Dallas panel approves proposals to combat stray animals, neglect
Dallas: Tighter limits target neglect, strays; council vote ahead
11:42 PM CST on Thursday, January 17, 2008
DAVE LEVINTHAL / The Dallas Morning News
dlevinthal@dallasnews.com
Pet number limits. Mandatory spaying and neutering of most dogs and cats. A partial ban on chaining animals to trees or posts.
Also Online
01/17/08: Dallas considering stiffer animal controls
These are among the recommendations Dallas' Animal Shelter Commission unanimously approved Thursday night, agreeing that the city's stray animal population is out of control and too many pets are being neglected by owners.
The Dallas City Council-appointed commission's suggestions, made in conjunction with city staff members, will be sent to the council's quality of life and government services committee for a formal hearing and vote. The full council serves as final arbiter on whether animal control ordinances should be created or amended.
The commission's recommendations include:
•Prohibiting city residents from chaining or otherwise tethering their dogs to trees or posts without supervision, arguing that the practice often causes animals to become aggressive or injured and leads to neglect. City animal division manager Willie McDaniel warned that some dog owners will respond by letting their dogs run free.
"We will get swamped with loose animals. That will happen," Mr. McDaniel said. "But we can't continue to do what we've been doing. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."
•Requiring all dogs and cats to be spayed and neutered, except those owned by people with breeder permits issued by the city government. Animals under 4 months old and those exhibiting applicable medical conditions would also be exempt. Breeder permits would cost $500 annually and would subject those in possession to random city inspections.
•Allowing city residents to keep no more than six dogs, cats or a combination in a single-family home. Animal foster or rescue operations could keep more upon obtaining permission from the city's animal services director. People with more than six animals would be grandfathered, meaning they would not have to give up pets they own.
•Allowing the city to immediately seize animals deemed dangerous, such as those that have attacked a person without provocation.
Commission Chairman Skip Trimble said the recommendations are the body's best effort to address complex problems.
"In the long run, I think they should help animal control, and it will therefore help the neighborhoods," he said, adding that he doesn't expect the council to formally take up the recommendations until next month at the earliest.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
NJ- Mandatory spay/neuter
Mandatory Spay/Neuter Reintroduced in New Jersey
[Tuesday, January 29, 2008]
Senator Van Drew has introduced Senate Bill 971, a bill which threatens the rights of responsible dog owners in New Jersey. This bill is a reintroduction of 2006's AB 3542. Fanciers, concerned dog owners, and responsible breeders should immediately contact their representatives in the New Jersey State Legislature, and the members of the Senate Economic Growth Committee who will first hear this bill, and express their vehement opposition to this bill.
The bill would require that before a dog could be released from any shelter or pound it must be sterilized, unless the owner can provide documentation of the following:
that the dog "has been shown" within the last 12 months;
or
that the owner is a "professional licensed breeder registered with the American Kennel Club";
or
a licensed veterinarian has determined that sterilization would be detrimental to the dog's health.
Sterilization is required for all dogs impounded, even if it is the first time the dog has been detained.
The majority of purebred dogs never compete in AKC events and would not be eligible for this exemption. Further, the American Kennel Club does not license breeders. Therefore, this bill creates conditions that the vast majority of responsible dog owners cannot possibly meet.
The American Kennel Club opposes the concept of breeding permits, breeding bans, or the mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously. Additionally, we strongly support and actively promote a wide range of programs to educate the public about responsible breeding practices and the responsibilities of dog ownership.
For a copy of the bill, click here.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Contact the members of the NJ Senate Economic Growth Committee. Urge them to oppose SB 971.
Senator Raymond Lesniak - Chair
985 Stuyvesant Avenue
Union, NJ 07083
(908)-624-0880
To contact Senator Lesniak via e-mail, click here, then click "Contact Your Legislator(s)", then click "Select your Representative(s)".
Senator Sandra Cunningham
1738 Kennedy Boulevard
Jersey City, NJ 07305
(201)-451-5100
To contact Senator Cunningham via e-mail, click here, then click "Contact Your Legislator(s)", then click "Select your Representative(s)".
Senator Joseph Kyrillos, Jr.
One Arin Park Building
Suite 303
1715 Highway 35
Middleton, NJ 07748
(732)-671-3206
To contact Senator Kyrillos via e-mail, click here, then click "Contact Your Legislator(s)", then click "Select your Representative(s)".
Senator Steven Oroho
Post Office Box 249
25 Route 23 South
Franklin, NJ 07416
(973)-827-2900
227 Route 206
Bldg. 1
1st Floor
Flanders, NJ 07836
(973)-584-4670
Senator Teresa Ruiz
To contact Senator Ruiz via e-mail, click here, then click "Contact Your Legislator(s)", then click "Select your Representative(s)".
Contact your own state Assemblyperson and Senator. Express your opposition to AB 1591, and urge them to do the same. To find out who represents you in the New Jersey State Assembly and State Senate, go here.
For more information, please contact the AKC Canine Legislation Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org; or contact the New Jersey Federation of Dog Clubs at taborgsp@verison.net.
[Tuesday, January 29, 2008]
Senator Van Drew has introduced Senate Bill 971, a bill which threatens the rights of responsible dog owners in New Jersey. This bill is a reintroduction of 2006's AB 3542. Fanciers, concerned dog owners, and responsible breeders should immediately contact their representatives in the New Jersey State Legislature, and the members of the Senate Economic Growth Committee who will first hear this bill, and express their vehement opposition to this bill.
The bill would require that before a dog could be released from any shelter or pound it must be sterilized, unless the owner can provide documentation of the following:
that the dog "has been shown" within the last 12 months;
or
that the owner is a "professional licensed breeder registered with the American Kennel Club";
or
a licensed veterinarian has determined that sterilization would be detrimental to the dog's health.
Sterilization is required for all dogs impounded, even if it is the first time the dog has been detained.
The majority of purebred dogs never compete in AKC events and would not be eligible for this exemption. Further, the American Kennel Club does not license breeders. Therefore, this bill creates conditions that the vast majority of responsible dog owners cannot possibly meet.
The American Kennel Club opposes the concept of breeding permits, breeding bans, or the mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously. Additionally, we strongly support and actively promote a wide range of programs to educate the public about responsible breeding practices and the responsibilities of dog ownership.
For a copy of the bill, click here.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Contact the members of the NJ Senate Economic Growth Committee. Urge them to oppose SB 971.
Senator Raymond Lesniak - Chair
985 Stuyvesant Avenue
Union, NJ 07083
(908)-624-0880
To contact Senator Lesniak via e-mail, click here, then click "Contact Your Legislator(s)", then click "Select your Representative(s)".
Senator Sandra Cunningham
1738 Kennedy Boulevard
Jersey City, NJ 07305
(201)-451-5100
To contact Senator Cunningham via e-mail, click here, then click "Contact Your Legislator(s)", then click "Select your Representative(s)".
Senator Joseph Kyrillos, Jr.
One Arin Park Building
Suite 303
1715 Highway 35
Middleton, NJ 07748
(732)-671-3206
To contact Senator Kyrillos via e-mail, click here, then click "Contact Your Legislator(s)", then click "Select your Representative(s)".
Senator Steven Oroho
Post Office Box 249
25 Route 23 South
Franklin, NJ 07416
(973)-827-2900
227 Route 206
Bldg. 1
1st Floor
Flanders, NJ 07836
(973)-584-4670
Senator Teresa Ruiz
To contact Senator Ruiz via e-mail, click here, then click "Contact Your Legislator(s)", then click "Select your Representative(s)".
Contact your own state Assemblyperson and Senator. Express your opposition to AB 1591, and urge them to do the same. To find out who represents you in the New Jersey State Assembly and State Senate, go here.
For more information, please contact the AKC Canine Legislation Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org; or contact the New Jersey Federation of Dog Clubs at taborgsp@verison.net.
CA- Breeders and Owners in LA
The proposed city ordinance calling for all dogs and cats to be spayed and neutered at four months of age, will be heard by the Los Angeles City Council tomorrow Friday, February 1st. at 10:00 a.m. Van Nuys City Hall 14410 Sylvan Street Van Nuys, CA 91401
Ways you can help stop this blatant attack on pet owners:
Contact the L.A. City Councilmembers, let them know you are opposed to a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance.
Attend the meeting on Friday morning, your presence is crucial to show strength of our opposition.
Donate to PetPAC today, our opponents are raising millions in an attempt to impose mandatory spay/neuter laws upon pet owners. With your financial support, we will continue to fight to protect pet owner rights.
Thank you for your support.
Ways you can help stop this blatant attack on pet owners:
Contact the L.A. City Councilmembers, let them know you are opposed to a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance.
Attend the meeting on Friday morning, your presence is crucial to show strength of our opposition.
Donate to PetPAC today, our opponents are raising millions in an attempt to impose mandatory spay/neuter laws upon pet owners. With your financial support, we will continue to fight to protect pet owner rights.
Thank you for your support.
VA- Breeders Bill to define and limit breeders of dogs
Breeders Bill to be Heard by Virginia House Committee Wednesday
[Monday, January 28, 2008]
Virginia House Bill 538 will be heard by the full House Agriculture Committee on Wednesday, January 30, 2008, at 8:30AM in House Room C of the General Assembly Building. The bill, which is sponsored by Delegate Orrock, a member of the committee, seeks to:
1) Define commercial breeders as persons who maintain 20 or more unsterilized adult females for commercial breeding;
2) Limit commercial breeders to maintaining no more than 50 adult dogs at one time;
3) Require commercial breeders to cooperate with inspections by animal control officers;
4) and Mandate commercial breeders to keep records of animal sales, purchases, breeding history, and veterinary care.
The American Kennel Club opposes the concept of breeding permits, breeding bans, or mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously. It is imperative that concerned breeders and owners write or call the committee members and voice their opposition to the bill.
Additionally, the American Kennel Club and the Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs and Breeders encourage everyone to attend Wednesday's hearing in opposition to HB 538. The text of the bill.
WHAT YOU CAN DO: Write or call the members of the House Agriculture Committee and ask them to oppose HB 538.
Harvey B. Morgan, Chairman
Phone: (804) 698-1098
email: DelHMorgan@house.state.va.us mailto:DelHMorgan%40house.state.va.us
R. Lee Ware, Jr., Vice-Chairman Phone:
(804) 698-1065
email: DelLWare@house.state.va.us
mailto:DelLWare%40house.state.va.us
Robert D. Orrock, Sr.
Phone: (804) 698-1054
email: DelBOrrock@house.state.va.us
mailto:DelBOrrock%40house.state.va.us
Edward T. Scott
Phone: (804) 698-1030
email: DelEScott@house.state.va.us mailto:DelEScott%40house.state.va.us
Daniel W. Marshall, III
Phone: (804) 698-1014
email: DelDMarshall@house.state.va.us Matthew
J. Lohr
Phone: (804) 698-1026
email: DelMLohr@house.state.va.us mailto:DelMLohr%40house.state.va.us
Charles D. Poindexter
Phone: (804) 698-1009
email: DelCPoindexter@house.state.va.us mailto:DelCPoindexter%40house.state.va.us
James M. Shuler
Phone: (804) 698-1012
email: DelJShuler@house.state.va.us mailto:DelJShuler%40house.state.va.us
Lynwood W. Lewis, Jr.
Phone: (804) 698-1000
email: DelLLewis@house.state.va.us mailto:DelLLewis%40house.state.va.us
Robert W. Mathieson
Phone: (804) 698-1021
email: DelRMathieson@house.state.va.us mailto:DelRMathieson%40house.state.va.us
M. Kirkland Cox
Phone: (804) 698-1066
email: DelKCox@house.state.va.us mailto:DelKCox%40house.state.va.us
Beverly J. Sherwood
Phone: (804) 698-1029
email: DelBSherwood@house.state.va.us mailto:DelBSherwood%40house.state.va.us
Thomas C. Wright, Jr.
Phone: (804) 698-106
email: DelTWright@house.state.va.us mailto:DelTWright%40house.state.va.us
Christopher B. Saxman
Phone: (804) 698-1020
email: DelCSaxman@house.state.va.us mailto:DelCSaxman%40house.state.va.us
Clarke N. Hogan
(804) 698-1060
email: DelCHogan@house.state.va.us mailto:DelCHogan%40house.state.va.us
Brenda L. Pogge
Phone: (804) 698-1096
email: DelBPogge@house.state.va.us mailto:DelBPogge%40house.state.va.us
Kenneth R. Plum
Phone: (804) 698-1036
email: DelKPlum@house.state.va.us mailto:DelKPlum%40house.state.va.us
Albert C. Eisenberg
Phone: (804) 698-1047
email: DelAEisenberg@house.state.va.us mailto:DelAEisenberg%40house.state.va.us
Stephen C. Shannon
Phone: (804) 698-1035
email: DelSShannon@house.state.va.us mailto:DelSShannon%40house.state.va.us
David L. Bulova
Phone: (804) 698-1037
email: DelDBulova@house.state.va.us mailto:DelDBulova%40house.state.va.us
Margaret G. Vanderhye
Phone: (804) 698-1034
email: DelMVanderhye@house.state.va.us mailto:DelMVanderhye%40house.state.va.us
Joseph F. Bouchard
Phone: (804) 698-1083
email: DelJBouchard@house.state.va.us
[Monday, January 28, 2008]
Virginia House Bill 538 will be heard by the full House Agriculture Committee on Wednesday, January 30, 2008, at 8:30AM in House Room C of the General Assembly Building. The bill, which is sponsored by Delegate Orrock, a member of the committee, seeks to:
1) Define commercial breeders as persons who maintain 20 or more unsterilized adult females for commercial breeding;
2) Limit commercial breeders to maintaining no more than 50 adult dogs at one time;
3) Require commercial breeders to cooperate with inspections by animal control officers;
4) and Mandate commercial breeders to keep records of animal sales, purchases, breeding history, and veterinary care.
The American Kennel Club opposes the concept of breeding permits, breeding bans, or mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously. It is imperative that concerned breeders and owners write or call the committee members and voice their opposition to the bill.
Additionally, the American Kennel Club and the Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs and Breeders encourage everyone to attend Wednesday's hearing in opposition to HB 538. The text of the bill.
WHAT YOU CAN DO: Write or call the members of the House Agriculture Committee and ask them to oppose HB 538.
Harvey B. Morgan, Chairman
Phone: (804) 698-1098
email: DelHMorgan@house.state.va.us mailto:DelHMorgan%40house.state.va.us
R. Lee Ware, Jr., Vice-Chairman Phone:
(804) 698-1065
email: DelLWare@house.state.va.us
mailto:DelLWare%40house.state.va.us
Robert D. Orrock, Sr.
Phone: (804) 698-1054
email: DelBOrrock@house.state.va.us
mailto:DelBOrrock%40house.state.va.us
Edward T. Scott
Phone: (804) 698-1030
email: DelEScott@house.state.va.us mailto:DelEScott%40house.state.va.us
Daniel W. Marshall, III
Phone: (804) 698-1014
email: DelDMarshall@house.state.va.us
J. Lohr
Phone: (804) 698-1026
email: DelMLohr@house.state.va.us mailto:DelMLohr%40house.state.va.us
Charles D. Poindexter
Phone: (804) 698-1009
email: DelCPoindexter@house.state.va.us mailto:DelCPoindexter%40house.state.va.us
James M. Shuler
Phone: (804) 698-1012
email: DelJShuler@house.state.va.us mailto:DelJShuler%40house.state.va.us
Lynwood W. Lewis, Jr.
Phone: (804) 698-1000
email: DelLLewis@house.state.va.us mailto:DelLLewis%40house.state.va.us
Robert W. Mathieson
Phone: (804) 698-1021
email: DelRMathieson@house.state.va.us mailto:DelRMathieson%40house.state.va.us
M. Kirkland Cox
Phone: (804) 698-1066
email: DelKCox@house.state.va.us mailto:DelKCox%40house.state.va.us
Beverly J. Sherwood
Phone: (804) 698-1029
email: DelBSherwood@house.state.va.us mailto:DelBSherwood%40house.state.va.us
Thomas C. Wright, Jr.
Phone: (804) 698-106
email: DelTWright@house.state.va.us mailto:DelTWright%40house.state.va.us
Christopher B. Saxman
Phone: (804) 698-1020
email: DelCSaxman@house.state.va.us mailto:DelCSaxman%40house.state.va.us
Clarke N. Hogan
(804) 698-1060
email: DelCHogan@house.state.va.us mailto:DelCHogan%40house.state.va.us
Brenda L. Pogge
Phone: (804) 698-1096
email: DelBPogge@house.state.va.us mailto:DelBPogge%40house.state.va.us
Kenneth R. Plum
Phone: (804) 698-1036
email: DelKPlum@house.state.va.us mailto:DelKPlum%40house.state.va.us
Albert C. Eisenberg
Phone: (804) 698-1047
email: DelAEisenberg@house.state.va.us mailto:DelAEisenberg%40house.state.va.us
Stephen C. Shannon
Phone: (804) 698-1035
email: DelSShannon@house.state.va.us mailto:DelSShannon%40house.state.va.us
David L. Bulova
Phone: (804) 698-1037
email: DelDBulova@house.state.va.us mailto:DelDBulova%40house.state.va.us
Margaret G. Vanderhye
Phone: (804) 698-1034
email: DelMVanderhye@house.state.va.us mailto:DelMVanderhye%40house.state.va.us
Joseph F. Bouchard
Phone: (804) 698-1083
email: DelJBouchard@house.state.va.us
Veterinarians putting themselves out of business
Get a clueWayne- Vets who join you and the AVAR will only put themselves out of business- or maybe they will have to reslove to some of your tatics such as creating a problem so there is one to fix!
HSUS ABSORBS AVAR; WILL COUNTER AVMA
As we noted last week, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR) announced that AVAR is re-forming as a division of the HSUS, to be called the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association (HSVMA). Despite the groups framing the move as a "joining of forces" this is hardly a merger of financial equals: In 2006 IRS filings, the AVAR reported assets of just $308,593 while the HSUS reported assets of $225,735,717. As of this writing, over a week since the move was announced, and despite a separate URL, the HSVMA website is merely a section of the HSUS site, with the HSUS/AVAR announcement, a sign-up page, and some items linking to longstanding articles on the old AVAR website. For those who prefer not to access the HSUS or AVAR websites, a version of their announcement is on the independent website of the publication The Horse at http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx? <http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?> ID=11165 The groups' news release and other materials made it clear that HSVA is designed to counter the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) on several fronts. HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle blogged: "Veterinarians and veterinary groups should be in the forefront of the animal protection movement. But often times they have not occupied that leadership position. And much to my great disappointment, the leading veterinary organization in the United States, the American Veterinary Medical Association, has often taken positions at odds with animal welfare and proved to be an impediment to social progress for animals. That group, which certainly does have many dedicated staff and members, has gotten off course on a range of subjects and taken stands that favor animal-use industries, not animals." The AVMA posted a question-and-answer page on its website regarding the newly-formed HSVA, what it means for the AVMA, and animal welfare policies of the AVMA. See http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/hsvma_faq.asp <http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/hsvma_faq.asp> . It begins: "Q: What does this mean for the AVMA? "A: The formation of the HSVMA will not affect the services and representation offered for the veterinary profession by the AVMA. As the recognized voice of the profession, the AVMA will continue its focus on compassion, scientific validity, and practicality in its answers to questions raised in the course of caring for animals. And, as always, the AVMA's answers to those questions, and any related policies and recommendations, will represent the expert input and diverse practice experiences of our members. AVMA members are veterinarians who have dedicated their lives to ensuring and improving animal health and welfare, regardless of whether the animals they care for are companion animals; horses; animals used for food, fiber, or research; wild animals; or aquatic species." Contact AMP for additional information.
HSUS ABSORBS AVAR; WILL COUNTER AVMA
As we noted last week, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR) announced that AVAR is re-forming as a division of the HSUS, to be called the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association (HSVMA). Despite the groups framing the move as a "joining of forces" this is hardly a merger of financial equals: In 2006 IRS filings, the AVAR reported assets of just $308,593 while the HSUS reported assets of $225,735,717. As of this writing, over a week since the move was announced, and despite a separate URL, the HSVMA website is merely a section of the HSUS site, with the HSUS/AVAR announcement, a sign-up page, and some items linking to longstanding articles on the old AVAR website. For those who prefer not to access the HSUS or AVAR websites, a version of their announcement is on the independent website of the publication The Horse at http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx? <http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?> ID=11165 The groups' news release and other materials made it clear that HSVA is designed to counter the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) on several fronts. HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle blogged: "Veterinarians and veterinary groups should be in the forefront of the animal protection movement. But often times they have not occupied that leadership position. And much to my great disappointment, the leading veterinary organization in the United States, the American Veterinary Medical Association, has often taken positions at odds with animal welfare and proved to be an impediment to social progress for animals. That group, which certainly does have many dedicated staff and members, has gotten off course on a range of subjects and taken stands that favor animal-use industries, not animals." The AVMA posted a question-and-answer page on its website regarding the newly-formed HSVA, what it means for the AVMA, and animal welfare policies of the AVMA. See http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/hsvma_faq.asp <http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/hsvma_faq.asp> . It begins: "Q: What does this mean for the AVMA? "A: The formation of the HSVMA will not affect the services and representation offered for the veterinary profession by the AVMA. As the recognized voice of the profession, the AVMA will continue its focus on compassion, scientific validity, and practicality in its answers to questions raised in the course of caring for animals. And, as always, the AVMA's answers to those questions, and any related policies and recommendations, will represent the expert input and diverse practice experiences of our members. AVMA members are veterinarians who have dedicated their lives to ensuring and improving animal health and welfare, regardless of whether the animals they care for are companion animals; horses; animals used for food, fiber, or research; wild animals; or aquatic species." Contact AMP for additional information.
A sample Anti-breed legislation letter
Please copy and RETYPE on your own paper prior to sending, being sure to REMOVE all ( ) s and their enclosures.
(if you type this with a 10 point font it will fit on one page)
(TO:..insert name here)
(address)
(city, state,zip)
(from:..Your name)
(Your address)
(your city, state, zip)
Dear (insert name here):
To be useful, legislation must be effective, enforcible, economical, and reasonably fair. Recently, a bill (CITE BILL NUMBER HERE) has been placed before (RELEVANT BODY ie., city council, etc,) that fails all of these tests. This legislation is motivated by fear and lack of relevant knowledge. It is discriminatory, impractical, and unenforcable. Worst of all, it will not solve the problem. I urge you to vote against it.
The proposed bill would restrict the ownership of certain types of dogs, specifically (INSERT beed/s here). These breeds have been the subject of irresponsponsible and sensationalist reporting across the country. The media and the inexperienced would have you believe that these breeds are vicious and should be prohibited.
The plain fact is that there is no relationship between the type of the dog and the number of incidents. If your town has 100 German Shepherds and 1 Poodle, you'll soon learn that the German Shepherds are responsible for 100 times as many incidents as the Poodles. Does this mean that German Shepherds are intrinsically vicious? Of course not.
Taken as a whole, the (INSERT breed/s here) breeds have proven their stability and good canine citizenry by becoming 'Search & Rescue dogs, Therapy dogs working inside hospitals, professional Herding dogs and family companions for years.
A five year study published in the Cincinnati Law Review in 1982, vol. 53, pg 1077, which specifically considered both Rottweilers and "pit bulls," concluded in part that:
- statistics do not support the assertion that any one breed was dangerous, - when legislation is focused on the type of dog it fails, because it is ... unenforceable, confusing, and costly. - focusing legislation on dogs that are "vicious" distracts attention from the real problem, which is irresponsible owners.
In light of the studies, the facts, and the discriminatory nature of the proposed legislation, we urge you to take the following actions:
1. Reject the current legislation, which is contrary to fact and distracts from the real issue: responsible ownership.
2. Work to establish reasonable guidelines for responsible pet ownership, and encourage legislation that supports owner responsibility without reference to specific breeds.
Study after study shows that ANY dog, regardless of breed, will be whatever its owner makes of it....nothing more, nothing less. Owners can and should take responsibility for their pets. We suggest that the appropriate policy is "blame the owner, not the dog." If a dog atacks a person, the law should treat it as though the owner attacked that person.
Voting for this proposal as it stands will harm both the law abiding, responsible dog owners and the victims, but it won't solve anything.
YOUR NAME
(if you type this with a 10 point font it will fit on one page)
(TO:..insert name here)
(address)
(city, state,zip)
(from:..Your name)
(Your address)
(your city, state, zip)
Dear (insert name here):
To be useful, legislation must be effective, enforcible, economical, and reasonably fair. Recently, a bill (CITE BILL NUMBER HERE) has been placed before (RELEVANT BODY ie., city council, etc,) that fails all of these tests. This legislation is motivated by fear and lack of relevant knowledge. It is discriminatory, impractical, and unenforcable. Worst of all, it will not solve the problem. I urge you to vote against it.
The proposed bill would restrict the ownership of certain types of dogs, specifically (INSERT beed/s here). These breeds have been the subject of irresponsponsible and sensationalist reporting across the country. The media and the inexperienced would have you believe that these breeds are vicious and should be prohibited.
The plain fact is that there is no relationship between the type of the dog and the number of incidents. If your town has 100 German Shepherds and 1 Poodle, you'll soon learn that the German Shepherds are responsible for 100 times as many incidents as the Poodles. Does this mean that German Shepherds are intrinsically vicious? Of course not.
Taken as a whole, the (INSERT breed/s here) breeds have proven their stability and good canine citizenry by becoming 'Search & Rescue dogs, Therapy dogs working inside hospitals, professional Herding dogs and family companions for years.
A five year study published in the Cincinnati Law Review in 1982, vol. 53, pg 1077, which specifically considered both Rottweilers and "pit bulls," concluded in part that:
- statistics do not support the assertion that any one breed was dangerous, - when legislation is focused on the type of dog it fails, because it is ... unenforceable, confusing, and costly. - focusing legislation on dogs that are "vicious" distracts attention from the real problem, which is irresponsible owners.
In light of the studies, the facts, and the discriminatory nature of the proposed legislation, we urge you to take the following actions:
1. Reject the current legislation, which is contrary to fact and distracts from the real issue: responsible ownership.
2. Work to establish reasonable guidelines for responsible pet ownership, and encourage legislation that supports owner responsibility without reference to specific breeds.
Study after study shows that ANY dog, regardless of breed, will be whatever its owner makes of it....nothing more, nothing less. Owners can and should take responsibility for their pets. We suggest that the appropriate policy is "blame the owner, not the dog." If a dog atacks a person, the law should treat it as though the owner attacked that person.
Voting for this proposal as it stands will harm both the law abiding, responsible dog owners and the victims, but it won't solve anything.
YOUR NAME
08 Candidates
Humane Society Legislative Fund's review of all candidates: http://www.fund.org/voter_guide/2008_pres_candidates.html <http://www.fund.org/voter_guide/2008_pres_candidates.html>
John Edwards response to the Humane Society Legislative Fund: http://www.fund.org/pdfs/john-edwards-statement.pdf <http://www.fund.org/pdfs/john-edwards-statement.pdf>
Overall review of John Edwards on animal issues: http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2007/12/the-president-1.html <http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2007/12/the-president-1.html>
Hiliary Clinton's response to her background (actions) in regards to animal rights: http://www.fund.org/pdfs/hillary-clinton.pdf <http://www.fund.org/pdfs/hillary-clinton.pdf> Overall review of Hiliary Clinton's stance on animal issues: http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2008/01/hillary-clinton.html <http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2008/01/hillary-clinton.html>
Barack Obama's response to his background (actions) in regards to animal rights: http://www.fund.org/pdfs/senator-obama-response.pdf <http://www.fund.org/pdfs/senator-obama-response.pdf>
Overall review of Barack Obama's stance on animal issues: http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2007/12/the-president-3.html <http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2007/12/the-president-3.html>
Review of all republican candidates in regards to animal issues: http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2008/01/elephants.html <http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2008/01/elephants.html>
An embarrassing story of how Mitt Romney broke the law and endangered the family pet on vacation: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1638065,00.html <http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1638065,00.html>
Why Coco the Blogging Dog endorses John McCain: http://www.cocothebloggingdog.com/2007/12/2008-presidential-dog-vote-john-mccain.html <http://www.cocothebloggingdog.com/2007/12/2008-presidential-dog-vote-john-mccain.html>
What groups John McCain has supported in relation to animal rights: http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=53270&type=category&category=5&go.x=6&go.y=8 <http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=53270&type=category&category=5&go.x=6&go.y=
What groups Ron Paul has supported in relation to animal rights: http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=296&type=category&category=5&go.x=11&go.y=6 <http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=296&type=category&category=5&go.x=11&go.y=6>
How ALL the Senators voted on HR 2419 (Farm Bill): http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00434 <http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00434>
John Edwards response to the Humane Society Legislative Fund: http://www.fund.org/pdfs/john-edwards-statement.pdf <http://www.fund.org/pdfs/john-edwards-statement.pdf>
Overall review of John Edwards on animal issues: http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2007/12/the-president-1.html <http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2007/12/the-president-1.html>
Hiliary Clinton's response to her background (actions) in regards to animal rights: http://www.fund.org/pdfs/hillary-clinton.pdf <http://www.fund.org/pdfs/hillary-clinton.pdf> Overall review of Hiliary Clinton's stance on animal issues: http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2008/01/hillary-clinton.html <http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2008/01/hillary-clinton.html>
Barack Obama's response to his background (actions) in regards to animal rights: http://www.fund.org/pdfs/senator-obama-response.pdf <http://www.fund.org/pdfs/senator-obama-response.pdf>
Overall review of Barack Obama's stance on animal issues: http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2007/12/the-president-3.html <http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2007/12/the-president-3.html>
Review of all republican candidates in regards to animal issues: http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2008/01/elephants.html <http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2008/01/elephants.html>
An embarrassing story of how Mitt Romney broke the law and endangered the family pet on vacation: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1638065,00.html <http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1638065,00.html>
Why Coco the Blogging Dog endorses John McCain: http://www.cocothebloggingdog.com/2007/12/2008-presidential-dog-vote-john-mccain.html <http://www.cocothebloggingdog.com/2007/12/2008-presidential-dog-vote-john-mccain.html>
What groups John McCain has supported in relation to animal rights: http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=53270&type=category&category=5&go.x=6&go.y=8 <http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=53270&type=category&category=5&go.x=6&go.y=
What groups Ron Paul has supported in relation to animal rights: http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=296&type=category&category=5&go.x=11&go.y=6 <http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=296&type=category&category=5&go.x=11&go.y=6>
How ALL the Senators voted on HR 2419 (Farm Bill): http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00434 <http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00434>
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
NJ- This Bill is BIG and BAD
Reintroduced New Jersey Bill Bad News For Breeders Print This Article
[Friday, January 18, 2008]
Assembly man Neil Cohen and Assembly woman Joan Voss have introduced Assembly Bill 1591, a bill which threatens the rights of responsible breeders in New Jersey. This bill is a reintroduction of 2006's AB 3401. Fanciers, concerned dog owners, and responsible breeders should immediately contact their representatives in the New Jersey State Legislature, and the members of the Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee who will first hear this bill, and express their vehement opposition to this bill.
The bill defines a "breeder" as any person who sells or offers to sell more than five puppies per year. In addition to this incredibly low threshold, the bill requires breeders to comply with a host of restrictive regulations and institutes steep fines for violations.
AB 1591 also prohibits any breeder from selling more than 25 dogs in one year.
The American Kennel Club vehemently opposes AB 1591's attempt to effectively outlaw breeding in New Jersey. Responsible breeders give the individual care and human contact that each puppy needs in order to grow into a healthy, well-adjusted companion and neighbor. Forcing responsible breeders out of business would deprive citizens of a most valuable resource when purchasing a pet.
The American Kennel Club believes that breeding programs should be undertaken responsibly for the purpose of preserving breed characteristics and producing healthy, well-socialized puppies. Responsible breeders are expected to give careful consideration to health issues, temperament, and genetic screening, as well as to the individual care and placement of puppies in responsible homes. AKC supports and promotes these and other responsible breeding practices through breeders' education programs, and commends those who offer similar guidance.
The American Kennel Club opposes the concept of breeding permits, breeding bans, or the mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously.
AB 1591 goes far beyond encouraging responsible breeding. Under AB 1591, all breeders would be required to comply with draconian regulations including maintaining specified temperatures, keeping animals only on nonporous surfaces, and circulating air at precise levels. The measure further mandates the acceptable dimensions for crates and runs, and sets minimum socialization standards. Finally, all breeders are required to register annually with the Department of Health. This list will bepublished and made available to the public.
All breeders are required to furnish specified information to pet purchasers and provide a full refund for any reason for a pet returned within 14 days. Any dog which is sold with a pedigree can be returned for a full refund within 26 months if any congenital or genetic defects are discovered.
Violations can be punished with monetary fines or suspension of the license to sell pets. A first violation can result in a prohibition on selling cats or dogs for five years and subsequent offenses can add an additional five years for each violation. Civil penalties may also be administered. For a first offense, a breeder shall be fined $5,000 and for a second offense the breeder may be fined $10,000 for each subsequent offense. A member of the public who supplies information that results in fines or suspension will be eligible for an award of 10 percent of the civil penalty or $250, whichever is greater.
[Friday, January 18, 2008]
Assembly man Neil Cohen and Assembly woman Joan Voss have introduced Assembly Bill 1591, a bill which threatens the rights of responsible breeders in New Jersey. This bill is a reintroduction of 2006's AB 3401. Fanciers, concerned dog owners, and responsible breeders should immediately contact their representatives in the New Jersey State Legislature, and the members of the Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee who will first hear this bill, and express their vehement opposition to this bill.
The bill defines a "breeder" as any person who sells or offers to sell more than five puppies per year. In addition to this incredibly low threshold, the bill requires breeders to comply with a host of restrictive regulations and institutes steep fines for violations.
AB 1591 also prohibits any breeder from selling more than 25 dogs in one year.
The American Kennel Club vehemently opposes AB 1591's attempt to effectively outlaw breeding in New Jersey. Responsible breeders give the individual care and human contact that each puppy needs in order to grow into a healthy, well-adjusted companion and neighbor. Forcing responsible breeders out of business would deprive citizens of a most valuable resource when purchasing a pet.
The American Kennel Club believes that breeding programs should be undertaken responsibly for the purpose of preserving breed characteristics and producing healthy, well-socialized puppies. Responsible breeders are expected to give careful consideration to health issues, temperament, and genetic screening, as well as to the individual care and placement of puppies in responsible homes. AKC supports and promotes these and other responsible breeding practices through breeders' education programs, and commends those who offer similar guidance.
The American Kennel Club opposes the concept of breeding permits, breeding bans, or the mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously.
AB 1591 goes far beyond encouraging responsible breeding. Under AB 1591, all breeders would be required to comply with draconian regulations including maintaining specified temperatures, keeping animals only on nonporous surfaces, and circulating air at precise levels. The measure further mandates the acceptable dimensions for crates and runs, and sets minimum socialization standards. Finally, all breeders are required to register annually with the Department of Health. This list will bepublished and made available to the public.
All breeders are required to furnish specified information to pet purchasers and provide a full refund for any reason for a pet returned within 14 days. Any dog which is sold with a pedigree can be returned for a full refund within 26 months if any congenital or genetic defects are discovered.
Violations can be punished with monetary fines or suspension of the license to sell pets. A first violation can result in a prohibition on selling cats or dogs for five years and subsequent offenses can add an additional five years for each violation. Civil penalties may also be administered. For a first offense, a breeder shall be fined $5,000 and for a second offense the breeder may be fined $10,000 for each subsequent offense. A member of the public who supplies information that results in fines or suspension will be eligible for an award of 10 percent of the civil penalty or $250, whichever is greater.
Friday, January 18, 2008
WA- new definition of "Pet Dealer"
"HB 2511 - 2007-08 - Creating provisions relating to pet dealers" has been filed in the Washington State Legislature. This is new legislation that creates a new chapter in the Revised Code of Washington relating to pet dealers. The bill, as introduced, defines a pet dealer (Sec 1, (3)) as, "'Pet dealer' means any person, business, or other entity, including pet breeder, that sells more than twenty animals or three litters, whichever is greater, in a twelve-month period. 'Pet dealer' does not include animal control agencies, humane societies, or other bona fide nonprofit organizations performing the functions of humane societies." In Sec 1 (1), an animal is defined as, "means a dog, cat, or bird of any age
Monday, January 14, 2008
Movie NOT to see- Blonde and Blonder to support PETA
Movie release donates to PETA
If you haven't run across this: Pamela Anderson, co-producer of Blonde andBlonder, has secured a deal with the Empire Film Group to donate proceeds to PETA from the movie's first release.
Don't let friends go see it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22474336/
The film will open in theatres across the U.S.A. on January 18th, and isexpected to generate tens-of-thousands of dollars for PETA.
Sent to our list by North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners Alliance (NCRAOA)www.ncraoa.com
Subject: Unfriendly Movie Do not support this movie! All proceeds go to PETA!!!!
If you haven't run across this: Pamela Anderson, co-producer of Blonde andBlonder, has secured a deal with the Empire Film Group to donate proceeds to PETA from the movie's first release.
Don't let friends go see it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22474336/
The film will open in theatres across the U.S.A. on January 18th, and isexpected to generate tens-of-thousands of dollars for PETA.
Sent to our list by North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners Alliance (NCRAOA)www.ncraoa.com
Subject: Unfriendly Movie Do not support this movie! All proceeds go to PETA!!!!
Animal Rights- Domestic Terrorism
These postings came through one of my lists. In addition to the upcoming fight next Wednesday morning with the Columbia County Commissioners over the new breeding ban kennel law they are now trying to institute, this came upon a national level. A friend of mine informs me she is even fighting a province wide breeding ban they are trying to install in the middle of the interior of British Columbia, Canada, in order to get rid of dog mushers. It is now a worldwide problem. If you send money to the Humane Society Of The United States, which is the funding arm of PETA, ALF and ELF, you are contributing to Animal Rights domestic terrorism and the destruction of your own Constitutional Rights. Go to the websites of any of these organizations if you do not believe me.
Their sole goal is to do away with ALL animal ownership, or as they call it, exploitation and slavery, and turn the entire world into Vegans through incremental legislation. Their aim is to give all animals the same legal rights as human beings. You will never be allowed to own a pet of any kind,and never to use any animal products such as steak, milk, eggs, or leather. They have also opened the first ever Vegan mall in SE Portland. It guarantees all goods and services you can obtain in any of the stores in this mall use no animal products what soever. Their plan is to open thousands of these malls across the USA.
I don't know about you, but I severely object to anyone trying to legislate their cult religion onto me. I call that fascism. These are not warm and fuzzy people, these are terrorists. Get a clue. And don't support them,and DON'T go to, buy, or support this movie for starters.
This is war, folks. It is your inalienable rights versus their cult power over your life. If you think they have some good points, think on this: in 2006 PETA destroyed 97% of the animals turned over to its "rescue"operations. We in the dog community work to support animal welfare, educate the public, and end animal cruelty, but detest these extreme animal rightists.
Cheryl Anderson Cherden Shelties since 1966
Their sole goal is to do away with ALL animal ownership, or as they call it, exploitation and slavery, and turn the entire world into Vegans through incremental legislation. Their aim is to give all animals the same legal rights as human beings. You will never be allowed to own a pet of any kind,and never to use any animal products such as steak, milk, eggs, or leather. They have also opened the first ever Vegan mall in SE Portland. It guarantees all goods and services you can obtain in any of the stores in this mall use no animal products what soever. Their plan is to open thousands of these malls across the USA.
I don't know about you, but I severely object to anyone trying to legislate their cult religion onto me. I call that fascism. These are not warm and fuzzy people, these are terrorists. Get a clue. And don't support them,and DON'T go to, buy, or support this movie for starters.
This is war, folks. It is your inalienable rights versus their cult power over your life. If you think they have some good points, think on this: in 2006 PETA destroyed 97% of the animals turned over to its "rescue"operations. We in the dog community work to support animal welfare, educate the public, and end animal cruelty, but detest these extreme animal rightists.
Cheryl Anderson Cherden Shelties since 1966
Legislative Proposal will put tight leash on Sporting Dog Breeders
January 7, 2008 (Pennsylvania)
Despite assurances by Pennsylvania's administration that new kennel proposals are not intended to burden sportsmen, recent proposals to address abusive commercial dog breeders continue to put sporting kennels and hobby breeders at risk.
Gov. Ed Rendell's administration recently unveiled revised dog care regulations and a legislative package aimed at commercial breeding kennels and animal abusers. The proposals continue to classify many sporting dog kennels as commercial breeders, which will mandate restrictions that will make it nearly impossible for smaller kennels to comply.
The U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, along with members of its Sporting Dog Defense Coalition, alerted the administration of this and other flaws found during an initial review of the draft. Officials within the Rendell administration have agreed to consider sportsmen's concerns.
Initial items of concern include:
· Many sporting dog kennels would still be included in the definition of commercial breeders;
· A provision holding the PA Game Commission financially responsible for coyote damages. This would result in a diversion of license revenue and could cost the state up to $10 million per year in federal Pittman-Robertson funding.
· Those sporting kennels defined as commercial breeders would have mandatory annual vet visits for each dog in the kennel, regardless of the health of the dog. This would impose an exorbitant cost on sporting kennels many of which already provide routine health care for their dogs;
· A written, veterinarian approved, exercise plan for most kenneled dogs. In order to miss exercise the attending vet must document an exemption. Requirement such as these do not exist for children;
· 24 hour access to potable water. This would open sportsmen up to criminal citation if a dog were to simply knock over his water dish.
· Allows the Dept. to levy civil penalties for violations in addition to criminal citations or charges.
The USSA will issue complete comments after analyzing the entire 100-page proposal. The USSA remains hopeful that these issues will be addressed as the process proceeds.
For nearly a year, the Sporting Dog Defense Coalition has been working with Pennsylvania's sporting dog community and other dog interests to wage an education campaign aimed at the original dog law regulations introduced in 2006 by the Department of Agriculture. While the department claimed the regulations would have targeted only "puppy mills," the regulations would have devastated sporting dog kennels, hobby breeders, boarding kennels, rescue kennels and more.
The sporting dog community from the beginning has sought to have the legislature create a clear cut distinction in the dog law between large commercial breeding operations and private kennels. The USSA remains optimistic that this distinction will be addressed as the process proceeds.The U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance is a national association of sportsmen and sportsmen's organization that protects the rights of hunters, anglers and trappers in the courts, legislatures, at the ballot, in Congress and through public education programs. For more information about the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance and its work, call (614) 888-4868 or visit its website, www.ussportsmen.org.
Despite assurances by Pennsylvania's administration that new kennel proposals are not intended to burden sportsmen, recent proposals to address abusive commercial dog breeders continue to put sporting kennels and hobby breeders at risk.
Gov. Ed Rendell's administration recently unveiled revised dog care regulations and a legislative package aimed at commercial breeding kennels and animal abusers. The proposals continue to classify many sporting dog kennels as commercial breeders, which will mandate restrictions that will make it nearly impossible for smaller kennels to comply.
The U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, along with members of its Sporting Dog Defense Coalition, alerted the administration of this and other flaws found during an initial review of the draft. Officials within the Rendell administration have agreed to consider sportsmen's concerns.
Initial items of concern include:
· Many sporting dog kennels would still be included in the definition of commercial breeders;
· A provision holding the PA Game Commission financially responsible for coyote damages. This would result in a diversion of license revenue and could cost the state up to $10 million per year in federal Pittman-Robertson funding.
· Those sporting kennels defined as commercial breeders would have mandatory annual vet visits for each dog in the kennel, regardless of the health of the dog. This would impose an exorbitant cost on sporting kennels many of which already provide routine health care for their dogs;
· A written, veterinarian approved, exercise plan for most kenneled dogs. In order to miss exercise the attending vet must document an exemption. Requirement such as these do not exist for children;
· 24 hour access to potable water. This would open sportsmen up to criminal citation if a dog were to simply knock over his water dish.
· Allows the Dept. to levy civil penalties for violations in addition to criminal citations or charges.
The USSA will issue complete comments after analyzing the entire 100-page proposal. The USSA remains hopeful that these issues will be addressed as the process proceeds.
For nearly a year, the Sporting Dog Defense Coalition has been working with Pennsylvania's sporting dog community and other dog interests to wage an education campaign aimed at the original dog law regulations introduced in 2006 by the Department of Agriculture. While the department claimed the regulations would have targeted only "puppy mills," the regulations would have devastated sporting dog kennels, hobby breeders, boarding kennels, rescue kennels and more.
The sporting dog community from the beginning has sought to have the legislature create a clear cut distinction in the dog law between large commercial breeding operations and private kennels. The USSA remains optimistic that this distinction will be addressed as the process proceeds.The U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance is a national association of sportsmen and sportsmen's organization that protects the rights of hunters, anglers and trappers in the courts, legislatures, at the ballot, in Congress and through public education programs. For more information about the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance and its work, call (614) 888-4868 or visit its website, www.ussportsmen.org.
Monday, January 7, 2008
The Backyard Breeder Fallacy
The Backyard Breeder Fallacy
by Ms. Jade, TheDogPress Legislative Reporter
I own purebred dogs. Once a year or so I breed a litter from DNA profiled champion stock. For that, I will never apologize as I truly have the best interest of my chosen breed foremost in my mind. Am I an elitist? You betcha! Would I cringe if you went so far as to call me a dog Nazi? No.
Serious breeders mate dogs of known background in order to reduce the chances of congenital defects and predict with greater accuracy the positive outcome of a planned litter of puppies. Therefore I probably seem like an unlikely advocate for the guy advertising puppies in the local newspaper.
However, I am also a civil libertarian. And I won't apologize for that either.
Proposed, pending and contested legislation around the United States and abroad that is aimed at restricting our property rights by targeting animal reproduction has become rampant at every level of government. Forced spay and neuter, cost prohibitive licenses for unaltered dogs and breeding permits, micro chipping of our animals with their information (and ours) in government data bases, warrant-less inspection of our property, arbitrary limits on the number of animals we can responsibly care for and mandatory husbandry practices are some of the ways in which dog owners are being relieved of their civil rights.
While our agrarian forefathers did not specifically guarantee us the right to own and breed animals, they did guarantee us the right to be treated equally under the law, the right to own property, the right to be free from warrant-less search and seizure of that property, the right to due process and the right to commerce. With no respect for our Constitution, animal rights supporters are working hard to relieve us of these rights by packaging restrictive legislation in a way that is not only palatable to dog owners, even some breeders, but misleadingly leaves them with the impression that they have supported something beneficial. Far too many animal owners and welfare advocates are buying into it in one area or another.
Divide and conquer. By creating stereotypes and labels, like "puppy mill" and "backyard breeder" and attaching a stigma to those labels, the animal rights movement is trying to disgrace the act of breeding animals. And they're doing a great job. The media has been flooded with images of dogs being raised in cages, in filth, in neglect. Sad faces of shelter animals behind prison bars on "death row". Images intended to produce an emotional response instead of an intellectual one. And don't forget the staggering statistics.
It's not a secret that animal rights mean no more domestic animals. It's in their mission statements. HSUS president Wayne Pacelle brags that "We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are the creations of human selective breeding". Allow me to translate, no animal breeding means no more animals. Period. And while the general public cannot be sold on such a radical concept, it's been surprisingly easy to sell them on the concept of ever tightening restrictions. Although united in our love of domestic dogs, slick marketing by the enemy has created infighting. Breeders both private and commercial, rescuers, shelter staff, animal control, dog show exhibitors and pet owners are cleverly being turned against one another to forward the animal rights agenda. Each believing that their point of view is the only valid one and everyone else's civil rights no longer matter.
Yes, I too personally find those images disturbing. They are the product of gross human negligence and irresponsibility. I love animals, I have been a shelter volunteer, and I believe in animal welfare but I am also a realist. Things are rarely what they appear on the surface. In order to end the animal surplus and related suffering, I want to get to the actual cause, to prevent the illness instead of treating the symptoms, so to speak.
The demand for a product (puppies, for example) is driven by the consumer. It's a simple case of supply and demand in a free market economy. Don't blame the seller for being an opportunist. It's only human nature flourishing in what is still a mostly democratic society. An uneducated consumer has every right to purchase an inferior product and suffer the consequences. Just as the seller has every right to promote the benefits their product, in order to influence the decisions of the consumer. If breed purists and elitists like me are outraged at breeders who turn a profit by selling what we consider to be an inferior product, then we must only blame ourselves for failing to educate the buyers.
Ignore the propaganda; dog breeding is not the cause of shelter overpopulation. Animals end up in shelters for a myriad of reasons. Behavior problems that result from a lack of training and proper socialization along with normal breed characteristics that the owner finds unacceptable top the list. Owner death, job transfer/move, landlord/rental restrictions, insurance discrimination, financial trouble and the inability to comply with escalating pet ownership restrictions also contribute to the problem. The system is designed to perpetuate it.
We live in a disposable society. As long as domestic animals are viewed as a short term convenience, instead of a serious long term commitment then change is unlikely. The problem is one of perspective, information and education. Pointing fingers at each other is cowardly and counterproductive.
According to a 2005 article in the HSUS magazine All Animals, 75% of the shelter population is comprised of mongrels. Now I'm no math wizard, but I can extrapolate that only 25% must therefore be purebred animals. If this is true, then random bred dogs are the real cause of shelter overpopulation, not "puppy mills", breed enthusiasts or "backyard breeders" of purebred dogs. Yet this same HSUS article praises the mongrel as superior because of its' larger gene pool. One that may very well be polluted with unknown genetic defects. They even go so far as to market them as a "designer" product. Sort of a haute couture, one of a kind canine fashion accessory.
Now, it occurs to me that if you truly want to reduce the animal shelter population in a meaningful and dramatic way, than you should advocate for the elimination of the mongrel, through mandatory spay and neuter of random bred dogs with unknown ancestry. (See, I am a dog Nazi!) Most dog breeders know that you must have a firm grasp of the genetic past, in order to improve the genetic future of your line. Many of the minority purebred animals that end up in the local shelter may not have a known origin either, and are therefore not an ethical choice for perpetuation of their breed. The same "hybrid vigor" so highly touted in the mongrel is just as easily achieved by crossing healthy purebreds of known ancestry to create new breeds. Man has done so since the beginning of domesticated dog breeding and whatever we fancy, that breed was created by this process.
The beauty of purebred dogs is that there is something to appeal to almost anyone. I don't have to agree with your choice but I must respect your right to make it. I'm not going to advise that consumers rush out and purchase a Puggle, Labradoodle, or Cockapoo, anymore than I would suggest that everyone should select my preferred breed. (Not everyone deserves one!) Whether these designer hybrids stand the test of time or fade out with other trends is not for me to say. Freedom of choice means the freedom to make the wrong choice, and the freedom to make better choices in the future.
Am I a "backyard breeder"? Well, by technical definition I guess I am. I have also been a front yard breeder, a living room breeder and a cab of my motor home on the way to the dog show breeder. If that makes me a villain, then the animal rights lunatics and the terrorists who support their ideology win. But if you become an independent thinker, then freedom wins. We all win.
Ms. Jade Copyright C 2007 TheDogPress.com - Reprint rights hereby granted upon the condition that a link to the reprinted page is furnished to mailto:Contact@...?subject=Reprint Request - Editorial upon publication.
by Ms. Jade, TheDogPress Legislative Reporter
I own purebred dogs. Once a year or so I breed a litter from DNA profiled champion stock. For that, I will never apologize as I truly have the best interest of my chosen breed foremost in my mind. Am I an elitist? You betcha! Would I cringe if you went so far as to call me a dog Nazi? No.
Serious breeders mate dogs of known background in order to reduce the chances of congenital defects and predict with greater accuracy the positive outcome of a planned litter of puppies. Therefore I probably seem like an unlikely advocate for the guy advertising puppies in the local newspaper.
However, I am also a civil libertarian. And I won't apologize for that either.
Proposed, pending and contested legislation around the United States and abroad that is aimed at restricting our property rights by targeting animal reproduction has become rampant at every level of government. Forced spay and neuter, cost prohibitive licenses for unaltered dogs and breeding permits, micro chipping of our animals with their information (and ours) in government data bases, warrant-less inspection of our property, arbitrary limits on the number of animals we can responsibly care for and mandatory husbandry practices are some of the ways in which dog owners are being relieved of their civil rights.
While our agrarian forefathers did not specifically guarantee us the right to own and breed animals, they did guarantee us the right to be treated equally under the law, the right to own property, the right to be free from warrant-less search and seizure of that property, the right to due process and the right to commerce. With no respect for our Constitution, animal rights supporters are working hard to relieve us of these rights by packaging restrictive legislation in a way that is not only palatable to dog owners, even some breeders, but misleadingly leaves them with the impression that they have supported something beneficial. Far too many animal owners and welfare advocates are buying into it in one area or another.
Divide and conquer. By creating stereotypes and labels, like "puppy mill" and "backyard breeder" and attaching a stigma to those labels, the animal rights movement is trying to disgrace the act of breeding animals. And they're doing a great job. The media has been flooded with images of dogs being raised in cages, in filth, in neglect. Sad faces of shelter animals behind prison bars on "death row". Images intended to produce an emotional response instead of an intellectual one. And don't forget the staggering statistics.
It's not a secret that animal rights mean no more domestic animals. It's in their mission statements. HSUS president Wayne Pacelle brags that "We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are the creations of human selective breeding". Allow me to translate, no animal breeding means no more animals. Period. And while the general public cannot be sold on such a radical concept, it's been surprisingly easy to sell them on the concept of ever tightening restrictions. Although united in our love of domestic dogs, slick marketing by the enemy has created infighting. Breeders both private and commercial, rescuers, shelter staff, animal control, dog show exhibitors and pet owners are cleverly being turned against one another to forward the animal rights agenda. Each believing that their point of view is the only valid one and everyone else's civil rights no longer matter.
Yes, I too personally find those images disturbing. They are the product of gross human negligence and irresponsibility. I love animals, I have been a shelter volunteer, and I believe in animal welfare but I am also a realist. Things are rarely what they appear on the surface. In order to end the animal surplus and related suffering, I want to get to the actual cause, to prevent the illness instead of treating the symptoms, so to speak.
The demand for a product (puppies, for example) is driven by the consumer. It's a simple case of supply and demand in a free market economy. Don't blame the seller for being an opportunist. It's only human nature flourishing in what is still a mostly democratic society. An uneducated consumer has every right to purchase an inferior product and suffer the consequences. Just as the seller has every right to promote the benefits their product, in order to influence the decisions of the consumer. If breed purists and elitists like me are outraged at breeders who turn a profit by selling what we consider to be an inferior product, then we must only blame ourselves for failing to educate the buyers.
Ignore the propaganda; dog breeding is not the cause of shelter overpopulation. Animals end up in shelters for a myriad of reasons. Behavior problems that result from a lack of training and proper socialization along with normal breed characteristics that the owner finds unacceptable top the list. Owner death, job transfer/move, landlord/rental restrictions, insurance discrimination, financial trouble and the inability to comply with escalating pet ownership restrictions also contribute to the problem. The system is designed to perpetuate it.
We live in a disposable society. As long as domestic animals are viewed as a short term convenience, instead of a serious long term commitment then change is unlikely. The problem is one of perspective, information and education. Pointing fingers at each other is cowardly and counterproductive.
According to a 2005 article in the HSUS magazine All Animals, 75% of the shelter population is comprised of mongrels. Now I'm no math wizard, but I can extrapolate that only 25% must therefore be purebred animals. If this is true, then random bred dogs are the real cause of shelter overpopulation, not "puppy mills", breed enthusiasts or "backyard breeders" of purebred dogs. Yet this same HSUS article praises the mongrel as superior because of its' larger gene pool. One that may very well be polluted with unknown genetic defects. They even go so far as to market them as a "designer" product. Sort of a haute couture, one of a kind canine fashion accessory.
Now, it occurs to me that if you truly want to reduce the animal shelter population in a meaningful and dramatic way, than you should advocate for the elimination of the mongrel, through mandatory spay and neuter of random bred dogs with unknown ancestry. (See, I am a dog Nazi!) Most dog breeders know that you must have a firm grasp of the genetic past, in order to improve the genetic future of your line. Many of the minority purebred animals that end up in the local shelter may not have a known origin either, and are therefore not an ethical choice for perpetuation of their breed. The same "hybrid vigor" so highly touted in the mongrel is just as easily achieved by crossing healthy purebreds of known ancestry to create new breeds. Man has done so since the beginning of domesticated dog breeding and whatever we fancy, that breed was created by this process.
The beauty of purebred dogs is that there is something to appeal to almost anyone. I don't have to agree with your choice but I must respect your right to make it. I'm not going to advise that consumers rush out and purchase a Puggle, Labradoodle, or Cockapoo, anymore than I would suggest that everyone should select my preferred breed. (Not everyone deserves one!) Whether these designer hybrids stand the test of time or fade out with other trends is not for me to say. Freedom of choice means the freedom to make the wrong choice, and the freedom to make better choices in the future.
Am I a "backyard breeder"? Well, by technical definition I guess I am. I have also been a front yard breeder, a living room breeder and a cab of my motor home on the way to the dog show breeder. If that makes me a villain, then the animal rights lunatics and the terrorists who support their ideology win. But if you become an independent thinker, then freedom wins. We all win.
Ms. Jade Copyright C 2007 TheDogPress.com - Reprint rights hereby granted upon the condition that a link to the reprinted page is furnished to mailto:Contact@...?subject=Reprint Request - Editorial upon publication.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)