked to support you and vote out Senator Santorum over his proposal and support of this legislation. It has become obvious that this issue is by-partisan. I am a registered Democrat, however I can not support any Democrat that supports this type of social over regulation that has no bearing on public health and safety.
As a dog breeder and life long dog enthusiast, I do think that dogs produced in “commercial” dog kennels, i.e. kennels producing dogs for profit and the purpose of resale only, often have deplorable conditions. Our country prides itself on the “market economy”. If the public continues to support such conditions by purchasing these animals, then these “commercial” kennels will continue to exist. The buying public should demand better. Current proposed legislation intends to improve the living conditions of these poor dogs, however, they miss the mark and will not in fact accomplish that goal, but will instead, support only the commercial kennel that can jump through the hoops and will eliminate the hobby breeder who genuinely cares about the dogs. This will reduce the choices of the buying public and impede the “market economy”.
I have included a copy of the Pennsylvania proposed changes along with my concerns (found in red on the document) and letters that I have written to my local Senator, Representative, and the Dog Czar. I met with PA Senator Jake Corman and PA Representative Adam Harris in person to discuss my concerns about this issue.
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Sincerely, Cadie Pruss
Man found guilty of cruelty dispite permission from PA Department of Agriculture Dog Warden
Notice that the SPCA cited him- not a PA Department of Agriculture Dog Law Warden
BY FRANK ANDRUSCAVAGE
STAFF WRITER
fandruscavage@republicanherald.com
Published: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 4:20 AM EDT
http://www.republicanherald.com/articles/2008/07/16/news/local_news/pr_republican.20080716.a.pg28.pr16beagles_s1.1814512_loc.txt
FRACKVILLE A 45-year-old Girardville man was found guilty of a charge of cruelty to animals Tuesday afternoon in district court despite testimony by a state dog warden who said he gave permission to use a trailer seven beagles were kept in.
After more than two hours of testimony, Magisterial District Judge Bernadette J. Nahas found John Yagielinskie, 125 W. Ogden St., guilty and ordered him to pay a fine of $300 plus costs of $134 for a total of $434.
Yagielinskie's lawyer, Mark A. Barket, Pottsville, said his client will appeal the decision in Schuylkill County Court.
Yagielinskie was cited June 10 by Barbara A. Umlauf of Hillside SPCA in Pottsville, who charged him with having seven dogs in an unattended trailer on a Girardville street. Umlauf cited improper shelter, no water, filthy conditions, heat exhaustion, overcrowding and open wounds due to fighting as the basis of the charge.
Umlauf said the trailer the animals were housed in had four compartments and that three dogs were in one, two dogs each in two others and one was empty. The trailer, she said, should not have been used as kennel.
However, Francis J. Cremia, a dog warden with the state Department of Agriculture, said the he saw the custom-built trailer shortly after a June 3 fire at Yagielinskie's kennel in Pitman and gave permission to use it to house his animals.
Cremia said the trailer Yagielinskie was using under state law could be considered both a "primary conveyance" for transporting animals and a "primary enclosure" to be used as a kennel.
When asked by Umlauf if the animals were overcrowded, being three and two dogs in each section, Cremia said they were not.
"Two would be fine but three would be stretching it," he said. "There'd probably be enough room for three."
Cremia said he could not say for certain if any dog laws were broken because the animals would have had to be measured before the amount of space required for each was determined.
Under cross-examination by Barket, Cremia said he saw the trailer two days after the fire and although he gave permission to use it, he was "not thrilled" about taking it to Girardville simply because he feared that barking would be a problem.
Yagielinskie told the court that the day Umlauf and another SPCA worker came to Girardville, the trailer was unattended because he and professional dog trainer Paul E. Thompson, Kentucky, were using the truck to pick up new kennels.
Cremia confirmed that Yagielinskie purchased new kennels and placed the animals in them on the property of his friend, Nevin Maurer, Pitman.
Yagielinskie said that he lost 24 beagles in the fire and that 11 survived. He said the 11 that did survive were with him because nine of them needed constant treatment for burns and other wounds they suffered.
Yagielinskie said the animals received water that morning and that there was no heat exhaustion because the trailer the dogs were in is equipped with battery-operated fans that turn on if the temperature reaches 75 degrees inside.
Veterinarian Amy Swinehart said she examined nine of the animals on June 12 and determined all were healthy.
After the hearing, Yagielinskie said he was upset with the decision.
"Those dogs are all I have left after 30 years," he said. "Some I've owned up to seven generations behind them, their grandfathers and great-grandfathers."
BY FRANK ANDRUSCAVAGE
STAFF WRITER
fandruscavage@republicanherald.com
Published: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 4:20 AM EDT
http://www.republicanherald.com/articles/2008/07/16/news/local_news/pr_republican.20080716.a.pg28.pr16beagles_s1.1814512_loc.txt
FRACKVILLE A 45-year-old Girardville man was found guilty of a charge of cruelty to animals Tuesday afternoon in district court despite testimony by a state dog warden who said he gave permission to use a trailer seven beagles were kept in.
After more than two hours of testimony, Magisterial District Judge Bernadette J. Nahas found John Yagielinskie, 125 W. Ogden St., guilty and ordered him to pay a fine of $300 plus costs of $134 for a total of $434.
Yagielinskie's lawyer, Mark A. Barket, Pottsville, said his client will appeal the decision in Schuylkill County Court.
Yagielinskie was cited June 10 by Barbara A. Umlauf of Hillside SPCA in Pottsville, who charged him with having seven dogs in an unattended trailer on a Girardville street. Umlauf cited improper shelter, no water, filthy conditions, heat exhaustion, overcrowding and open wounds due to fighting as the basis of the charge.
Umlauf said the trailer the animals were housed in had four compartments and that three dogs were in one, two dogs each in two others and one was empty. The trailer, she said, should not have been used as kennel.
However, Francis J. Cremia, a dog warden with the state Department of Agriculture, said the he saw the custom-built trailer shortly after a June 3 fire at Yagielinskie's kennel in Pitman and gave permission to use it to house his animals.
Cremia said the trailer Yagielinskie was using under state law could be considered both a "primary conveyance" for transporting animals and a "primary enclosure" to be used as a kennel.
When asked by Umlauf if the animals were overcrowded, being three and two dogs in each section, Cremia said they were not.
"Two would be fine but three would be stretching it," he said. "There'd probably be enough room for three."
Cremia said he could not say for certain if any dog laws were broken because the animals would have had to be measured before the amount of space required for each was determined.
Under cross-examination by Barket, Cremia said he saw the trailer two days after the fire and although he gave permission to use it, he was "not thrilled" about taking it to Girardville simply because he feared that barking would be a problem.
Yagielinskie told the court that the day Umlauf and another SPCA worker came to Girardville, the trailer was unattended because he and professional dog trainer Paul E. Thompson, Kentucky, were using the truck to pick up new kennels.
Cremia confirmed that Yagielinskie purchased new kennels and placed the animals in them on the property of his friend, Nevin Maurer, Pitman.
Yagielinskie said that he lost 24 beagles in the fire and that 11 survived. He said the 11 that did survive were with him because nine of them needed constant treatment for burns and other wounds they suffered.
Yagielinskie said the animals received water that morning and that there was no heat exhaustion because the trailer the dogs were in is equipped with battery-operated fans that turn on if the temperature reaches 75 degrees inside.
Veterinarian Amy Swinehart said she examined nine of the animals on June 12 and determined all were healthy.
After the hearing, Yagielinskie said he was upset with the decision.
"Those dogs are all I have left after 30 years," he said. "Some I've owned up to seven generations behind them, their grandfathers and great-grandfathers."
Monday, July 14, 2008
Save a Life!- Adopt a CHILD- Over population is NOT a dog and cat problem
There is a website called: Save a Life! Adopt a Pet. The catchy little phrase they use is "Don't Breed or Buy While Shelter Animals Die".
I can only hope that NONE of these people have had children of their own. Overpopulation is NOT a dog and cat problem. It is a HUMAN problem. Every year new children enter the Child Welfare system. Every year, children who have "aged out" of public assistance end up in JAIL due to our lack adoption into loving homes.
PEOPLE need loving homes. Animal shelters may euthanize unwanted animals at rates that are distressing- but it is MURDER to euthanize unwanted children. Every year more JAILS are erected to house the results of our failed social efforts.
Adoption of humans is fraught with problems. Every year MILLIONS of dollars are spent by THOUSANDS of Americans on fertility treatments while THOUSANDS of children need to be adopted.
Please visit: http://www.childwelfare.com/ and donate your TIME, MONEY and LEGISLATIVE efforts on the REAL overpopulation issue.
I can only hope that NONE of these people have had children of their own. Overpopulation is NOT a dog and cat problem. It is a HUMAN problem. Every year new children enter the Child Welfare system. Every year, children who have "aged out" of public assistance end up in JAIL due to our lack adoption into loving homes.
PEOPLE need loving homes. Animal shelters may euthanize unwanted animals at rates that are distressing- but it is MURDER to euthanize unwanted children. Every year more JAILS are erected to house the results of our failed social efforts.
Adoption of humans is fraught with problems. Every year MILLIONS of dollars are spent by THOUSANDS of Americans on fertility treatments while THOUSANDS of children need to be adopted.
Please visit: http://www.childwelfare.com/ and donate your TIME, MONEY and LEGISLATIVE efforts on the REAL overpopulation issue.
Shelters vs. Puppy Mills- not really that different
While looking at the HUSU website and the "Top 5 Reasons to Adopt" I found the following of interest.
5. You Won't Be Supporting Puppy Mills and Pet Stores
Puppy mills are "factory style" dog-breeding facilities that put profit above the welfare of dogs. Most dogs raised in puppy mills are housed in shockingly poor conditions with improper medical care, and the parents of the puppies are kept in cages to be bred over and over for years, without human companionship and with little hope of ever joining a family. And after they're no longer profitable, breeding dogs are simply discarded—either killed, abandoned or sold at auction.
Puppy mill puppies are sold to unsuspecting consumers in pet stores, over the Internet and through newspaper classified advertisements to whoever is willing to pay for them. Marketed as coming from great breeders, well-rehearsed sales tactics keep money flowing to the puppy mill by ensuring that buyers never get to see where the pups actually come from (a vital step in puppy buying). Many of the puppies have serious behavioral and health problems that might not be apparent for months, including medical problems that can cost thousands of dollars to treat, if they are treatable at all. Unfortunately, a lot of people are not even aware that puppy mills exist, so when they buy a pet from a pet store, online or other retail outlet, they are unwittingly supporting this cruel industry.
By adopting instead of buying a pet, you can be certain you aren't supporting cruel puppy mills with your money. Puppy mills will continue to operate until people stop purchasing their dogs. Instead of buying a dog, visit your local shelter where you will likely to find dozens of healthy, well-socialized puppies and adult dogs—including purebreds—just waiting for that special home—yours. (Source:HUSU website)
True- the money you spend at a shelter will not directly be going to a "puppy mill"- but the "25% purebreds" the HUSU claims to have most likely came from these very "puppy mills" they are against. The claim they make that the shelters have "healthy, well-socialized puppies and adult dogs-including purbreds" may only mean that the shelter euthanized all that didn't meet this statement. Certainly no one adopting from a shelter gets to see where those dogs come from either.
Well socialized, healthy dogs, are not usually the ones people turn in (expect in economic hard times such as these- and usually those economically depressed people didn't spend hundreds of $$ buying a dog from a breeder in the first place).
The last time I went to a shelter (which I do regularly to screen for purebreds of my breed)- the dogs there were all kept in cages without human companionship and with little hope of ever joining a family.... And after they're no longer profitable(adoptable)- are simply killed--- oh wait---that is the same wording as stated in #5 above about "puppy mills". I guess the two are not that different!
While I was at the shelter, a few people were there to adopt. Not once did anyone from the shelter ask them the types of questions that would help them find "the right dog for them". Any dog those people picked out and wanted to adopt was going to be just fine with the shelter staff. Those dogs would go home to "anyone willing to pay for them"--- Again, not much different.
The myriad documented problems of puppy mills include: overbreeding, inbreeding, minimal veterinary care, poor quality of food and shelter, lack of human socialization, overcrowded cages and the killing of unwanted animals (source HUSU site on Puppy Mills)
Our shelter feeds the dogs mostly donated dog food. Sometimes the food is "good food" and sometimes it is "poor quality" food. Most shelters claim to be overcrowed, and most shelters kill unwated animals. Yes, there is a myriad of problems.
I am certainly NOT advocating for "puppy mills" (what is that definition again?)- but I DON'T think that everyone who breeds dogs (purbred, "designer", or otherwise) is a "Puppy Mill". Although there is a page on the HSUS site on how to chose a good breeder, the laws that HSUS are backing will sure make you think that everyone who breeds dogs IS a "puppy mill"
Are shelters good- Yes- are purbred breeders good- Yes to that too! Do your homework and learn all the facts before buying into the AR agenda.
5. You Won't Be Supporting Puppy Mills and Pet Stores
Puppy mills are "factory style" dog-breeding facilities that put profit above the welfare of dogs. Most dogs raised in puppy mills are housed in shockingly poor conditions with improper medical care, and the parents of the puppies are kept in cages to be bred over and over for years, without human companionship and with little hope of ever joining a family. And after they're no longer profitable, breeding dogs are simply discarded—either killed, abandoned or sold at auction.
Puppy mill puppies are sold to unsuspecting consumers in pet stores, over the Internet and through newspaper classified advertisements to whoever is willing to pay for them. Marketed as coming from great breeders, well-rehearsed sales tactics keep money flowing to the puppy mill by ensuring that buyers never get to see where the pups actually come from (a vital step in puppy buying). Many of the puppies have serious behavioral and health problems that might not be apparent for months, including medical problems that can cost thousands of dollars to treat, if they are treatable at all. Unfortunately, a lot of people are not even aware that puppy mills exist, so when they buy a pet from a pet store, online or other retail outlet, they are unwittingly supporting this cruel industry.
By adopting instead of buying a pet, you can be certain you aren't supporting cruel puppy mills with your money. Puppy mills will continue to operate until people stop purchasing their dogs. Instead of buying a dog, visit your local shelter where you will likely to find dozens of healthy, well-socialized puppies and adult dogs—including purebreds—just waiting for that special home—yours. (Source:HUSU website)
True- the money you spend at a shelter will not directly be going to a "puppy mill"- but the "25% purebreds" the HUSU claims to have most likely came from these very "puppy mills" they are against. The claim they make that the shelters have "healthy, well-socialized puppies and adult dogs-including purbreds" may only mean that the shelter euthanized all that didn't meet this statement. Certainly no one adopting from a shelter gets to see where those dogs come from either.
Well socialized, healthy dogs, are not usually the ones people turn in (expect in economic hard times such as these- and usually those economically depressed people didn't spend hundreds of $$ buying a dog from a breeder in the first place).
The last time I went to a shelter (which I do regularly to screen for purebreds of my breed)- the dogs there were all kept in cages without human companionship and with little hope of ever joining a family.... And after they're no longer profitable(adoptable)- are simply killed--- oh wait---that is the same wording as stated in #5 above about "puppy mills". I guess the two are not that different!
While I was at the shelter, a few people were there to adopt. Not once did anyone from the shelter ask them the types of questions that would help them find "the right dog for them". Any dog those people picked out and wanted to adopt was going to be just fine with the shelter staff. Those dogs would go home to "anyone willing to pay for them"--- Again, not much different.
The myriad documented problems of puppy mills include: overbreeding, inbreeding, minimal veterinary care, poor quality of food and shelter, lack of human socialization, overcrowded cages and the killing of unwanted animals (source HUSU site on Puppy Mills)
Our shelter feeds the dogs mostly donated dog food. Sometimes the food is "good food" and sometimes it is "poor quality" food. Most shelters claim to be overcrowed, and most shelters kill unwated animals. Yes, there is a myriad of problems.
I am certainly NOT advocating for "puppy mills" (what is that definition again?)- but I DON'T think that everyone who breeds dogs (purbred, "designer", or otherwise) is a "Puppy Mill". Although there is a page on the HSUS site on how to chose a good breeder, the laws that HSUS are backing will sure make you think that everyone who breeds dogs IS a "puppy mill"
Are shelters good- Yes- are purbred breeders good- Yes to that too! Do your homework and learn all the facts before buying into the AR agenda.
A story from an AR convert.
This story is forwarded with permission of the author.....
Anyone on this list who is for Animal Rights, please at least take a moment to read what I have to say: My name is Rebecca Curtis. If you search through Physician's for Responsible Medicine and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal's archives you will find numerous articles written by me. You will find anti-vivisection speeches that won numerous awards. I am still listed as a member of both. Please understand that I understand your beliefs. I was the cover girl for animal activism for many years. There is a reason I am now on this list and that reason is: I moved to a small farmette in the country where I was going to "save the world" - the shelter had an 80%+ kill rate and I took in a variety of animals. My animals were vetted, vaccinated, tags, fed, and cared for. A "rescue" group that ONLY takes puppies was in need of puppies. I have 5 pregnant dogs (4 of which were registered) that had been given to me by people who couldn't keep them and I
had 3 litters of
puppies, some of which were registered. I told the "rescue" I would give them the unregistered puppies for $50 each (much lower than most adoption fees) to help cover my cost. These puppies had been dewormed, vaccinated, treated for fleas, and some had been treated for coccidiosis and mange. They had been quarantined and vetted and I guarantee I could show you where I had well over a hundred dollars in each puppy. They paid me for those puppies and then came back for more. I wanted more money for the registered puppies I had been given. I had a 9 month old mix breed dog and 3 full grown collie's who were around a year old. I offered them those, but they didn't want them. They became angry that I wouldn't give them more puppies. I had 20 acres divided into pens, kennels, and runs, and also had a 5 bedroom house that was devoted to the puppies. They were all well cared for. After this confrontations and series of puppies disappeared from my yard. I had
to increase the
security and take my puppies inside whenever I left. Two adult dogs were shot and left to die in my front yard one day when I was at the store. They were raced to the vet and didn't make it. I started taking all of my dogs inside when I left. Then animal control started coming out. It turns out that everytime they had a complaint they were required to go by the location. They were coming by 6-7 times a day to say, hi, sorry, but we had another complaint. Finally they had enough of the pressure. Animal control told me to get rid of or hide the majority of my dogs, because they were sick of the complaints. The complaints continued and a warrant was issued for the seizure of my animals. I walked each animal out, gave it's name, it's personality, who it got along with, vaccination records, and registration papers (where applicable). I loaded them in cages telling them they were going for a car ride and keeping the stress as low as possible. The house was
search pictures were
taken and while they flowed through my property I was putting bowls of water into the kennels where my dogs were sitting and telling them it was alright. As they pulled out of the yard I fell to my knees and cried. Everything I ever believe in had been crushed. When it came time to go to court there were over a thousand dollars in "cost of seizure" expenses I was required to pay, my paperwork had been lost, and I was required to pay $10 per dog per day during the trial. By the time the trial was over all of the puppies would be adult dogs raised with little attention in a shelter, they would basically be unadoptable. I had veterinarians, grooms, and other experts lined up to testify on my behalf, but it didn't change the mounting "board" fees and the aging of my puppies. The prosecutor told me she was sorry, she had been told to charge me, but if I would just sign the dogs over and pay the thousand dollars they would drop all charges and return up to
5 adult dogs, but no
puppies. I paid the money and signed the dogs over except for 5 dogs they returned to me (3 unaltered). The 5 dogs I chose were a 6 year old dog with a severe case of hip displasia, a 13 year old dog, a 2 year old dog a friend offered an excellent home to, a 5 year old dog who was terrified of his own shadow and weighed over 200 pound, and a small dog who had been severely abused and still required over $6,000 worth of surgery. I chose the dogs I knew they could never find homes for. With the dogs they kept - three of the registered dogs were turned over to a breeder who made a $1,500 donation and claimed to be the owner of the dogs (they were turned over unaltered with registration papers). The older dogs and 2 dog aggressive dogs were euthanized. The puppies were "adopted" out to new homes at $200 adoption fees. Everything I ever stood for robbed me of my passion and crushed my heart. I've wanted dogs again, but I have been terrified of loosing them
again. They were my
life, my love, and my passion. I've done my homework, I have requested to withdraw my paid life memberships to PETA and Physicians for Responsible medicine (any AR activist will know the type of money I spent to have those) and my requests have been denied. I am still on their lists, but my heart is against them. I saw what they are capable of and they lost one VERY devoted activist. Please take a close look at what these organizations truly do. Not the local shelters, but the large organizations sending you requests for donations, take a close look at what they do. They will rob you of your pets and pat themselves on the back while destroying any of your pets that aren't convenient for them to "adopt" to new homes. I've seen it up close and it is a life changing moment.
Becky
Anyone on this list who is for Animal Rights, please at least take a moment to read what I have to say: My name is Rebecca Curtis. If you search through Physician's for Responsible Medicine and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal's archives you will find numerous articles written by me. You will find anti-vivisection speeches that won numerous awards. I am still listed as a member of both. Please understand that I understand your beliefs. I was the cover girl for animal activism for many years. There is a reason I am now on this list and that reason is: I moved to a small farmette in the country where I was going to "save the world" - the shelter had an 80%+ kill rate and I took in a variety of animals. My animals were vetted, vaccinated, tags, fed, and cared for. A "rescue" group that ONLY takes puppies was in need of puppies. I have 5 pregnant dogs (4 of which were registered) that had been given to me by people who couldn't keep them and I
had 3 litters of
puppies, some of which were registered. I told the "rescue" I would give them the unregistered puppies for $50 each (much lower than most adoption fees) to help cover my cost. These puppies had been dewormed, vaccinated, treated for fleas, and some had been treated for coccidiosis and mange. They had been quarantined and vetted and I guarantee I could show you where I had well over a hundred dollars in each puppy. They paid me for those puppies and then came back for more. I wanted more money for the registered puppies I had been given. I had a 9 month old mix breed dog and 3 full grown collie's who were around a year old. I offered them those, but they didn't want them. They became angry that I wouldn't give them more puppies. I had 20 acres divided into pens, kennels, and runs, and also had a 5 bedroom house that was devoted to the puppies. They were all well cared for. After this confrontations and series of puppies disappeared from my yard. I had
to increase the
security and take my puppies inside whenever I left. Two adult dogs were shot and left to die in my front yard one day when I was at the store. They were raced to the vet and didn't make it. I started taking all of my dogs inside when I left. Then animal control started coming out. It turns out that everytime they had a complaint they were required to go by the location. They were coming by 6-7 times a day to say, hi, sorry, but we had another complaint. Finally they had enough of the pressure. Animal control told me to get rid of or hide the majority of my dogs, because they were sick of the complaints. The complaints continued and a warrant was issued for the seizure of my animals. I walked each animal out, gave it's name, it's personality, who it got along with, vaccination records, and registration papers (where applicable). I loaded them in cages telling them they were going for a car ride and keeping the stress as low as possible. The house was
search pictures were
taken and while they flowed through my property I was putting bowls of water into the kennels where my dogs were sitting and telling them it was alright. As they pulled out of the yard I fell to my knees and cried. Everything I ever believe in had been crushed. When it came time to go to court there were over a thousand dollars in "cost of seizure" expenses I was required to pay, my paperwork had been lost, and I was required to pay $10 per dog per day during the trial. By the time the trial was over all of the puppies would be adult dogs raised with little attention in a shelter, they would basically be unadoptable. I had veterinarians, grooms, and other experts lined up to testify on my behalf, but it didn't change the mounting "board" fees and the aging of my puppies. The prosecutor told me she was sorry, she had been told to charge me, but if I would just sign the dogs over and pay the thousand dollars they would drop all charges and return up to
5 adult dogs, but no
puppies. I paid the money and signed the dogs over except for 5 dogs they returned to me (3 unaltered). The 5 dogs I chose were a 6 year old dog with a severe case of hip displasia, a 13 year old dog, a 2 year old dog a friend offered an excellent home to, a 5 year old dog who was terrified of his own shadow and weighed over 200 pound, and a small dog who had been severely abused and still required over $6,000 worth of surgery. I chose the dogs I knew they could never find homes for. With the dogs they kept - three of the registered dogs were turned over to a breeder who made a $1,500 donation and claimed to be the owner of the dogs (they were turned over unaltered with registration papers). The older dogs and 2 dog aggressive dogs were euthanized. The puppies were "adopted" out to new homes at $200 adoption fees. Everything I ever stood for robbed me of my passion and crushed my heart. I've wanted dogs again, but I have been terrified of loosing them
again. They were my
life, my love, and my passion. I've done my homework, I have requested to withdraw my paid life memberships to PETA and Physicians for Responsible medicine (any AR activist will know the type of money I spent to have those) and my requests have been denied. I am still on their lists, but my heart is against them. I saw what they are capable of and they lost one VERY devoted activist. Please take a close look at what these organizations truly do. Not the local shelters, but the large organizations sending you requests for donations, take a close look at what they do. They will rob you of your pets and pat themselves on the back while destroying any of your pets that aren't convenient for them to "adopt" to new homes. I've seen it up close and it is a life changing moment.
Becky
Friday, June 27, 2008
Myths from the Animal Rights organizations
MYTH One cat and its offspring can produce 420,000 cats in seven years (source: PETA and multiple humane society websites)
FACT After a six-year study and daily observation of a feral cat colony, it has been documented that stray female cats start cycling when they are 4 - 6.9 months old, (2) or as soon as the days are long enough. January and February are the start of the kitten season, with the litters born in March and April. These cats have an average of 2.1 litters per year of 4.25 kittens.(3) Forty-two percent of the kittens will die by the age of two months of natural causes.(4) Many more will end up at the shelter. Those who escape early death and the shelter go on to be prolific bearers of kittens over their short life span of approximately three years.(5)
Taking the mortality into account, along with birth and death rates, the average stray female will have 5.25 litters in her lifetime, encompassing 22.3 kittens. At age two months there should be 12.9 survivors, roughly six females and seven males (at maturity, roughly 2/3 of the stray cat population is male,(6) due to the high mortality of females during first pregnancy and birth), which will decrease to four females over time. These six females will go on to have their 22 surviving kittens each.
Realistically, over 12 years one unspayed female with all her unspayed female offspring can reasonably be expected to be responsible for over 3200 kittens if there is no human intervention. cfa.org/articles/trap-alter-release.html
MYTH One female dog and her offspring can produce 67,000 dogs in six years. (source: PETA and multiple humane organization websites)
FACT This projection for production of dog offspring is just as absurd as the projection for a cat and its offspring listed above. The 67,000 projection is dependent on the presumption that every animal concerned becomes pregnant and reproduces each cycle through its life, that each of its progeny lives, and also reproduces each and every cycle through its life, and that all progeny are female.
MYTH Altered animals are less likely to contract deadly, contagious diseases spread through bodily fluids, such as feline AIDS and leukemia. (source: PETA website)
FACT Altering does not create an immunity to a retrovirus.
Feline leukemia virus (FeLV), a retrovirus, is a common infection of cats. It is the cause of more cat deaths, directly or indirectly, than any other organism and is widespread in the cat population.
How is FeLV transmitted? Large amounts of feline leukemia virus are excreted in the saliva. Therefore, the most common mode of transmission is through nose-to-nose contact, mutual grooming, and shared food and water bowls. Bites are a very efficient way to transmit FeLV. FeLV can also be found in lesser amounts in tears, urine, and feces. To a lesser degree transmission can also take place through the shared use of litter boxes and feeding dishes.
For more information visit these websites:
Cornell University FeLV Brochure
Veterinary Partner, FeLV
FIV stands for feline immunodeficiency virus, just as HIV stands for human immunodeficiency virus. FIV is a cats-only infection. FIV is shed in the saliva of infected cats, so the disease is primarily spread through bite wounds. Casual, non-aggressive contact does not appear to be an efficient route of spreading FIV; as a result, cats in households with stable social structures where housemates do not fight are at little risk for acquiring FIV infections. The only sure way to protect cats is to prevent their exposure to the virus. Cat bites are the major way infection is transmitted, so keeping cats indoors-and away from potentially infected cats that might bite them-markedly reduces their likelihood of contracting FIV infection.
For more information visit these websites:
Cornell University FIV Fact Sheet
Veterinary Partner, Feline Immunodeficiency Virus (FIV)
MYTH The Crisis of Pet Overpopulation. Three to four million dogs and cats in shelters are euthanized because there are not enough homes for them. Too many companion animals competing for too few good homes is the most obvious consequence of uncontrolled breeding. (Source: HSUS website)
FACT In State of the Animals 2001 HSUS stated: There was, however, general consensus among most animal related organizations that the term pet overpopulation was not only difficult to define, but that it was also probably no longer an accurate catchphrase to describe the reasons for animals leaving their original homes, especially for dogs."
Uncontrolled breeding is no longer the primary reason dogs and cats end up in shelters and has been replaced with a pet retention problem. A 1991 study from Tufts found that 87.8% of female dogs were spayed and 91.5% of female cats were spayed.
The most recent surveys by the National Council on Pet Population Study & Policy (NCPPSP) identified the top reasons for relinquishment common to both dogs and cats are: moving, landlord issues, cost of pet maintenance, inadequate facilities, no time, and personal problems. According to NCPPSP it is quite clear that many pet owners lack the knowledge to solve problems with their pets. Animals, who otherwise might remain happily in their home are relinquished to shelters across the country. Exploring the Surplus Cat and Dog Problem. Highlights of Five Research Publications Regarding Relinquishment of Pets
MYTH Pit Bulls have locking jaws
FACT The "pit bull" does not have a "locking jaw". On this topic Dr. I. Lehr Brisbin of the University of Georgia wrote: "The few studies which have been conducted of the structure of the skulls, mandibles and teeth of pit bulls show that, in proportion to their size, their jaw structure and thus its inferred functional morphology, is no different than that of any breed of dog. There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any kind of "locking mechanism" unique to the structure of the jaw and/or teeth of the American Pit Bull Terrier." Dog Watch
MYTH Pit Bulls have more bite pressure per square inch (PSI) than any other breed.
FACT Dr. I. Lehr Brisbin of the University of Georgia states, "To the best of our knowledge, there are no published scientific studies that would allow any meaningful comparison to be made of the biting power of various breeds of dogs. There are, moreover, compelling technical reasons why such data describing biting power in terms of `pounds per square inch' can never be collected in a meaningful way. All figures describing biting power in such terms can be traced to either unfounded rumor or, in some cases, to newspaper articles with no foundation in factual data." (From the ADBA booklet, Discover the American Pit Bull Terrier.)
MYTH The public health epidemic of dog bites is due in part to uncontrolled breeding of pets. (Source: HSUS website)
FACT ---The incidence and frequency of dog attacks has remained relatively consistent over the last century, regardless of the popularity or involvement of certain breeds of dogs. National Canine Research Council
---Dogs bite kids. Why? Most often it is because children unknowingly demonstrate inappropriate behavior toward dogs that frightens or upsets them, and the dogs instinctively react to protect themselves. Many children have never been taught that there is a polite and safe way to approach and pet a dog. Many parents have never considered that children must be taught that correct behavior around pets matters. NCRAOA
---The supposed epidemic numbers of dog bites splashed across the media are absurdly inflated by dubious research and by counting bites that don't actually hurt anyone. Even when dogs do injure people, the vast majority of injuries are at the Band-Aid level. Dogs Bite: But Balloons and Slippers Are More Dangerous by Janis Bradley
MYTH Mixed-breed dogs are healthier. They aren't as likely to have inherited problems.
FACT Dog breeds were created, selected and bred to perform specific functions. Selecting desirable traits and eliminating others, breeders created their ideal appearance and behavior. Isn’t it therefore logical that mixed-breeds resulting from purebred crosses carry the same faults and virtues, and to some degree the same inherited disorders?
All animals carry genetic defects, and all genetic departures from health are not equal. All are not life threatening; some genetic faults can be corrected with minor surgery or controlled by good management and medication.
George Padgett, DVM, a leading canine geneticist, lists genetic diseases in his book, Control of Canine Genetic Diseases published by Howell Book House, 1998, ISBN: 0-87605-004-6. Appendix 1 of the book "Genetic Disease Predisposition by Breed, (page 189)" provides some interesting information regarding mixed breeds vs. purebreds.
1. There are 532 genetic diseases listed in the book, which are spread out among fifteen diagnostic categories
2. There is however some difficulty in differentiating diseases with more than one mode of inheritance.
3. The number of diseases per breed varies strikingly
Quoting from the text regarding instances of genetic diseases:
"The largest number of dogs in the United States consists of those of mixed breeding (mutts, curs, crossbreeds and so on), and as would be expected since they contain mixtures of most, if not all, breeds, they have far and away the most diseases. These dogs are reported to have 220 diseases."
"The breed with the most diseases reported is the Poodle (all three sizes), with 145, and as you will see, there are many breeds with over 100." (Breeds and their diseases are listed in the appendix.)
MYTH Every puppy or kitten born costs a shelter animal its life. (Multiple Sources including Best Friends Forum and Pet Finders Forums)
FACT This statement has many variations, such as “breeders kill shelter animals” and “don’t breed don’t buy while shelter animals die”.
The purpose of the statement is to vilify breeders and to instill guilt in anyone who prefers to buy from a breeder rather than adopt from a shelter. While purchasing a surrendered dog or cat from a shelter is worthy, it might not be the best route for everyone. Plenty of shelter animals are happy and trainable, but there are also some that come with ‘baggage’ and need either an experienced or a determined owner. Purebred dogs and cats have specific and predictable traits. Knowing these and selecting the right match can be a better fit.
According to Gary Patronek VMD, PhD - Center for Animals and Public Policy at Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine - the reluctance to shift from an emphasis on alleged overpopulation to a multi-faceted strategy to prevent shelter euthanasia is based on several factors, including:
* Regional imbalances in puppy numbers — although some areas of the country import puppies to meet the demand, others do have a surplus;
* An inability to abandon the idea that the breeding of a puppy that was wanted is somehow linked with the death of that dog in a shelter when it became unwanted;
* A lack of recognition that dog and cat problems are different, and a tendency to equate the huge number of unwanted kittens with a dwindling number of unwanted puppies;
* Deeply held beliefs that breeding is wrong.
(this post came from the http://www.ncraoa.com/myths.html website.)
FACT After a six-year study and daily observation of a feral cat colony, it has been documented that stray female cats start cycling when they are 4 - 6.9 months old, (2) or as soon as the days are long enough. January and February are the start of the kitten season, with the litters born in March and April. These cats have an average of 2.1 litters per year of 4.25 kittens.(3) Forty-two percent of the kittens will die by the age of two months of natural causes.(4) Many more will end up at the shelter. Those who escape early death and the shelter go on to be prolific bearers of kittens over their short life span of approximately three years.(5)
Taking the mortality into account, along with birth and death rates, the average stray female will have 5.25 litters in her lifetime, encompassing 22.3 kittens. At age two months there should be 12.9 survivors, roughly six females and seven males (at maturity, roughly 2/3 of the stray cat population is male,(6) due to the high mortality of females during first pregnancy and birth), which will decrease to four females over time. These six females will go on to have their 22 surviving kittens each.
Realistically, over 12 years one unspayed female with all her unspayed female offspring can reasonably be expected to be responsible for over 3200 kittens if there is no human intervention. cfa.org/articles/trap-alter-release.html
MYTH One female dog and her offspring can produce 67,000 dogs in six years. (source: PETA and multiple humane organization websites)
FACT This projection for production of dog offspring is just as absurd as the projection for a cat and its offspring listed above. The 67,000 projection is dependent on the presumption that every animal concerned becomes pregnant and reproduces each cycle through its life, that each of its progeny lives, and also reproduces each and every cycle through its life, and that all progeny are female.
MYTH Altered animals are less likely to contract deadly, contagious diseases spread through bodily fluids, such as feline AIDS and leukemia. (source: PETA website)
FACT Altering does not create an immunity to a retrovirus.
Feline leukemia virus (FeLV), a retrovirus, is a common infection of cats. It is the cause of more cat deaths, directly or indirectly, than any other organism and is widespread in the cat population.
How is FeLV transmitted? Large amounts of feline leukemia virus are excreted in the saliva. Therefore, the most common mode of transmission is through nose-to-nose contact, mutual grooming, and shared food and water bowls. Bites are a very efficient way to transmit FeLV. FeLV can also be found in lesser amounts in tears, urine, and feces. To a lesser degree transmission can also take place through the shared use of litter boxes and feeding dishes.
For more information visit these websites:
Cornell University FeLV Brochure
Veterinary Partner, FeLV
FIV stands for feline immunodeficiency virus, just as HIV stands for human immunodeficiency virus. FIV is a cats-only infection. FIV is shed in the saliva of infected cats, so the disease is primarily spread through bite wounds. Casual, non-aggressive contact does not appear to be an efficient route of spreading FIV; as a result, cats in households with stable social structures where housemates do not fight are at little risk for acquiring FIV infections. The only sure way to protect cats is to prevent their exposure to the virus. Cat bites are the major way infection is transmitted, so keeping cats indoors-and away from potentially infected cats that might bite them-markedly reduces their likelihood of contracting FIV infection.
For more information visit these websites:
Cornell University FIV Fact Sheet
Veterinary Partner, Feline Immunodeficiency Virus (FIV)
MYTH The Crisis of Pet Overpopulation. Three to four million dogs and cats in shelters are euthanized because there are not enough homes for them. Too many companion animals competing for too few good homes is the most obvious consequence of uncontrolled breeding. (Source: HSUS website)
FACT In State of the Animals 2001 HSUS stated: There was, however, general consensus among most animal related organizations that the term pet overpopulation was not only difficult to define, but that it was also probably no longer an accurate catchphrase to describe the reasons for animals leaving their original homes, especially for dogs."
Uncontrolled breeding is no longer the primary reason dogs and cats end up in shelters and has been replaced with a pet retention problem. A 1991 study from Tufts found that 87.8% of female dogs were spayed and 91.5% of female cats were spayed.
The most recent surveys by the National Council on Pet Population Study & Policy (NCPPSP) identified the top reasons for relinquishment common to both dogs and cats are: moving, landlord issues, cost of pet maintenance, inadequate facilities, no time, and personal problems. According to NCPPSP it is quite clear that many pet owners lack the knowledge to solve problems with their pets. Animals, who otherwise might remain happily in their home are relinquished to shelters across the country. Exploring the Surplus Cat and Dog Problem. Highlights of Five Research Publications Regarding Relinquishment of Pets
MYTH Pit Bulls have locking jaws
FACT The "pit bull" does not have a "locking jaw". On this topic Dr. I. Lehr Brisbin of the University of Georgia wrote: "The few studies which have been conducted of the structure of the skulls, mandibles and teeth of pit bulls show that, in proportion to their size, their jaw structure and thus its inferred functional morphology, is no different than that of any breed of dog. There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any kind of "locking mechanism" unique to the structure of the jaw and/or teeth of the American Pit Bull Terrier." Dog Watch
MYTH Pit Bulls have more bite pressure per square inch (PSI) than any other breed.
FACT Dr. I. Lehr Brisbin of the University of Georgia states, "To the best of our knowledge, there are no published scientific studies that would allow any meaningful comparison to be made of the biting power of various breeds of dogs. There are, moreover, compelling technical reasons why such data describing biting power in terms of `pounds per square inch' can never be collected in a meaningful way. All figures describing biting power in such terms can be traced to either unfounded rumor or, in some cases, to newspaper articles with no foundation in factual data." (From the ADBA booklet, Discover the American Pit Bull Terrier.)
MYTH The public health epidemic of dog bites is due in part to uncontrolled breeding of pets. (Source: HSUS website)
FACT ---The incidence and frequency of dog attacks has remained relatively consistent over the last century, regardless of the popularity or involvement of certain breeds of dogs. National Canine Research Council
---Dogs bite kids. Why? Most often it is because children unknowingly demonstrate inappropriate behavior toward dogs that frightens or upsets them, and the dogs instinctively react to protect themselves. Many children have never been taught that there is a polite and safe way to approach and pet a dog. Many parents have never considered that children must be taught that correct behavior around pets matters. NCRAOA
---The supposed epidemic numbers of dog bites splashed across the media are absurdly inflated by dubious research and by counting bites that don't actually hurt anyone. Even when dogs do injure people, the vast majority of injuries are at the Band-Aid level. Dogs Bite: But Balloons and Slippers Are More Dangerous by Janis Bradley
MYTH Mixed-breed dogs are healthier. They aren't as likely to have inherited problems.
FACT Dog breeds were created, selected and bred to perform specific functions. Selecting desirable traits and eliminating others, breeders created their ideal appearance and behavior. Isn’t it therefore logical that mixed-breeds resulting from purebred crosses carry the same faults and virtues, and to some degree the same inherited disorders?
All animals carry genetic defects, and all genetic departures from health are not equal. All are not life threatening; some genetic faults can be corrected with minor surgery or controlled by good management and medication.
George Padgett, DVM, a leading canine geneticist, lists genetic diseases in his book, Control of Canine Genetic Diseases published by Howell Book House, 1998, ISBN: 0-87605-004-6. Appendix 1 of the book "Genetic Disease Predisposition by Breed, (page 189)" provides some interesting information regarding mixed breeds vs. purebreds.
1. There are 532 genetic diseases listed in the book, which are spread out among fifteen diagnostic categories
2. There is however some difficulty in differentiating diseases with more than one mode of inheritance.
3. The number of diseases per breed varies strikingly
Quoting from the text regarding instances of genetic diseases:
"The largest number of dogs in the United States consists of those of mixed breeding (mutts, curs, crossbreeds and so on), and as would be expected since they contain mixtures of most, if not all, breeds, they have far and away the most diseases. These dogs are reported to have 220 diseases."
"The breed with the most diseases reported is the Poodle (all three sizes), with 145, and as you will see, there are many breeds with over 100." (Breeds and their diseases are listed in the appendix.)
MYTH Every puppy or kitten born costs a shelter animal its life. (Multiple Sources including Best Friends Forum and Pet Finders Forums)
FACT This statement has many variations, such as “breeders kill shelter animals” and “don’t breed don’t buy while shelter animals die”.
The purpose of the statement is to vilify breeders and to instill guilt in anyone who prefers to buy from a breeder rather than adopt from a shelter. While purchasing a surrendered dog or cat from a shelter is worthy, it might not be the best route for everyone. Plenty of shelter animals are happy and trainable, but there are also some that come with ‘baggage’ and need either an experienced or a determined owner. Purebred dogs and cats have specific and predictable traits. Knowing these and selecting the right match can be a better fit.
According to Gary Patronek VMD, PhD - Center for Animals and Public Policy at Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine - the reluctance to shift from an emphasis on alleged overpopulation to a multi-faceted strategy to prevent shelter euthanasia is based on several factors, including:
* Regional imbalances in puppy numbers — although some areas of the country import puppies to meet the demand, others do have a surplus;
* An inability to abandon the idea that the breeding of a puppy that was wanted is somehow linked with the death of that dog in a shelter when it became unwanted;
* A lack of recognition that dog and cat problems are different, and a tendency to equate the huge number of unwanted kittens with a dwindling number of unwanted puppies;
* Deeply held beliefs that breeding is wrong.
(this post came from the http://www.ncraoa.com/myths.html website.)
TX, CA, PA- Black Wednesday for Dog Owners
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 (PETA) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) 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 th 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:
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. At the Senate hearing in California, for example, only about 10 people showed up. In Dallas, about 200 dog ownership advocates attended the hearing, but that is a tiny percentage of the estimated 300,000 pet owners in the city. Attendance at the two Pennsylvania hearings was described as
moderate.
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.
Here are the highlights of the four pieces of legislation that were voted on this week.
California
We support the first part of AB1634, which calls for fines for dogs that are allowed to roam and mandates sterilization after the third offense.
However, the second part of the legislation violates basic constitutional rights and human decency.
Here are the provisions of the second part of the legislation (Italics are
direct quotes, and words that are not italicized are our comments):
“The owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog that is the subject of a complaint may be cited and pay a civil penalty as provided in this section. This civil penalty shall be in addition to any fine, fee, or penalty imposed under any other provision of law or local ordinance." In the first sentence, the committee substituted “may" for “shall", which appears to leave the
issuance of a citation up to the discretion of an animal control officer.
However, the basis for this decision is not defined.
“The owner of the dog shall pay the civil penalty to the local
animal control agency within 30 business days of the citation. The local animal control agency shall waive the civil penalty if, within 14 business days of the citation, the owner of the dog presents written proof from a licensed veterinarian that the dog was spayed or neutered." There is no provision for a dog owner to defend him/herself in court or at a hearing, and no appeal is
allowed. If you are accused, you are guilty. Period. This is a violation of constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law.
“Complaint" means an oral or written complaint to a local animal control agency that alleges that the dog or the owner of the dog has violated this division, any other provision of state law that relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance. "Complaint also means the observation by an employee or officer of a local animal control agency of behavior by a dog or the owner of a dog that violates this division, any other provision of state law that relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance."An example of what this means is that a hunting or field trial dog that is in excellent health and conditioned for performance could result in a complaint of animal
cruelty if anyone believes the dog looks thin.
"Local animal control agency" means any city or county animal control agency or other entity responsible for enforcing animal-related laws or local animal control ordinances." This includes Humane Societies and other animal welfare organizations empowered to enforce animal cruelty or other dog laws. Many members of these groups support a radical animal rights agenda.
The Senate Local Government Committee approved this legislation by a party-line 3-2 vote Wednesday, with Democrats in the majority. It now goes to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, and then to the Senate floor for a final vote.
Please contact members of the Appropriations Committee immediately to voice opposition to the second half of this bill, and also individual senators.
This link gives contact information for committee members:
http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/sen/committee/STANDING/APPROP/_home1/PROFILE.HTM. The committee meets on Monday.
This link gives contact information for all senators:
http://www.senate.ca.gov/~newsen/senators/senators.htp. While Sen. Michael Machado voted for this bill on Wednesday, he expressed many concerns and might be convinced to change
his vote.
Dallas
Here is a summary of the dog ordinance passed Wednesday by the Dallas City Council by a 10-3 vote. The ordinance:
Creates a permit for a dog or cat used for breeding or competition.
The cost of the permit is $70 annually for each animal, plus the regular license fee of $30. There is no grace period or exclusion provided for new residents or people who are visiting Dallas, including participants in dog shows or other events. Visitors can be cited, and we expect that they will be cited.
It Requires all other dogs or cats to be spayed or neutered.
Limits a single household to a total of six cats and/or dogs. People owning more than a half-acre of land would be allowed eight. People who currently own a greater number of animals could apply to the city to be allowed to keep their animals without penalty, but they would not be allowed to buy a dog or breed a litter of puppies until their number of dogs drops below the limit. The ordinance applies to anyone who “harbors" more than six dogs, which includes many visitors and participants in dog shows and other events.
Almost all professional handlers would be in this category, as well as many owner/handlers.
Subjects anyone who harbors a group of dogs that exceeds the limits to unannounced inspections. This would include participants in dog shows or other events.
Mandates microchipping of all dogs and cats, including those of
visitors.
Prohibits tethering of unsupervised dogs to trees or poles except
"for a period no longer than necessary for the owner to complete a temporary
task."
Forces owners to provide at least 150 square feet of space and a building or
designed doghouse for a dog confined outdoors.
And provides for confiscation of allegedly dangerous dogs, and other
penalties.
Please contact us at asda@csonline.net if you would like to participate in legal action or boycotts related to the Dallas ordinance.
Pennsylvania
Dog owners in Pennsylvania were beset by two pieces of bad legislation this week.
HB 2525 regulates a million dog owners and owners of 2,700 licensed kennels in the state. It passed the House Agriculture Committee by a 17-12 vote Wednesday. All but one Republican (Rep. K. Boback) voted against the bill, and all Democrats (the majority party) voted in favor of it.
It appears that the final bill reflects some of the promises made to dog ownership advocacy groups during the past several months of negotiations, but that the Democrats have reneged on other promises.
Some dog owners groups have withdrawn their opposition to this legislation, but the American Sporting Dog Alliance continues to oppose it in its present form. While we support changes that affect commercial breeders, these represent only a small part of HB 2525. The rest of the bill has serious impacts on all dog and kennel owners. The text of several amendments has not been published thus far We will issue a full report on this legislation in the next couple of days.
The other legislation is HB 2532, which provides what amounts to be a de facto partial or complete ban on tail docking, ear cropping and dewclaw removal by anyone except a licensed veterinarian. Although most other dog owners' organizations have not taken a clear public stance on this bill, the American Sporting Dog Alliance categorically opposes it.
HB 2532 passed the House Judiciary Committee by a 28-1 vote Tuesday, with only Republican Rep. T. Creighton voting “no."
The bill allows owners to dock the tails of puppies until they pass three days of age, and to remove dewclaws during the first five days. However, the burden of proof is placed on a dog's owner to prove that this work was done legally before the age limits, or by a veterinarian. It would be difficult for most dog owners to prove this, and a large majority would not be able to prove it. The simple possession of a dog with a docked tail or a lack of dewclaws would be considered evidence of an animal cruelty violation, if the owner cannot prove his/her innocence.
The bill continues a total ban against ear cropping, except by a
veterinarian, and anyone who is found in possession of a dog with cropped ears is automatically guilty of criminal animal cruelty in the absence of proof.
For all of these procedures, HB 2532 struck out a provision that would have exempted dogs if their owners filed an affidavit with a county treasurer that the work was done before the bill is passed.
That means a large majority of owners of many of the most popular breeds will have no way of proving that they have complied with the law. These procedures were done legally in the past on many dogs, or legally by breeders in other states. In many cases, a dog owner has no idea who performed these procedures. Thus, they would be guilty of criminal animal cruelty for noncompliance.
This legislation will destroy rescue work for many breeds if it is signed into law. Most dogs that are assisted by rescue groups, animal shelters and private individuals either come from unknown sources, or do not come with medical records. There will be no choice except to euthanize these dogs, since it will be impossible to establish their legality.
This legislation also will have a severe impact on people who live in other states. On one level, Pennsylvanians will no longer be able to buy puppies from dozens of breeds from nonresident breeders who perform these procedures legally in their home states.
On another level, Pennsylvania professional trainers and handlers will not be able to accept many dogs from out-of-state customers, because proof will not be available.
But a larger impact will be on thousands of people who own dogs and come to Pennsylvania for a vacation, to hunt, or to compete in field trials, dog shows and other events. Anyone who brings a dog with a docked tail, missing dewclaws or cropped ears into Pennsylvania is subject to arrest for criminal animal cruelty charges.
This will affect many very popular breeds of dogs, such as almost all
Continental breeds of pointing dogs, flushing dogs, terriers and many working dogs, such as rottweilers and doberman pinchers.
The bill now moves to the full House for a vote. Please contact your own legislator and as many others as possible to express opposition to this legislation. Contact information can be found at:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/representatives_alpha.cfm.
Here is a link to the text of the legislation:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2007&sessInd=0&billBody=H
&billTyp=B&billNbr=2532&pn=4030
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, hobby breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its
rightful place in American society and life. Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. Our email is ASDA@csonline.net.
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO
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 (PETA) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) 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 th 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:
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. At the Senate hearing in California, for example, only about 10 people showed up. In Dallas, about 200 dog ownership advocates attended the hearing, but that is a tiny percentage of the estimated 300,000 pet owners in the city. Attendance at the two Pennsylvania hearings was described as
moderate.
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.
Here are the highlights of the four pieces of legislation that were voted on this week.
California
We support the first part of AB1634, which calls for fines for dogs that are allowed to roam and mandates sterilization after the third offense.
However, the second part of the legislation violates basic constitutional rights and human decency.
Here are the provisions of the second part of the legislation (Italics are
direct quotes, and words that are not italicized are our comments):
“The owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog that is the subject of a complaint may be cited and pay a civil penalty as provided in this section. This civil penalty shall be in addition to any fine, fee, or penalty imposed under any other provision of law or local ordinance." In the first sentence, the committee substituted “may" for “shall", which appears to leave the
issuance of a citation up to the discretion of an animal control officer.
However, the basis for this decision is not defined.
“The owner of the dog shall pay the civil penalty to the local
animal control agency within 30 business days of the citation. The local animal control agency shall waive the civil penalty if, within 14 business days of the citation, the owner of the dog presents written proof from a licensed veterinarian that the dog was spayed or neutered." There is no provision for a dog owner to defend him/herself in court or at a hearing, and no appeal is
allowed. If you are accused, you are guilty. Period. This is a violation of constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law.
“Complaint" means an oral or written complaint to a local animal control agency that alleges that the dog or the owner of the dog has violated this division, any other provision of state law that relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance. "Complaint also means the observation by an employee or officer of a local animal control agency of behavior by a dog or the owner of a dog that violates this division, any other provision of state law that relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance."An example of what this means is that a hunting or field trial dog that is in excellent health and conditioned for performance could result in a complaint of animal
cruelty if anyone believes the dog looks thin.
"Local animal control agency" means any city or county animal control agency or other entity responsible for enforcing animal-related laws or local animal control ordinances." This includes Humane Societies and other animal welfare organizations empowered to enforce animal cruelty or other dog laws. Many members of these groups support a radical animal rights agenda.
The Senate Local Government Committee approved this legislation by a party-line 3-2 vote Wednesday, with Democrats in the majority. It now goes to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, and then to the Senate floor for a final vote.
Please contact members of the Appropriations Committee immediately to voice opposition to the second half of this bill, and also individual senators.
This link gives contact information for committee members:
http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/sen/committee/STANDING/APPROP/_home1/PROFILE.HTM. The committee meets on Monday.
This link gives contact information for all senators:
http://www.senate.ca.gov/~newsen/senators/senators.htp. While Sen. Michael Machado voted for this bill on Wednesday, he expressed many concerns and might be convinced to change
his vote.
Dallas
Here is a summary of the dog ordinance passed Wednesday by the Dallas City Council by a 10-3 vote. The ordinance:
Creates a permit for a dog or cat used for breeding or competition.
The cost of the permit is $70 annually for each animal, plus the regular license fee of $30. There is no grace period or exclusion provided for new residents or people who are visiting Dallas, including participants in dog shows or other events. Visitors can be cited, and we expect that they will be cited.
It Requires all other dogs or cats to be spayed or neutered.
Limits a single household to a total of six cats and/or dogs. People owning more than a half-acre of land would be allowed eight. People who currently own a greater number of animals could apply to the city to be allowed to keep their animals without penalty, but they would not be allowed to buy a dog or breed a litter of puppies until their number of dogs drops below the limit. The ordinance applies to anyone who “harbors" more than six dogs, which includes many visitors and participants in dog shows and other events.
Almost all professional handlers would be in this category, as well as many owner/handlers.
Subjects anyone who harbors a group of dogs that exceeds the limits to unannounced inspections. This would include participants in dog shows or other events.
Mandates microchipping of all dogs and cats, including those of
visitors.
Prohibits tethering of unsupervised dogs to trees or poles except
"for a period no longer than necessary for the owner to complete a temporary
task."
Forces owners to provide at least 150 square feet of space and a building or
designed doghouse for a dog confined outdoors.
And provides for confiscation of allegedly dangerous dogs, and other
penalties.
Please contact us at asda@csonline.net if you would like to participate in legal action or boycotts related to the Dallas ordinance.
Pennsylvania
Dog owners in Pennsylvania were beset by two pieces of bad legislation this week.
HB 2525 regulates a million dog owners and owners of 2,700 licensed kennels in the state. It passed the House Agriculture Committee by a 17-12 vote Wednesday. All but one Republican (Rep. K. Boback) voted against the bill, and all Democrats (the majority party) voted in favor of it.
It appears that the final bill reflects some of the promises made to dog ownership advocacy groups during the past several months of negotiations, but that the Democrats have reneged on other promises.
Some dog owners groups have withdrawn their opposition to this legislation, but the American Sporting Dog Alliance continues to oppose it in its present form. While we support changes that affect commercial breeders, these represent only a small part of HB 2525. The rest of the bill has serious impacts on all dog and kennel owners. The text of several amendments has not been published thus far We will issue a full report on this legislation in the next couple of days.
The other legislation is HB 2532, which provides what amounts to be a de facto partial or complete ban on tail docking, ear cropping and dewclaw removal by anyone except a licensed veterinarian. Although most other dog owners' organizations have not taken a clear public stance on this bill, the American Sporting Dog Alliance categorically opposes it.
HB 2532 passed the House Judiciary Committee by a 28-1 vote Tuesday, with only Republican Rep. T. Creighton voting “no."
The bill allows owners to dock the tails of puppies until they pass three days of age, and to remove dewclaws during the first five days. However, the burden of proof is placed on a dog's owner to prove that this work was done legally before the age limits, or by a veterinarian. It would be difficult for most dog owners to prove this, and a large majority would not be able to prove it. The simple possession of a dog with a docked tail or a lack of dewclaws would be considered evidence of an animal cruelty violation, if the owner cannot prove his/her innocence.
The bill continues a total ban against ear cropping, except by a
veterinarian, and anyone who is found in possession of a dog with cropped ears is automatically guilty of criminal animal cruelty in the absence of proof.
For all of these procedures, HB 2532 struck out a provision that would have exempted dogs if their owners filed an affidavit with a county treasurer that the work was done before the bill is passed.
That means a large majority of owners of many of the most popular breeds will have no way of proving that they have complied with the law. These procedures were done legally in the past on many dogs, or legally by breeders in other states. In many cases, a dog owner has no idea who performed these procedures. Thus, they would be guilty of criminal animal cruelty for noncompliance.
This legislation will destroy rescue work for many breeds if it is signed into law. Most dogs that are assisted by rescue groups, animal shelters and private individuals either come from unknown sources, or do not come with medical records. There will be no choice except to euthanize these dogs, since it will be impossible to establish their legality.
This legislation also will have a severe impact on people who live in other states. On one level, Pennsylvanians will no longer be able to buy puppies from dozens of breeds from nonresident breeders who perform these procedures legally in their home states.
On another level, Pennsylvania professional trainers and handlers will not be able to accept many dogs from out-of-state customers, because proof will not be available.
But a larger impact will be on thousands of people who own dogs and come to Pennsylvania for a vacation, to hunt, or to compete in field trials, dog shows and other events. Anyone who brings a dog with a docked tail, missing dewclaws or cropped ears into Pennsylvania is subject to arrest for criminal animal cruelty charges.
This will affect many very popular breeds of dogs, such as almost all
Continental breeds of pointing dogs, flushing dogs, terriers and many working dogs, such as rottweilers and doberman pinchers.
The bill now moves to the full House for a vote. Please contact your own legislator and as many others as possible to express opposition to this legislation. Contact information can be found at:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/representatives_alpha.cfm.
Here is a link to the text of the legislation:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2007&sessInd=0&billBody=H
&billTyp=B&billNbr=2532&pn=4030
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, hobby breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its
rightful place in American society and life. Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. Our email is ASDA@csonline.net.
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
National: "Animal Rights" groups Loby to end all dog breeding
TX-RPOA E-News
From Responsible Pet Owners Alliance,
the reasonable voice regarding animal issues in Texas.
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance is an animal welfare organization,
not "animal rights" and, yes, there is a difference.
Permission granted to crosspost.
June 23, 2008
The San Antonio and Dallas animal ordinances were not proposed to actually
address animal problems but are a national "animal rights" legislative
agenda to end all use, breeding and ownership of animals for any reason
including pet ownership. The extremists consider animals and humans to be
equals. Therefore they consider pet ownership to be slavery.
HSUS recently launched their new campaign targeting "puppymills" on the
Oprah Winfrey Show. However the show ignored the fact that there were
already unenforced laws on the books to address the problems shown. HSUS
and other "animal rights" groups consider anyone who breeds a dog to be a
"puppymill." To them there is no such thing as a responsible breeder and
their goal is for purebred dogs and cats to become extinct and eventually
all species of pets. What has sounded incredulous to some over the years
has been proven to be fact today with ordinances similar to CA's original AB
1634 popping up everywhere. RPOA can only say, "We told you so."
For 17 years Responsible Pet Owners Alliance has warned everyone that this
was coming but few believed us -- until now. Texas Humane Legislation
Network (THLN) is a coalition of Texas "animal rights" activists and groups
who do nothing but lobby each year at the state level for their national
legislative agenda. This has been extended to city and county legislation
in recent years. Skip Trimble, chairman of the Dallas Shelter Commission,
is THLN's treasurer and board member.
Two other board members of THLN were the force behind getting San Antonio's
onerous ordinance passed in December: Joel Hailey, San Antonio attorney
with Voice for Animals, and Jef Hale, director of San Antonio's Animal Care
Services.
There's proof of HSUS's involvement in the Dallas ordinance at the link
below. Just browse the links and follow the yellow brick road for some eye
opening information: two form emails from SPCA and HSUS; a Dallas
veterinarian's supporting letter for the ordinance (Tony Lopez, DVM, DABVP);
postcards from SPCA mailed to members and HSUS emails sent out. The website
also ties in Metroplex Animal Coalition where donations can be made for
campaign expenses. There are many interesting links. The website falsely
claims 25% of purebred dogs are in shelters. This contradicts the American
Humane Association's quote of approximately 7% purebred dogs and less than
1% purebred cats in shelters.
For more information and to follow t! he links, go to:
http://dallasanimaladvocates.wordpress.com/2008/06/22/spca-calls-for-action-dallas-its-time-to-act1/
OR Tiny URL
http://tinyurl.com/6nnjbq
HSUS has a regional office in Ft. Worth and a Spay/Neuter Clinic in Dallas.
Jay Sabatucci, HSUS employee, serves as president of the Texas Animal
Control Association. What a web they do weave in Texas! Some years back
SPCA of Texas was the subject of a 20/20 expose on raids and seizures of
dogs that didn't appear to be cruelly treated. The cruelty investigator
from SPCA had a criminal record for a rape conviction and was fired shortly
thereafter. The 20/20 cameraman was actually a veterinarian in real life
who said the animals weren't cruelly treated.
Dallas City Council has some members who are wavering and we MUST have a
good turnout at the Council Meeting Wednesday for the vote!
If you can att! end (whether you speak or not!), email Verjean Lunenschloss at
ver jean.lunenschloss@verizon.net . It is imperative that the Dallas
ordinance be defeated. More information about the ordinance and contact
info for city officials is on our website:
www.responsiblepetowners.org
Check out the Extreme-Animal-Rights Blog at the URL:
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/extreme-animal-rights/message/5969
OR Tiny URL:
http://tinyurl.com/6b9uxk
For some time RPOA has noticed security is lax around crating areas at dog
shows. Dogs in crates should never be left unattended. Another blog
regarding protests at the July 3-6 dog show and calling breeders/murderers
of shelter dogs is at:
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/extreme-animal-rights/message/5949
Or Tiny URL: http://tinyurl.com/5gdqgw
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance
900 NE Loop 410 #311-D
San Antonio, TX 78209
P! hone: (210) 822-6763
Website: www.responsiblepetowners.org
From Responsible Pet Owners Alliance,
the reasonable voice regarding animal issues in Texas.
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance is an animal welfare organization,
not "animal rights" and, yes, there is a difference.
Permission granted to crosspost.
June 23, 2008
The San Antonio and Dallas animal ordinances were not proposed to actually
address animal problems but are a national "animal rights" legislative
agenda to end all use, breeding and ownership of animals for any reason
including pet ownership. The extremists consider animals and humans to be
equals. Therefore they consider pet ownership to be slavery.
HSUS recently launched their new campaign targeting "puppymills" on the
Oprah Winfrey Show. However the show ignored the fact that there were
already unenforced laws on the books to address the problems shown. HSUS
and other "animal rights" groups consider anyone who breeds a dog to be a
"puppymill." To them there is no such thing as a responsible breeder and
their goal is for purebred dogs and cats to become extinct and eventually
all species of pets. What has sounded incredulous to some over the years
has been proven to be fact today with ordinances similar to CA's original AB
1634 popping up everywhere. RPOA can only say, "We told you so."
For 17 years Responsible Pet Owners Alliance has warned everyone that this
was coming but few believed us -- until now. Texas Humane Legislation
Network (THLN) is a coalition of Texas "animal rights" activists and groups
who do nothing but lobby each year at the state level for their national
legislative agenda. This has been extended to city and county legislation
in recent years. Skip Trimble, chairman of the Dallas Shelter Commission,
is THLN's treasurer and board member.
Two other board members of THLN were the force behind getting San Antonio's
onerous ordinance passed in December: Joel Hailey, San Antonio attorney
with Voice for Animals, and Jef Hale, director of San Antonio's Animal Care
Services.
There's proof of HSUS's involvement in the Dallas ordinance at the link
below. Just browse the links and follow the yellow brick road for some eye
opening information: two form emails from SPCA and HSUS; a Dallas
veterinarian's supporting letter for the ordinance (Tony Lopez, DVM, DABVP);
postcards from SPCA mailed to members and HSUS emails sent out. The website
also ties in Metroplex Animal Coalition where donations can be made for
campaign expenses. There are many interesting links. The website falsely
claims 25% of purebred dogs are in shelters. This contradicts the American
Humane Association's quote of approximately 7% purebred dogs and less than
1% purebred cats in shelters.
For more information and to follow t! he links, go to:
http://dallasanimaladvocates.wordpress.com/2008/06/22/spca-calls-for-action-dallas-its-time-to-act1/
OR Tiny URL
http://tinyurl.com/6nnjbq
HSUS has a regional office in Ft. Worth and a Spay/Neuter Clinic in Dallas.
Jay Sabatucci, HSUS employee, serves as president of the Texas Animal
Control Association. What a web they do weave in Texas! Some years back
SPCA of Texas was the subject of a 20/20 expose on raids and seizures of
dogs that didn't appear to be cruelly treated. The cruelty investigator
from SPCA had a criminal record for a rape conviction and was fired shortly
thereafter. The 20/20 cameraman was actually a veterinarian in real life
who said the animals weren't cruelly treated.
Dallas City Council has some members who are wavering and we MUST have a
good turnout at the Council Meeting Wednesday for the vote!
If you can att! end (whether you speak or not!), email Verjean Lunenschloss at
ver jean.lunenschloss@verizon.net . It is imperative that the Dallas
ordinance be defeated. More information about the ordinance and contact
info for city officials is on our website:
www.responsiblepetowners.org
Check out the Extreme-Animal-Rights Blog at the URL:
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/extreme-animal-rights/message/5969
OR Tiny URL:
http://tinyurl.com/6b9uxk
For some time RPOA has noticed security is lax around crating areas at dog
shows. Dogs in crates should never be left unattended. Another blog
regarding protests at the July 3-6 dog show and calling breeders/murderers
of shelter dogs is at:
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/extreme-animal-rights/message/5949
Or Tiny URL: http://tinyurl.com/5gdqgw
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance
900 NE Loop 410 #311-D
San Antonio, TX 78209
P! hone: (210) 822-6763
Website: www.responsiblepetowners.org
Friday, May 30, 2008
PA- Dog Legistation Raises Red Flags
Pennsylvania Dog Legislation Raises Red Flags
Legislators Must Hear from Responsible Owners and Breeders
May 28, 2008
Legislation designed to crack down on so-called "puppy mills" has been introduced in Pennsylvania that would have broad, sweeping implications for all dog owners and breeders. Governor Rendell's strong support for HB 2525 has given the bill significant momentum and a hearing is expected to be scheduled quite soon in the House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee.
NAIA strongly supports the goal of improving substandard kennels and breeding operations, and we stand behind the spirit and intent of HB 2525 to eliminate poor and irresponsible practices, but upon closer review, we feel compelled to point out some areas where the bill could lead to misinterpretations, enforcement problems, and rights violations.
HB 2525, sponsored by Representative James E. Casorio Jr., D-Westmoreland, sets up stringent licensing and standards of care for commercial kennels. Although high volume breeding operations are the primary focus of the bill, it also establishes new rules for non-commercial kennels and individual dog owners.
A "commercial kennel" is defined as any kennel that breeds or whelps dogs and sells or transfers any dog to a dealer OR sells or transfers more than 60 dogs per year.
A "kennel" is defined as an establishment in or through which at least 26 dogs are kept or transferred in a calendar year.
A "dealer" is a person who publicly or privately sells or offers for sale any dog belonging to another person for consideration, a fee or a commission or percentage of the sale price or transfers dogs at wholesale.
A "private kennel" is a kennel not meeting the definition of commercial kennel at in or adjoining a residence where dogs are kept or bred for the purpose of hunting, tracking and exhibiting in dog shows, or field and obedience trials.
HB 2525 is improved over last year’s proposed regulations and it clearly reflects the input of many stakeholder groups that met with the department before they finalized the legislation. However, it still subjects all dog owners, all hobby breeders, all show kennels, all sporting dog kennels and all boarding kennels to overbearing and unnecessary laws.
Our primary concern is that this bill contains the scope and authority necessary to eliminate substandard kennels, without causing any undue, collateral harm to the law abiding, responsible breeders and kennel operators.
The following provisions in HB 2525 raise concerns:
It allows searches on private residences not associated with the actual operation of a kennel, which strikes us as unnecessarily invasive.
It gives the Department of Agriculture the ability to gain a search warrant simply for even a small violation of their written policies or procedures.
The bill permits the department to levy fines up to $1,000 and imprison violators on criminal charges for the first offense under the law or regulations, no matter how minor the transgression. As written, such severe penalties could be applied at the department's sole discretion for failure to keep a collar on your dog while traveling in your car or making an innocent error in your license application or in your records. The department needs discretion in enforcing the law, but it also needs better guidelines to shape its discretion. First offenses should have the option of a warning.
Under this bill a small breeder could have a single litter or purchase a single dog that brings it under the licensing requirements. However, in the case of the birth of a litter, they will not know if they exceed the limit until the litter is born. Delays by the department for the required inspection and the administrative actions to issue the license means that these small breeders would either be required to get a license unnecessarily or would have to operate without a license for a short period through no fault of their own.
It permits the department to require the divestiture of dogs below the kennel threshold without providing any reason for reducing the number below 25 dogs. At that number, the establishment is not a kennel (unless it thereafter goes over the 25 dog limit) and should not be subject to the department’s authority over kennels absent a clear and well-defined danger.
You can read the entire bill by clicking here .
The time is now to take action to secure the future of the dog fancy in Pennsylvania. Legislators are being overwhelmed with pressure from the media and others to pass a bill quickly. Unless they hear from us, legislators will pass a bill that hurts all of us, even if it is unintentional.
Please use the talking points below or CLICK HERE TO TAKE ACTION NOW and write members of the House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee encouraging them to amend this bill.
We need you to weigh in today in favor of reasonable dog laws!
For more information, we invite you to read our letter to the House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee.
If you are receiving this alert through another source besides NAIA, and aren't yet on our alert list, please sign up now.
THANK YOU FOR TAKING ACTION!
Legislators Must Hear from Responsible Owners and Breeders
May 28, 2008
Legislation designed to crack down on so-called "puppy mills" has been introduced in Pennsylvania that would have broad, sweeping implications for all dog owners and breeders. Governor Rendell's strong support for HB 2525 has given the bill significant momentum and a hearing is expected to be scheduled quite soon in the House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee.
NAIA strongly supports the goal of improving substandard kennels and breeding operations, and we stand behind the spirit and intent of HB 2525 to eliminate poor and irresponsible practices, but upon closer review, we feel compelled to point out some areas where the bill could lead to misinterpretations, enforcement problems, and rights violations.
HB 2525, sponsored by Representative James E. Casorio Jr., D-Westmoreland, sets up stringent licensing and standards of care for commercial kennels. Although high volume breeding operations are the primary focus of the bill, it also establishes new rules for non-commercial kennels and individual dog owners.
A "commercial kennel" is defined as any kennel that breeds or whelps dogs and sells or transfers any dog to a dealer OR sells or transfers more than 60 dogs per year.
A "kennel" is defined as an establishment in or through which at least 26 dogs are kept or transferred in a calendar year.
A "dealer" is a person who publicly or privately sells or offers for sale any dog belonging to another person for consideration, a fee or a commission or percentage of the sale price or transfers dogs at wholesale.
A "private kennel" is a kennel not meeting the definition of commercial kennel at in or adjoining a residence where dogs are kept or bred for the purpose of hunting, tracking and exhibiting in dog shows, or field and obedience trials.
HB 2525 is improved over last year’s proposed regulations and it clearly reflects the input of many stakeholder groups that met with the department before they finalized the legislation. However, it still subjects all dog owners, all hobby breeders, all show kennels, all sporting dog kennels and all boarding kennels to overbearing and unnecessary laws.
Our primary concern is that this bill contains the scope and authority necessary to eliminate substandard kennels, without causing any undue, collateral harm to the law abiding, responsible breeders and kennel operators.
The following provisions in HB 2525 raise concerns:
It allows searches on private residences not associated with the actual operation of a kennel, which strikes us as unnecessarily invasive.
It gives the Department of Agriculture the ability to gain a search warrant simply for even a small violation of their written policies or procedures.
The bill permits the department to levy fines up to $1,000 and imprison violators on criminal charges for the first offense under the law or regulations, no matter how minor the transgression. As written, such severe penalties could be applied at the department's sole discretion for failure to keep a collar on your dog while traveling in your car or making an innocent error in your license application or in your records. The department needs discretion in enforcing the law, but it also needs better guidelines to shape its discretion. First offenses should have the option of a warning.
Under this bill a small breeder could have a single litter or purchase a single dog that brings it under the licensing requirements. However, in the case of the birth of a litter, they will not know if they exceed the limit until the litter is born. Delays by the department for the required inspection and the administrative actions to issue the license means that these small breeders would either be required to get a license unnecessarily or would have to operate without a license for a short period through no fault of their own.
It permits the department to require the divestiture of dogs below the kennel threshold without providing any reason for reducing the number below 25 dogs. At that number, the establishment is not a kennel (unless it thereafter goes over the 25 dog limit) and should not be subject to the department’s authority over kennels absent a clear and well-defined danger.
You can read the entire bill by clicking here .
The time is now to take action to secure the future of the dog fancy in Pennsylvania. Legislators are being overwhelmed with pressure from the media and others to pass a bill quickly. Unless they hear from us, legislators will pass a bill that hurts all of us, even if it is unintentional.
Please use the talking points below or CLICK HERE TO TAKE ACTION NOW and write members of the House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee encouraging them to amend this bill.
We need you to weigh in today in favor of reasonable dog laws!
For more information, we invite you to read our letter to the House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee.
If you are receiving this alert through another source besides NAIA, and aren't yet on our alert list, please sign up now.
THANK YOU FOR TAKING ACTION!
PA- Bill to allow Local Breed Specific Legislation
PA Bill to Allow Local BSL
Print This Article
[Thursday, May 22, 2008]
Pennsylvania House Bill 2553 will remove the state's prohibition on breed specific local ordinances, thereby allowing municipalities to adopt any type of law applicable to dangerous dogs, including breed-specific ordinances. It is imperative that concerned dog owners in Pennsylvania contact their legislators and express their strong opposition to this bill.
The American Kennel Club supports reasonable, enforceable, non-discriminatory laws to govern the ownership of dogs. The AKC believes that dog owners should be responsible for their dogs. We support laws that: establish a fair process by which specific dogs are identified as "dangerous" based on stated, measurable actions; impose appropriate penalties on irresponsible owners; and establish a well-defined method for dealing with dogs proven to be dangerous. The American Kennel Club strongly opposes any legislation that determines a dog to be "dangerous" based on specific breeds or phenotypic classes of dogs.
By allowing municipalities to impose breed-specific dangerous dog ordinances, HB 2553, if passed, will permit communities to unfairly target well-behaved dogs of specific breeds, thereby raising the possibility of harsh care and condition requirements or the possibility of penalties for owning certain breeds while not focusing on whether or not an individual dog has previously exhibited dangerous behavior. Additionally, the breed-specific ordinances allowed under this bill will create an unenforceable patchwork of dangerous dog rules across the Commonwealth.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Concerned Pennsylvania dog owners should contact the members of the House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee. Respectfully let them know that HB 2553 is an unacceptable means to address dog control issues.
Majority:
Hon. Michael K. Hanna, Majority Chairman
302 Main Capitol Building
PO Box 202076
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2076
(717) 772-2283
Fax: (717) 787-4137
To e-mail Rep. Hanna, click here.
Hon. Gary Haluska, Majority Vice Chairman
114 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202073
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2073
(717) 787-3532
Fax: (717) 783-7548
To e-mail Rep. Haluska, click here.
Hon. David R. Kessler, Majority Secretary
115A East Wing
PO Box 202130
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2130
(717) 787-2769
Fax: (717) 780-4768
To e-mail Rep. Kessler, click here.
Hon. Mike Carroll
28A East Wing
PO Box 202118
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2118
(717) 787-3589
Fax: (717) 780-4763
To e-mail Rep. Carroll, click here.
Hon. Mark B. Cohen
128 Main Capitol Building
PO Box 202202
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2202
(717) 787-4117
Fax: (717) 787-6650
To e-mail Rep. Cohen, click here.
Hon. H. Scott Conklin
101B East Wing
PO Box 202077
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2077
(717) 787-9473
Fax: (717) 780-4764
To e-mail Rep. Conklin, click here.
Hon. Peter J. Daley
214 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202049
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2049
(717) 783-9333
Fax: (717) 783-7558
To e-mail Rep. Daley, click here.
Hon. Richard T. Grucela
G-01 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202137
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2137
(717) 705-1878
Fax: (717) 783-3180
To e-mail Rep. Grucela, click here.
Hon. Harold James
317 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202186
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2186
(717) 787-9477
Fax: (717) 787-7517
To e-mail Rep. James, click here.
Hon. Babette Josephs
300 Main Capitol Building
PO Box 202182
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2182
(717) 787-8529
Fax: (717) 787-5066
To e-mail Rep. Josephs, click here.
Hon. Tim Mahoney
104B East Wing
PO Box 202051
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2051
(717) 772-2174
Fax: (717) 780-4786
To e-mail Rep. Mahoney, click here.
Hon. John Myers
305 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202201
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2201
(717) 787-3181
Fax: (717) 772-4038
To e-mail Rep. Myers, click here.
Hon. Frank Louis Oliver
34E East Wing
PO Box 202195
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2195
(717) 787-3480
Fax: (717) 783-0684
To e-mail Rep. Oliver, click here.
Hon. Timothy J. Solobay
G-14 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202048
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2048
(717) 787-1188
Fax: (717) 705-1887
To e-mail Rep. Solobay, click here.
Hon. Tom Yewcic
300 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202072
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2072
(717) 783-0248
Fax: (717) 787-4922
To e-mail Rep. Yewcic, click here.
Hon. Rosita C. Youngblood
121A East Wing
PO Box 202198
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2198
(717) 787-7727
Fax: (717) 772-1313
To e-mail Rep. Youngblood, click here.
Minority:
Hon. Art Hershey, Minority Chairman
202 Ryan Office Building
PO Box 202013
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2013
(717) 783-6435
Fax: (717) 705-1868
To e-mail Rep. Hershey, click here.
Hon. Bob Bastian, Minority Vice Chairman
402A Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202069
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2069
(717) 783-8756
Fax: (717) 783-3899
To e-mail Rep. Bastian, click here.
Hon. Mike Fleck, Minority Secretary
159A East Wing
PO Box 202081
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2081
(717) 787-3335
Fax: (717) 260-6504
E-mail:mfleck@pahousegop.com
Hon. Karen Boback
141B East Wing
PO Box 202117
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2117
(717) 787-1117
Fax: (717) 705-1889
E-Mail: kboback@pahousegop.com
Hon. Michele Brooks
153B East Wing
PO Box 202017
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2017
(717) 783-5008
Fax: (717) 705-1948
E-mail:mbrooks@pahousegop.com
Hon. Jim Cox
412 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202129
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2129
(717) 772-2435
Fax: (717) 260-6516
E-mail:jcox@pahousegop.com
Hon. Gordon Denlinger
163A East Wing
PO Box 202099
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2099
(717) 787-3531
Fax: (717) 705-1951
E-mail:gdenling@pahousegop.com
Hon. David S. Hickernell
143B East Wing
PO Box 202098
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2098
(717) 783-2076
Fax: (717) 705-1946
To e-mail Rep. Hickernell, click here.
Hon. Rob W. Kauffman
163A East Wing
PO Box 202089
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2089
(717) 705-2004
Fax: (717) 705-1951
E-mail: rkauffma@pahousegop.com
Hon. Mark K. Keller
5 East Wing
PO Box 202086
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2086
(717) 783-1593
Fax: (717) 705-7012
E-mail: mkeller@pahousegop.com
Hon. David R. Millard
402B Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202109
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2109
(717) 783-1102
Fax: (717) 772-0094
E-mail:dmillard@pahousegop.com
Hon. Dan Moul
G-32 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202091
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2091
(717) 783-5217
E-Mail: dmoul@pahousegop.com
Hon. Tina Pickett
155A East Wing
PO Box 202110
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2110
(717) 783-8238
Fax: (717) 705-1949
E-mail: tpickett@pahousegop.com
Print This Article
[Thursday, May 22, 2008]
Pennsylvania House Bill 2553 will remove the state's prohibition on breed specific local ordinances, thereby allowing municipalities to adopt any type of law applicable to dangerous dogs, including breed-specific ordinances. It is imperative that concerned dog owners in Pennsylvania contact their legislators and express their strong opposition to this bill.
The American Kennel Club supports reasonable, enforceable, non-discriminatory laws to govern the ownership of dogs. The AKC believes that dog owners should be responsible for their dogs. We support laws that: establish a fair process by which specific dogs are identified as "dangerous" based on stated, measurable actions; impose appropriate penalties on irresponsible owners; and establish a well-defined method for dealing with dogs proven to be dangerous. The American Kennel Club strongly opposes any legislation that determines a dog to be "dangerous" based on specific breeds or phenotypic classes of dogs.
By allowing municipalities to impose breed-specific dangerous dog ordinances, HB 2553, if passed, will permit communities to unfairly target well-behaved dogs of specific breeds, thereby raising the possibility of harsh care and condition requirements or the possibility of penalties for owning certain breeds while not focusing on whether or not an individual dog has previously exhibited dangerous behavior. Additionally, the breed-specific ordinances allowed under this bill will create an unenforceable patchwork of dangerous dog rules across the Commonwealth.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Concerned Pennsylvania dog owners should contact the members of the House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee. Respectfully let them know that HB 2553 is an unacceptable means to address dog control issues.
Majority:
Hon. Michael K. Hanna, Majority Chairman
302 Main Capitol Building
PO Box 202076
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2076
(717) 772-2283
Fax: (717) 787-4137
To e-mail Rep. Hanna, click here.
Hon. Gary Haluska, Majority Vice Chairman
114 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202073
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2073
(717) 787-3532
Fax: (717) 783-7548
To e-mail Rep. Haluska, click here.
Hon. David R. Kessler, Majority Secretary
115A East Wing
PO Box 202130
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2130
(717) 787-2769
Fax: (717) 780-4768
To e-mail Rep. Kessler, click here.
Hon. Mike Carroll
28A East Wing
PO Box 202118
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2118
(717) 787-3589
Fax: (717) 780-4763
To e-mail Rep. Carroll, click here.
Hon. Mark B. Cohen
128 Main Capitol Building
PO Box 202202
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2202
(717) 787-4117
Fax: (717) 787-6650
To e-mail Rep. Cohen, click here.
Hon. H. Scott Conklin
101B East Wing
PO Box 202077
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2077
(717) 787-9473
Fax: (717) 780-4764
To e-mail Rep. Conklin, click here.
Hon. Peter J. Daley
214 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202049
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2049
(717) 783-9333
Fax: (717) 783-7558
To e-mail Rep. Daley, click here.
Hon. Richard T. Grucela
G-01 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202137
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2137
(717) 705-1878
Fax: (717) 783-3180
To e-mail Rep. Grucela, click here.
Hon. Harold James
317 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202186
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2186
(717) 787-9477
Fax: (717) 787-7517
To e-mail Rep. James, click here.
Hon. Babette Josephs
300 Main Capitol Building
PO Box 202182
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2182
(717) 787-8529
Fax: (717) 787-5066
To e-mail Rep. Josephs, click here.
Hon. Tim Mahoney
104B East Wing
PO Box 202051
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2051
(717) 772-2174
Fax: (717) 780-4786
To e-mail Rep. Mahoney, click here.
Hon. John Myers
305 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202201
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2201
(717) 787-3181
Fax: (717) 772-4038
To e-mail Rep. Myers, click here.
Hon. Frank Louis Oliver
34E East Wing
PO Box 202195
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2195
(717) 787-3480
Fax: (717) 783-0684
To e-mail Rep. Oliver, click here.
Hon. Timothy J. Solobay
G-14 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202048
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2048
(717) 787-1188
Fax: (717) 705-1887
To e-mail Rep. Solobay, click here.
Hon. Tom Yewcic
300 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202072
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2072
(717) 783-0248
Fax: (717) 787-4922
To e-mail Rep. Yewcic, click here.
Hon. Rosita C. Youngblood
121A East Wing
PO Box 202198
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2198
(717) 787-7727
Fax: (717) 772-1313
To e-mail Rep. Youngblood, click here.
Minority:
Hon. Art Hershey, Minority Chairman
202 Ryan Office Building
PO Box 202013
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2013
(717) 783-6435
Fax: (717) 705-1868
To e-mail Rep. Hershey, click here.
Hon. Bob Bastian, Minority Vice Chairman
402A Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202069
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2069
(717) 783-8756
Fax: (717) 783-3899
To e-mail Rep. Bastian, click here.
Hon. Mike Fleck, Minority Secretary
159A East Wing
PO Box 202081
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2081
(717) 787-3335
Fax: (717) 260-6504
E-mail:mfleck@pahousegop.com
Hon. Karen Boback
141B East Wing
PO Box 202117
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2117
(717) 787-1117
Fax: (717) 705-1889
E-Mail: kboback@pahousegop.com
Hon. Michele Brooks
153B East Wing
PO Box 202017
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2017
(717) 783-5008
Fax: (717) 705-1948
E-mail:mbrooks@pahousegop.com
Hon. Jim Cox
412 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202129
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2129
(717) 772-2435
Fax: (717) 260-6516
E-mail:jcox@pahousegop.com
Hon. Gordon Denlinger
163A East Wing
PO Box 202099
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2099
(717) 787-3531
Fax: (717) 705-1951
E-mail:gdenling@pahousegop.com
Hon. David S. Hickernell
143B East Wing
PO Box 202098
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2098
(717) 783-2076
Fax: (717) 705-1946
To e-mail Rep. Hickernell, click here.
Hon. Rob W. Kauffman
163A East Wing
PO Box 202089
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2089
(717) 705-2004
Fax: (717) 705-1951
E-mail: rkauffma@pahousegop.com
Hon. Mark K. Keller
5 East Wing
PO Box 202086
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2086
(717) 783-1593
Fax: (717) 705-7012
E-mail: mkeller@pahousegop.com
Hon. David R. Millard
402B Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202109
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2109
(717) 783-1102
Fax: (717) 772-0094
E-mail:dmillard@pahousegop.com
Hon. Dan Moul
G-32 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202091
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2091
(717) 783-5217
E-Mail: dmoul@pahousegop.com
Hon. Tina Pickett
155A East Wing
PO Box 202110
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2110
(717) 783-8238
Fax: (717) 705-1949
E-mail: tpickett@pahousegop.com
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Animal Rights Activists Manipulate Zoning Orginances to Stop Kennels
PA Animal Rights Activists Manipulate
Zoning Ordinances To Stop Kennels
Lebanon County Judge Sets Sobering Precedent
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@csonline.net
NEWMANSTOWN, PA – Animal rights groups in Pennsylvania have taken
their extremist agenda to the local level by infiltrating zoning
boards and by bringing in outsiders to lobby for unrealistic and
unworkable zoning requirements that can result in a de facto ban on
kennels in agricultural areas, an American Sporting Dog Alliance
investigation shows.
Lebanon County rural landowner Scott Good learned this lesson the
hard way.
Good, who lives on the land he grew up on in an agriculturally zoned
area, applied for a zoning permit to build a small kennel to raise
English bulldogs. He now owns three dogs of this breed as pets, but
wants to expand and make it a small part-time business venture that
would house about 30 dogs. He plans to sell puppies only on a retail
level, directly to customers who come to his kennel, and does not
want to sell to dealers or pet stores.
Kennels are permitted in agriculturally zoned areas of the county by
special exception. Good proposed building an ultra-modern kennel
structure that significantly exceeds all state requirements, and his
kennel would have offered both heated and air-conditioned comfort
for the dogs. His kennel would have been hidden from all neighbors
by hills and trees, and would have been a minimum of 400 feet from
the nearest property line.
Moreover, Good had contacted all of his neighbors and received their
support. Good also has a completely clean record of compliance with
local laws, and all laws relating to animals.
What he didn't count on was animal rights activists reading the
legal notice for the hearing and packing the room with 12-to-15
outsiders who voiced theoretical and fabricated concerns to the
Heidelberg Township Zoning Hearing Board. Good said none of these
activists know him or live nearby.
Good also didn't count on his local rural zoning board proving
itself to be, in effect, an animal rights group.
The zoning board had no choice but to approve the special exception,
as Good exceeded all legal requirements by a wide margin. However,
an 11-page finding signed by Board Chairman Henry Noll set a series
of conditions that made it impossible for Good to continue with his
planned project.
The decision clearly granted dogs the same legal protections as
people under the zoning code, and specifically alleged that zoning
laws are meant to protect the health and welfare of dogs.
Under state law, zoning laws are meant to protect the health and
welfare of people. Dogs are not mentioned in the law.
Using "dogs are little people" logic to justify their actions, the
zoning board imposed 28 conditions on Good's permit that totally
destroyed the feasibility of the project. They include stipulations
that:
· Breeding is permitted only by artificial insemination.
Natural breeding is prohibited.
· Temperatures in the kennel must be maintained at between 68-
degrees and 75-degrees at all times. The homes of people with
children do not have to meet these kinds of exact temperature
requirements. Good planned to raise all puppies in his home, and
move them to the kennel only when they are old enough.
· Zoning officers will conduct unannounced inspections of the
kennel at least twice a year. This is in addition to state kennel
license inspections, which also are twice a year.
· Dogs cannot be exercised or allowed to use their outdoor
runs between the hours of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. Good had planned a
facility that included indoor enclosures that met the minimum state
requirements, with attached outdoor runs that tripled state
requirements. In addition, he had planned to have two attached 20-
foot by 30-foot exercise areas.
· The ruling cut the allowable number of dogs in half, to 16,
and the size of the exercise areas would be reduced by a third.
· Only one dog would be permitted to live in each enclosure.
Good said he believes it is essential to provide dogs with
companionship, as they are social animals and he considers isolation
cruel.
· All water from the kennel must be piped into holding tanks,
which must be pumped periodically and hauled away. Good had planned
to allow this water to flow onto his farmland, which is both
standard agricultural practice and is specifically approved on his
farm's nutrient management plan.
· Any dogs that die cannot be buried on the farm, including
beloved pets. Instead, they have to be hauled away as refuse by a
pre-approved carcass removal company, with written notice to the
township.
· All dog stools must be hauled off of the property as
garbage, and written proof must be submitted to the township. Good
had planned to spread the manure on his property, which also is a
standard agricultural practice and is approved in his farm's
nutrient management plan.
· And other care requirements were mandated, such as hand
feeding only, daily exercise for the dogs and sanitation rules.
These kinds of requirements normally are considered to be the role
of state regulations, and Good planned to apply for a state kennel
license.
"What they are telling you is that if you are breeding a dog,
nothing you do is good enough," Good said.
Good appealed the decision to Lebanon County Court and lost. Judge
Samuel Kline ruled in favor of the zoning board in late March (Judge
Kline did throw out two of the 28 stipulations, but allowed all of
the animal rights stipulations to remain in effect. The ruling
allowed the kennel permit to be transferred to a new owner if the
land is sold, and allowed Good to spread manure.)
Judge Kline's ruling is bad news for dog owners all across
Pennsylvania. It sets a legal precedent that can and will be used in
all of Pennsylvania's counties, towns, cities and townships. Kline
essentially ruled that a zoning board has the power to regulate
animal rights issues.
Good has appealed Judge Kline's ruling to the state Superior Court,
and the American Sporting Dog Alliance urges Pennsylvania dog owners
to assist Good with this appeal. We hope that dog owners will lend
Good their full support and assist him with the costs of an
expensive appeal. We also hope several attorneys will volunteer
their services to Good's legal defense efforts.
Good can be reached at smgood@paonline.com.
What happened to Good is not an isolated incident. We have had
dozens of confirmed and unconfirmed reports of similar zoning
actions in Pennsylvania over the past two years, especially in the
southeastern and south central parts of the state.
Good's situation has far-ranging importance for all dog and kennel
owners in Pennsylvania.
This year, the state Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement began to require
kennel license holders to affirm that they are in compliance with
all local ordinances and zoning codes. There have been reports that
the Bureau plans to contact local zoning boards to see if licensed
kennels are in compliance.
Moreover, recent draft regulatory and legislative proposals have
required kennel owners to comply with local zoning rules, and the
current proposed state kennel legislation gives the Bureau almost
unlimited power to create new regulations with minimal public
notification and participation.
We urge Pennsylvania dog owners to contact their legislators and ask
them to oppose this highly flawed legislation in general, and to
specifically oppose the provision for new regulations. We also urge
special vigilance to make sure that no zoning requirements are
included in kennel legislation or amended onto it. The draft
legislation, H.B. 2525, which is sponsored by Rep. James Casorio (D-
Westmoreland County) and supported by Gov. Ed Rendell, is now before
the House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee.
The Heidelberg Township Zoning Hearing Board clearly overstepped its
bounds and legal mandate on the Good situation, and we also urge our
readers to contact the township supervisors to voice disapproval of
this action and of the influence of radical animal rights activists
on township zoning issues. The township's email is HTAC@comcast.net.
In it's brief to Judge Kline, the township defined it's belief that
animal welfare issues are "a valid zoning purpose to protect the
health, safety and welfare…of the community."
None of the stipulations protect the people of the township from
anything. Almost all of them regulate only the dogs and the way they
are raised.
The ban on natural breeding is an example of this kind of twisted
logic. A rare sexually transmitted disease in dogs is brucellosis.
It can result in sterility and miscarriages in female animals.
This issue was raised by animal rights activists at the hearing, and
then was used by the zoning board to ban natural breeding.
However, normal veterinary practice in preventing the spread of this
rare disease in dogs is quite different. Instead, a simple blood
test can tell if a dog is a carrier of this disease. Many dog owners
routinely test all of their breeding animals, and the issue has no
impact on public health for humans.
Good wants the option to either breed naturally or artificially, as
sometimes bulldogs are difficult to breed naturally because of their
anatomy. However, he emphasizes that no public or veterinary health
risks are involved, and this has nothing to do with zoning issues.
Animal rights activists frequently use "scare tactics" such as the
brucellosis issue to hide their real agenda, which is to eliminate
the private breeding of dogs, and ultimately the private ownership
of dogs.
Zoning Ordinances To Stop Kennels
Lebanon County Judge Sets Sobering Precedent
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@csonline.net
NEWMANSTOWN, PA – Animal rights groups in Pennsylvania have taken
their extremist agenda to the local level by infiltrating zoning
boards and by bringing in outsiders to lobby for unrealistic and
unworkable zoning requirements that can result in a de facto ban on
kennels in agricultural areas, an American Sporting Dog Alliance
investigation shows.
Lebanon County rural landowner Scott Good learned this lesson the
hard way.
Good, who lives on the land he grew up on in an agriculturally zoned
area, applied for a zoning permit to build a small kennel to raise
English bulldogs. He now owns three dogs of this breed as pets, but
wants to expand and make it a small part-time business venture that
would house about 30 dogs. He plans to sell puppies only on a retail
level, directly to customers who come to his kennel, and does not
want to sell to dealers or pet stores.
Kennels are permitted in agriculturally zoned areas of the county by
special exception. Good proposed building an ultra-modern kennel
structure that significantly exceeds all state requirements, and his
kennel would have offered both heated and air-conditioned comfort
for the dogs. His kennel would have been hidden from all neighbors
by hills and trees, and would have been a minimum of 400 feet from
the nearest property line.
Moreover, Good had contacted all of his neighbors and received their
support. Good also has a completely clean record of compliance with
local laws, and all laws relating to animals.
What he didn't count on was animal rights activists reading the
legal notice for the hearing and packing the room with 12-to-15
outsiders who voiced theoretical and fabricated concerns to the
Heidelberg Township Zoning Hearing Board. Good said none of these
activists know him or live nearby.
Good also didn't count on his local rural zoning board proving
itself to be, in effect, an animal rights group.
The zoning board had no choice but to approve the special exception,
as Good exceeded all legal requirements by a wide margin. However,
an 11-page finding signed by Board Chairman Henry Noll set a series
of conditions that made it impossible for Good to continue with his
planned project.
The decision clearly granted dogs the same legal protections as
people under the zoning code, and specifically alleged that zoning
laws are meant to protect the health and welfare of dogs.
Under state law, zoning laws are meant to protect the health and
welfare of people. Dogs are not mentioned in the law.
Using "dogs are little people" logic to justify their actions, the
zoning board imposed 28 conditions on Good's permit that totally
destroyed the feasibility of the project. They include stipulations
that:
· Breeding is permitted only by artificial insemination.
Natural breeding is prohibited.
· Temperatures in the kennel must be maintained at between 68-
degrees and 75-degrees at all times. The homes of people with
children do not have to meet these kinds of exact temperature
requirements. Good planned to raise all puppies in his home, and
move them to the kennel only when they are old enough.
· Zoning officers will conduct unannounced inspections of the
kennel at least twice a year. This is in addition to state kennel
license inspections, which also are twice a year.
· Dogs cannot be exercised or allowed to use their outdoor
runs between the hours of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. Good had planned a
facility that included indoor enclosures that met the minimum state
requirements, with attached outdoor runs that tripled state
requirements. In addition, he had planned to have two attached 20-
foot by 30-foot exercise areas.
· The ruling cut the allowable number of dogs in half, to 16,
and the size of the exercise areas would be reduced by a third.
· Only one dog would be permitted to live in each enclosure.
Good said he believes it is essential to provide dogs with
companionship, as they are social animals and he considers isolation
cruel.
· All water from the kennel must be piped into holding tanks,
which must be pumped periodically and hauled away. Good had planned
to allow this water to flow onto his farmland, which is both
standard agricultural practice and is specifically approved on his
farm's nutrient management plan.
· Any dogs that die cannot be buried on the farm, including
beloved pets. Instead, they have to be hauled away as refuse by a
pre-approved carcass removal company, with written notice to the
township.
· All dog stools must be hauled off of the property as
garbage, and written proof must be submitted to the township. Good
had planned to spread the manure on his property, which also is a
standard agricultural practice and is approved in his farm's
nutrient management plan.
· And other care requirements were mandated, such as hand
feeding only, daily exercise for the dogs and sanitation rules.
These kinds of requirements normally are considered to be the role
of state regulations, and Good planned to apply for a state kennel
license.
"What they are telling you is that if you are breeding a dog,
nothing you do is good enough," Good said.
Good appealed the decision to Lebanon County Court and lost. Judge
Samuel Kline ruled in favor of the zoning board in late March (Judge
Kline did throw out two of the 28 stipulations, but allowed all of
the animal rights stipulations to remain in effect. The ruling
allowed the kennel permit to be transferred to a new owner if the
land is sold, and allowed Good to spread manure.)
Judge Kline's ruling is bad news for dog owners all across
Pennsylvania. It sets a legal precedent that can and will be used in
all of Pennsylvania's counties, towns, cities and townships. Kline
essentially ruled that a zoning board has the power to regulate
animal rights issues.
Good has appealed Judge Kline's ruling to the state Superior Court,
and the American Sporting Dog Alliance urges Pennsylvania dog owners
to assist Good with this appeal. We hope that dog owners will lend
Good their full support and assist him with the costs of an
expensive appeal. We also hope several attorneys will volunteer
their services to Good's legal defense efforts.
Good can be reached at smgood@paonline.com.
What happened to Good is not an isolated incident. We have had
dozens of confirmed and unconfirmed reports of similar zoning
actions in Pennsylvania over the past two years, especially in the
southeastern and south central parts of the state.
Good's situation has far-ranging importance for all dog and kennel
owners in Pennsylvania.
This year, the state Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement began to require
kennel license holders to affirm that they are in compliance with
all local ordinances and zoning codes. There have been reports that
the Bureau plans to contact local zoning boards to see if licensed
kennels are in compliance.
Moreover, recent draft regulatory and legislative proposals have
required kennel owners to comply with local zoning rules, and the
current proposed state kennel legislation gives the Bureau almost
unlimited power to create new regulations with minimal public
notification and participation.
We urge Pennsylvania dog owners to contact their legislators and ask
them to oppose this highly flawed legislation in general, and to
specifically oppose the provision for new regulations. We also urge
special vigilance to make sure that no zoning requirements are
included in kennel legislation or amended onto it. The draft
legislation, H.B. 2525, which is sponsored by Rep. James Casorio (D-
Westmoreland County) and supported by Gov. Ed Rendell, is now before
the House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee.
The Heidelberg Township Zoning Hearing Board clearly overstepped its
bounds and legal mandate on the Good situation, and we also urge our
readers to contact the township supervisors to voice disapproval of
this action and of the influence of radical animal rights activists
on township zoning issues. The township's email is HTAC@comcast.net.
In it's brief to Judge Kline, the township defined it's belief that
animal welfare issues are "a valid zoning purpose to protect the
health, safety and welfare…of the community."
None of the stipulations protect the people of the township from
anything. Almost all of them regulate only the dogs and the way they
are raised.
The ban on natural breeding is an example of this kind of twisted
logic. A rare sexually transmitted disease in dogs is brucellosis.
It can result in sterility and miscarriages in female animals.
This issue was raised by animal rights activists at the hearing, and
then was used by the zoning board to ban natural breeding.
However, normal veterinary practice in preventing the spread of this
rare disease in dogs is quite different. Instead, a simple blood
test can tell if a dog is a carrier of this disease. Many dog owners
routinely test all of their breeding animals, and the issue has no
impact on public health for humans.
Good wants the option to either breed naturally or artificially, as
sometimes bulldogs are difficult to breed naturally because of their
anatomy. However, he emphasizes that no public or veterinary health
risks are involved, and this has nothing to do with zoning issues.
Animal rights activists frequently use "scare tactics" such as the
brucellosis issue to hide their real agenda, which is to eliminate
the private breeding of dogs, and ultimately the private ownership
of dogs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)