Wednesday, February 27, 2008

CA- Pet Sterilization Becomes Law in L.A.

Pet Sterilization Becomes Law in LA

Published: 2/26/08, 8:05 PM EDT

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on Tuesday signed one of
the nation's toughest laws on pet sterilization, requiring most dogs and
cats to be spayed or neutered by the time they are 4 months old.

The ordinance is aimed at reducing and eventually eliminating the
thousands of euthanizations conducted in Los Angeles' animal shelters
every year.

"We will, sooner rather than later, become a no-kill city and this is
the greatest step in that direction," Councilman Tony Cardenas said as
he held a kitten at a City Hall news conference.

Councilman Richard Alarcon, who like Cardenas is a co-author of the
bill, brought his two pet Chihuahuas to the event to be neutered in a
van operated by the city.

The ordinance does exempt some animals, including those that have
competed in shows or sporting competitions, guide dogs, animals used by
police agencies and those belonging to professional breeders.

The average pet owner, however, must have their dog or cat spayed or
neutered by the time it reaches 4 months of age (as late as 6 months
with a letter from a veterinarian). People with older unneutered pets
and newcomers to the city with animals also have to obey the law.

First-time offenders will receive information on subsidized
sterilization services and be given an additional 60 days. If they still
fail to comply they could be fined $100 and ordered to serve eight hours
of community service. A subsequent offense could result in a $500 fine
or 40 hours of community service.

The ordinance brings the nation's second-largest city into line with
about a dozen of its neighbors that have similar laws.

Many states require animals adopted from shelters to be sterilized, and
New York City requires the same for animals bought from pet shops, but
restrictions such as those in Southern California are rare. A 2006 Rhode
Island law requires most cats to be sterilized.

A measure similar to Los Angeles' passed the California Assembly last
year but did not gain state Senate support.

Los Angeles animal shelters took in 50,000 cats and dogs last year and
euthanized approximately 15,000 at a cost of $2 million, according to
city officials.

Bob Barker, the retired game-show host who famously ended every "Price
is Right" show with a call for sterilizing pets, pushed for the law's
adoption and was among those at Tuesday's news conference.

"The next time that you hear me say, 'Help control the pet population,
have your pet spayed or neutered,' I can add, 'It's the law in Los
Angeles,'" a jubilant Barker said.

CT- ASDA: Connecticut Spay & Neuter Task force a Study in Irony

HARTFORD, Ct - There is a grim irony surrounding Gov. M. Jodi Rell's
recent call for a task force to study a mandatory spay and neuter law
for Connecticut.

The alleged reason for such a mandate is to cut down on the
population of unwanted dogs and cats in animal shelters, and to
reduce the necessity for euthanasia of animals that are not adopted.

The irony is that Connecticut animal shelters are begging for dogs to
adopt, and in fact are hauling in dogs from as far away as Georgia,
Oklahoma and even Puerto Rico to meet the demand, an investigation by
The American Sporting Dog Alliance shows. There are not enough
unwanted dogs in Connecticut to go around because voluntary spaying
and neutering has cut the number of adoptable puppies to a fraction
of their former number, research at Tufts University has shown.

Moreover, ASDA has uncovered evidence that pet overpopulation is not
the real issue. One of the most vocal leaders in the push to mandate
the sterilization of dogs makes no bones about his real goal: the
elimination of purebred dogs. This is a major platform of the most
extreme animal rights groups, such as People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PETA).

Connecticut Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA)
Executive Director Fred Acker defended his organization's program of
bringing in dogs from other states in a 2004 article reprinted on

"People will get the kind of dog they want, even if they have to go
to a breeder for it," Acker said. "So why not save a dog from
somewhere else, rather than breed another dog."

Acker said that the Connecticut SPCA goes on designer shopping trips
to shelters in other states in order to bring the kind of dogs people
want back to Connecticut. Popular breeds, such as Labrador
retrievers, small breeds and puppies are high on the list because the
demand far exceeds the supply in Connecticut, Acker said.

The Connecticut SPCA shelter charges people $295 to adopt a dog or
puppy, which an article in USA Today said effectively places them in
the pet store business.

Why aren't there enough unwanted homegrown Connecticut dogs to meet
the demand?

A study by the Tufts University says that many people, especially in
the northeastern states, are voluntarily spaying and neutering their
dogs. This has virtually eliminated unwanted puppies for adoption,
and even older dogs of the more popular breeds, the study concluded.
Most of the dogs that are not being adopted in the northeastern
states are elderly, ill or of an unpopular breed, such as pit bulls.

This vacuum of supply and demand has left a lot of empty kennel runs
in Connecticut animal shelters. Rather than close down and claim
credit for accomplishing their mission, the shelters are going
elsewhere to find dogs to fill the vacancies - and meet the demand.

On a trip to Oklahoma, reported by KFOR News in Oklahoma City, Acker
and two other people from Connecticut shelters took 31 dogs from the
Oklahoma City shelter, and planned to pick up more dogs from shelters
in Bethany and Moore, OK, and also from a group called Pets and

"This is going to make a lot of people happy," Acker told KFOR. "The
little dogs are few and far in Connecticut. The demand is great so
we're just connecting the dots throughout the United States." Acker
told the reporter that he planned to make a trip to Oklahoma every
month to get a truckload of dogs.

But he'll have to get back from Atlanta, GA, first. Acker's website
reported that one trip to Georgia required two vans, and that 20 dogs
would be taken from a shelter there.

Another Connecticut animal shelter, the Danbury Animal Welfare
Society, reportedly picked up six puppies and an adult dog from the
Atlanta shelter.

"You've got small dogs and we don't," Acker told KFOR in
Oklahoma. "We'll probably have homes for half of them before we get
back...Every single small dog goes home with 20 back up applications

The Connecticut SPCA website also details a program to "rescue" dogs
caught in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina along the Gulf Coast.
These dogs also are being used to meet the insatiable demand for
adoptable dogs in the Northeast.

USA Today reported that 14,000 stray dogs from the streets of Puerto
Rico were adopted in the United States over a seven-year period, and
Connecticut got some of them.

In neighboring Massachusetts, the "underpopulation" of unwanted dogs
is so severe that one shelter literally is scouring the globe for
dogs to sell for adoption. The Northeast Animal Shelter told USA
Today that it imports 800 dogs a year from the South and 200 from
Puerto Rico. This shelter goes as far as Taiwan and Mainland China to
come up with enough dogs to meet the demand.

The situation is similar on Long Island, NY, which reportedly brings
in dogs from several distant states, and then hauls them to
Connecticut for adoption in special vans.

The Massachusetts, New York and Connecticut groups participate in two
networks to import dogs from elsewhere. The first is called
the "Puppies Across America Program," which focuses on southern and
midwestern states. The second is called "Save a Sato," which brings
in stray dogs from Puerto Rico. Sato is the Spanish word for a stray

A similar situation exists across the continent in California, which
also is considering mandatory spay and neuter legislation. A reported
10,000 dogs a year are brought to California from Mexico to meet the
demand that animal shelters in that state can't fulfill.

Data from the California Veterinary Public Health Section of the
state Health Department shows that there has been a 43-percent
decline in the number of dogs euthanized in animal shelters over five
years, and a 75-percent decline since the mid-1970's. Connecticut
does not publish similar data.

(The American Sporting Dog Alliance is a grassroots organization to
protect the rights of owners and professionals who work with breeds
of dogs that are used for hunting. You can learn more about us on the
web at

The American Sporting Dog Alliance

What is HSUS?

By Christopher Aust
August 2004

I was rather amazed at the number of people who wrote to me about my
opinions regarding the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
when I did my last few articles. Then again, maybe I shouldn't be.
Before about two weeks ago, I myself was rather ignorant as to the real
goals of HSUS, and where their, (actually your) money goes. As I always
do though, I decided to edumacate myself about them.

I also conducted a poll of 100 average people. Just the average Joe in
the street. 94% of the people thought HSUS ran the local shelters in
their community. 4% knew about their other programs and the remaining
2% had no idea who they were. Of the 94% all said they would donate to
HSUS based on what they knew about them. I'm betting HSUS is banking,
literally, on these types of individuals.

I also went online and found some rather interesting, at times quite
scary, information on several web sites. I would have interviewed a
HSUS representative, but after last week's newsletter, I got an email
from one that was little more than hate mail and very offensive!


Coleman Burke, then president of the American Bible Society, Cleveland
Amory and Helen Jones, founded HSUS in 1954. As far as I have been
able to tell, Mr. Burke served as their President until 1970 when John
Hoyt, a Presbyterian minister, took over as President and CEO until

Until just a few months ago, the President and CEO was Paul Irwin, a
Methodist minister. The current CEO and President is Wayne Pacelle who
admittedly has had ties with some radical (and I mean radical) animal
rights groups in the past.

Now, is it important I mention the religious background? Maybe and
maybe not. What I noticed though is the organization, at least to me,
has an evangelical feel. Is this a bad thing? No. I don't see why
unless you are running the finances in a manner similar to Jim and
Tammie Faye Baker! That sure is the way it looks to me.

Officers and Directors

HSUS is an organization with their primary focus being animals. As I
reviewed the names and titles of the Board Officers and Directors, I
found it curious they had no DVM's (vets) on either. They have three
MDs', three PhDs' and six attorneys. Am I the only one that finds this
odd? Plenty of lawyers, but no vet. Hmmm…Maybe it's just a typo.

Comparative Financial Operations Report

When I conducted my interview with Kathy Bauch a few weeks ago, she
refused to answer any questions regarding HSUS' finances for a
"newsletter." She did offer to send me their 2003 financials though.
This is what they send whenever some one has questions about their
finances. As I mentioned last week, if it was similar to what they have
online, it would be vague and difficult to decipher. What I got was
much more.

What I received is their 2003 Annual Report. It is a twenty-one page
"report" that wasobviously very expensive to print. Tucked way in the
back is exactly what I expected. A vague and difficult to read one page
financial report. The rest appears to me to be a very expensive sales
letter and nothing more, complete with a postage paid envelope to send
in your donation.

Now you might say, "So what? They have to promote themselves." I
agree. However, this publication has six pages of calendar quality
photos of nothing but animals. Two and a half pages of self-glorifying
articles from HSUS staff, none of which was necessary. How much donor
money could have been saved by deleting this junk from the thousands
and thousands of these reports they printed?

According to the Comparative Financial Operations Report for 2003, the
HSUS has $116,205,882.00 in total liability and net assets. Over
$5,000,000 of that is in cash and cash equivalents, and another nearly
five and a half million in receivables. They also have nearly
$93,000,000 in market value investments. Not too bad.

In 2003, in revenue, additions and transfers, HSUS made $76,923,670.
Of that amount, sheltering programs received $10,551,527 and it was
shared with animal habitat and wildlife programs. Now, assuming it was
an even split, sheltering programs received $3,517,175.66

Now that's a lot of money, but not when you consider a good sized
shelter can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to run, three
million is really a drop in the bucket. They spent $21,145,769.00 in
fundraising and membership development. Six times what they put into
their shelter programs, which is what most people I talked to think
HSUS does with the money donated to them.

Providing Help or Selling It

I'm not sure what they spent the money on for their shelter programs,
but I will assure you they didn't fund any shelters. In fact, they
charge shelters and Animal Control offices for their assistance and
instructional material. I have been able to find little and or nothing
HSUS doesn't charge for when it comes to helping a shelter and their
educational programs.

For instance, lets say you or your town runs an animal shelter that is
struggling for one reason or another, which most are, HSUS is ready to
come in and help. For between $4000.00 and $20,000.00 they will send
their experts to your shelter through their Animal Services
Consultation Program. The fee depends on the size of the agency and the
complexity of its programs, charged on a sliding scale based on your
agency's resources. In other words, the more you have, the more they'll

Youth Programs

Now, lets go back to our youth. You're in middle or high school and
want to start a club to promote rescue and do things to help companion
animals. HSUS can help you with that, too. Just go to
There you can buy a package full of all kinds of propaganda and learn
to be a full-fledged animal activist. They will sell your child a club
starter kit for $22.00 and then give activity suggestions like their
"Fight Fur" program.

Here they encourage kids to make flyers and hand them out in front of
businesses to protest against shoppers buying fur. HSUS will also give
your child cards to distribute at such events. They'll show your child
pictures of dead animals in traps and direct them to other sites where
they can see pictures of hunters beating seals over the head.

They will also promote vegen/vegetarian lifestyles to your child. Just
go to the message board for kids and you can read how many of the kids
are distressed, after reading the material HSUS SOLD them, because
their parents will not let them go vegen. You will also see posts
promoting PETA!

Now I want to be fair here. They do have some decent material that is
age appropriate and educational in nature. I think it's overpriced; for
instance, your child can rent a video to show their class for $25.00,
but some of it is good material. However, there is little promoting
appropriate training, grooming or responsible ownership of companion
animals. It seems to me the whole focus is turning our children into
activists, vegens and extremists.

Now if I want my child to be a vegen, or an activist, I will make that
decision and not HSUS. Our kids have enough on their plate without
having to be weighed down with this information or agenda.
Additionally, kids are kids and don't always make appropriate
decisions. When dealing with complex issues like activism and
protesting, it would be easy for them to get into trouble or hurt.
Doesn't PETA target children too?

Ethical Financial Practices

Let's get back to the money: Former President John Hoyt once instructed
his members on becoming more humane: "We begin, I suggest, by living
more simply, more sparingly." Let's see how he did. He made around
$200,000.00 in the late 1980's running HSUS. In 1986, HSUS bought his
house in Maryland for $310,000 and allowed him and his family to live
there, free of rent, until 1992. When he retired as CEO, HSUS gave him
a $1,000,000.00 bonus.Paul Irwin, another former President, while
making $300,000.00 from HSUS, was given an $85,000.00 interest free
loan to renovate his cabin in Maine. The cabin was held in trust by
HSUS, however his family continued to use it until he died. This is
just the tip of the iceberg. Makes me wonder.

Guilty by Association

Let's look at some of HSUS' associations: In April of 2000 HSUS sent
J.P. Goodwin as its emissary on an anti-fur mission to China. Goodwin
is not just any animal rights zealot, he was an avowed member of Animal
Liberation Front (ALF), a group once called one of the biggest domestic
terrorist organizations by the FBI. He had been convicted for vandalism
of several fur retailers and their property. Less than a year later, he
was formerly identified as a HSUS legislative staff member.

If you don't know about ALF you should check them out. They truly scare
the heck out of me. They are, in my opinion, every bit as much a threat
to people as Al Quiada. I cannot believe HSUS would hire such a person.
When asked questions about an arson fire at a slaughter house in
Petaluma, California, and a Utah feed co-op that nearly killed a
family, Goodwin stated, "We're ecstatic!"

Then, there is the PETA connection ...

HSUS has repeatedly hired PETA employees in their organization. Their
head of investigations, several investigators, a computer programmer,
just to name a few. Sorry folks, my opinion is, once a terrorist,
always a terrorist. When HSUS hires these people, they appear to
support the crimes these individuals may have been involved in.

In 2003, HSUS VP Martin Stephens was asked to recommend three
people to serve on an EPA "pollution prevention and toxics" panel. Two
of his three choices were PETA employees.

All Talk and No Action

While HSUS will admit they don't run or fund any shelters, you usually
find it at the bottom of the page or tucked away somewhere near the end
of a statement. As I mentioned before, they don't put their money where
their mouth is. Get this …

In 1995, when the Washington DC animal shelter was going to have to
close due to a budget shortfall, HSUS (based in DC) offered to build
and operate a DC shelter at its own expense to serve as a national
model. There were, of course, conditions.

HSUS wanted the city to give it 3-5 acres of land and tax exempt status
for all of its real estate holdings in the District of Columbia.
(Remember, they buy some executives homes to live in among other
property holdings.) The DC government offered a long-term lease but
HSUS refused to proceed unless it would "own absolutely" the land. The
district declined, and the only HSUS funded animal shelter never

HSUS, who makes and has enough money to fund a shelter in every state,
as well as subsidize spay/neuter programs, declined to help the dogs in
its own back yard. Why? Money is all I can think of. Perhaps they were
afraid they would soil their Armani suits by actually working with a

The New CEO

Rather than go on a tirade about the new President and CEO of HSUS, I
have put some quotes from him below. Read them, and you decide.
"I think they wanted the aggressive approach," he says. "They wanted
someone who was going to think things up. And they got him." June
2004, Washington Post when asked about his selection as CEO.

"We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are
creations of human selective breeding." Quoted in Animal People, May,


I could go on for days about HSUS, but I will stop here. In my opinion,
they are little more than an organization whose main agenda is filling
the coffers and pushing an extremist agenda through misinformation and
exploitation. Again, my opinion, they have done nothing but profit from
the contributions of people who don't know any better. I have tried to
see it otherwise, I simply can't.

I highly recommend you go to and see what they have
there about HSUS and their connection with PETA. There are several
other sites I found interesting, as well as many stories about HSUS in
the archive of the Washington Post.

Would I give anything to the Humane Society of the United States? Yes I
would. A pooper-scooper, they can use to go clean my yard. At least
then we would know they actually have done something for a dog this

This article may be republished using the following attribution box:
Copyright ©2004 Christopher Aust, Master Dog Trainer & Creator:
The Natural Cooperative Training System (NCTS) for Dogs
The Instinctual Development System (IDS) for Puppies
Subscribe to the BARK 'n' SCRATCH Newsletter: subscribe@Master-Dog-

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

NM- SF2292/ HF2469 "Breeder Bill"

Please call or email to object to this bill. MN residents can email
me for more info. It will be heard any day now....Assigned to the
Senate Agricultural committee.

Animal Rights are calling their representatives saying we need this
bill. I watched it pass public safety last week by a VERY close vote.

MOST legislators I spoke with said they had not heard breeders' were
AGAINST THIS! Animal Rights is saying responsible breeders are for

SF2292/HF2469 are companion bills originally set to 'stop' puppy
mills. Half of the bill has been dropped, making it ineffective to
help raise standards for commercial breeders.

In addition this bill will create an estimated $900 (could be higher
or lower) fee for having 6 intact dogs. NOT even for breeding, or
relating to numbers litters: JUST FOR HAVING 6 INTACT. All mushers,
many show people, etc. fall under this ordinance.

I have case law (just ask) that shows a 35 year support BY LAW of NOT
coming into our homes, so we do not want them to start now. Searching
the legal breeders will NOT help the poor puppies and kittens this is
supposed to help.

Actually, this bill is now ineffective for puppy mills. Cruelty
ordinances and USDA cover them....BUT THIS BILL HURTS US!

My info is the fiscal report is half a million to put this in place.
It requires small breeders to be inspected annually. This $900 per
person is to be used to fund this inspection. If less 'breeders' sign
up the fee will be higher...$2500 was quoted as possible. Per year.

This bill would create hiding of the real problem breeders,who will
never pay that inspection fee, and will create a larger pool
of 'illegal' dogs, who may not be vaccinated for rabies. That is a
public health threat.

Top AKC breeders will be inspected as we cannot hide. BUT the price
of purebred dogs will go up for everyone. That hurts MN breeders who
face an advantage from outstate breeders. Many breeders will simply
decide not to breed.

It is the MOST dedicated show people who have 6 intact dogs....3 of
mine are veterans, yet count in that '6.'


SF2292/HF2469 also violates the breeder's 14th Amendment rights.

It's also punitive, expecting breeders to pay for the crimes
of 'puppy mills.'

Write OBJECT to SF2292/HF2469 to the following members of the
Agricultural committee which will probably hear this in the next few



Al Juhnke (DFL) 13B
(651) 296-6206

Mary Ellen Otremba (DFL) 11B
(651) 296-3201
(800) 709-0796
E-mail: rep.maryellen.otremba@...

Assistant Majority Leader
Frank Moe (DFL) 04A
(651) 296-5516
(877) 838-5537

Chair: Senator Jim Vickerman DFL District 22
651.296.5968 (other number I got 651 296 5650)
Link to his email

Senator Sharon L. Erickson Ropes DFL District 31
St. Paul, MN 55155-1606
Email link:

Senator Steve Dille R District 18

Senator Satveer S. Chaudhary DFL District 50

Senator Joe Gimse R District 13

Senator David W. Hann R District 42
Email link

Senator Bill G Ingebrigtsen R District 11

Senator Paul E. Koering R District 12

Senator Gary W. Kubly DFL District 20

Senator Keith Langseth DFL District 09
Email link

Senator Tony Lourey DFL District 08

Senator Steve Murphy DFL District 28
Email link

Senator Rod Skoe DFL District 02

Senator Dan Skogen DFL District 10

Senator Betsy L. Wergin R District 16

Thursday, February 21, 2008

MN- Problematic "Dangerous Dog" Bill

Problematic Dangerous Dog Bill Introduced in Minnesota

[Wednesday, February 20, 2008]
Minnesota House File 3245, sponsored by Representative Dennis Ozment, seeks to lift the state's current prohibition on breed-specific legislation. If passed and signed into law, the changes imposed by this bill would have a profound impact on all dog owners in Minnesota. It is imperative that all dog owners and breeders in Minnesota contact the members of the House Public Safety and Civil Justice Committee to express their opposition to the bill as currently written.

The American Kennel Club (AKC) supports reasonable, enforceable, non-discriminatory laws to govern the ownership of 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 AKC strongly opposes any legislation that determines a dog to be "dangerous" based on specific breeds or phenotypic classes of dogs.

As currently worded, HF 3245 conflicts with AKC's reasonable, non-discriminatory dangerous dog position. Specifically, it would:
Establish a task force to study and recommend a uniform, statewide, mandatory system of dog owner and dog obedience education training according to commonly accepted standards and best practices for each breed or mixed breed of dog.

Allow all statutory or home rule charter cities, or counties, to recommend to the task force specific breeds of dogs to be designated as dangerous or potentially dangerous based solely on the specific breed of dog.
For a copy of the bill, click here.


Contact the members of the Minnesota House Public Safety and Civil Justice Committee who will consider this bill. Let them know that, if passed as currently written, HF 3245 will result in unfair and discriminatory dangerous dog policy in Minnesota.

Representative Joe Mullery, Chairman
(651) 296-4262

Representative Jeremy Kalin, Vice Chairman
(651) 296-5377

Representative Paul Kohls
(651) 296-4282

Representative Karla Bigham
(651) 296-4342

Representative Tony Cornish
(651) 296-4240

Representative Chris DeLaForest
(651) 296-4231

Representative Tom Emmer
(651) 296-4336

Representative Debra Hilstrom
(651) 296-3709

Representative Mary Liz Holberg
(651) 296-6926

Representative Sheldon Johnson
(651) 296-4201

Representative Scott Kranz
(651) 296-4226

Representative John Lesch
(651) 296-4224

Representative Leon Lillie
(651) 296-1188

Representative Dave Olin
(651) 296-9635

Representative Michael Paymar
(651) 296-4199

Representative Brita Sailer
(651) 296-4265

Representative Steve Simon
(651) 296-9889

Representative Steve Smith
(651) 296-9188

Representative Torrey Westrom
(651) 296-4929

For more information, contact AKC's Canine Legislation Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail

MN- "Breeders Bills" moving Forward

Minnesota Breeders Bills Moving Forward

[Wednesday, February 20, 2008]
Minnesota House Bill 2469, known as the Dog and Cat Breeders Act, passed the House Committee on Public Safety and Criminal Justice by a vote of 8-7 on Tuesday, February 19. It is expected to be heard by the House Agriculture, Rural Economies, and Veterans Affairs Finance Division committee soon. Its companion in the Senate, Senate Bill 2292, will be heard in the Senate Agriculture and Veterans committee Tuesday, February 26 at 3 PM in Room 107 of the State Office Building.

These bills seek to establish breeder licensing and would require inspection of all “kennels.” They also seek to establish standards of care that are unproven, many of which would be significant burdens on responsible breeders. If passed and signed into law, the changes imposed by these bills would have a profound negative impact on dog breeders in Minnesota. It is imperative that breeders and concerned dog owners contact their Representative, Senator, the committee chairmen, and the committee members to express their opposition.

The American Kennel Club strongly supports humane treatment of dogs, including an adequate and nutritious diet, clean water, clean living conditions, regular veterinary care, kind and responsive human companionship, and training in appropriate behavior. However, many of the changes proposed by HB 2469 and SB 2292 are impractical, unenforceable, and costly. Most importantly, the quality of life for dogs in Minnesota will not improve because of the provisions of this bill. Instead, enactment of this law will create greater burdens for responsible breeders and many will be forced to stop breeding altogether.

For example, the proposed set of laws would require the following;
Any breeder with six or more intact adult females will be forced to comply with the requirements of HB 2469 and SB 2292. An adult dog is defined as one who is 24 weeks of age or older. This threshold is both arbitrary and overreaching as it does not focus on the number of litters or puppies produced and sold.

In addition to annual renewal applications and their associated fees, breeders must also submit annual reports to the Minnesota Board of Animal Health.

It will be almost impossible for smaller breeders and dog owners who maintain their dogs in their own residential premises to comply with the unreasonable building standards required by HB 2469 and SB 2292.

HB 2469 and SB 2292 will require an annual inspection of any premises deemed to be a kennel. The inspection may be conducted with no notice.

Animals may not be tethered or leashed as a means of confinement.
Attend the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Veterans meeting and express your opposition to SB 2292. The committee will consider the bill Tuesday, February 26 at 3:00PM, in Room 107 of the State Office Building, 110 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd, Saint Paul, MN 55155.

Contact your Representative to express your opposition. To find your Representative, click here.

Contact your Senator to express your opposition. To find your Senator, click here.

Contact the members of Minnesota Senate Agriculture and Veterans Committee.

Chair: Jim Vickerman

Vice Chair: Sharon L. Erickson Ropes

Ranking Minority Member: Steve Dille

Satveer S. Chaudhary

Joe Gimse

David W. Hann

Bill G. Ingebrigtsen

Paul E. Koering

Gary W. Kubly

Keith Langseth

Tony Lourey

Steve Murphy

Rod Skoe

Dan Skogen

Betsy L. Wergin

Contact the members of the Minnesota House Agriculture, Rural Economies, and Veterans Affairs Finance Division Committee on who will consider this bill.

Chair: Mary Ellen Otremba (DFL)

Vice Chair: Tim Faust (DFL)

Lead-GOP: Rod Hamilton (R)

Robin Brown (DFL)

Al Doty (DFL)

Steve Drazkowski (R)

Kent Eken (DFL)

Brad Finstad (R)

Larry Hosch (DFL)

Al Juhnke (DFL)

Terry Morrow (DFL)

Ron Shimanski (R)

Dean Urdahl (R)
For more information and regular updates, please check To contact AKC's Canine Legislation Department call (919) 816-3720 or e-mail

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Overview of situation concerning anti-dog legislation

This gives you an overview of the national situation -- just in case you
might doubt that we are facing an aggressive campaign against dog
ownership from the animals rights people. This has been one of the most
active years for anti-dog legislation and I expect we will have even
more in 2008.

Fifty Ways to Lose Your Rover

Fifty Ways to Lose Your Rover
by Cindy Cooke
United Kennel Club Legislative Specialist

Remember the old Paul Simon song: "50 Ways To Lose Your Lover?" The
Animal Rights movement, well funded and determined, has come up with
almost that many different ways to make dog ownership expensive,
inconvenient, and ultimately, impossible. When PETA first burst on to
the public stage, they were very direct in stating their goals:
Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles-
-from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we
enslave it. The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut
the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist. (John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment Of
Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.)

It didn't take them long, however, to see that their message wasn't
playing in Peoria. Since the 80s, PETA and the rest of the AR
organizations have evolved a more sophisticated arsenal of tactics.
Instead of coming at us head on, they are nipping at our flanks, our
heels, and our throats.

Breed-specific laws. The breed-specific dangerous dog law didn't
originate in the AR community but it has been adopted by PETA. While
oozing concern for the poor, abused "pit bulls"on its web site
> (,

PETA sadly proposes that we end the breed's exploitation. Their
solution? Not an all-out assault on dog fighting. They propose that
we use breed-specific laws to solve the problem-that is, we end the
suffering of pit bulls by eliminating pit bulls. It's part of the
plan to eliminate our dogs, one breed at a time.

„« Look at how this works in Ohio. State law defines vicious
dogs as follows:
a.. A dog that, without provocation, has killed or caused serious
injury to any person;
b.. A dog that, without provocation, has caused injury, other than
death or serious injury, to any person, or has killed another dog; or
c.. A pit bull. This law applies not only to purebred American Pit
Bull dogs, but also to other pure bred and mixed breed dogs that have
similar physical and behavioral characteristics. Animal Control
Officers make the determination as to whether or not a dog is
a "breed of dog commonly known as a Pit Bull."

The maximum penalty for a violation of this section on a first
offense is a $1,000 fine and up to six months imprisonment. If the
dog seriously injures a person, or this is a second offense of this
section, the charge may be filed as a felony.

This is the kind of law that PETA is endorsing. If the Animal Control
Officer says your dog is a pit bull, it IS a pit bull and a vicious

Dog limits. Kalamazoo County, the home of the United Kennel Club, has
only one township left where an individual may legally own more than
3 dogs. Dog limits have been found unconstitutional in two states,
but cities and counties keep enacting them. Why? Proponents of dog
limitation ordinances claim they want to reduce noise and nuisance
problems. Since all jurisdictions already have laws prohibiting
nuisances, dog limits are unnecessary. These laws are really designed
to prevent the breeding of dogs.

Again from the PETA web site:
"No breeding can be considered responsible."

Mandatory spay neuter laws with breeder/litter permits. These laws
are popping up like dandelions in jurisdictions all over the United
States. In just the past few months, dog owners have fought these
laws in VA, NC, Oklahoma, TX and Wisconsin. The Los Angeles city
ordinance is pretty typical and was enacted after dog and cat
fanciers fought the bill for almost two years. The law requires that
all dogs and cats be spayed/neutered unless the owner buys a
breeder's permit. The price for a permit is $100 per year per
unaltered dog. Each breeder is limited to one litter per year. When
puppies are sold, the breeder must report the names and addresses of
all purchasers to the Animal Services Department. Noncompliance may
result in a misdemeanor conviction and a fine of $500.

In the past four months, NC dog owners have been fighting an even
worse law in their state. It is impossible to speak too highly of the
UKC coonhunters who were among the leaders in this battle. PETA hired
an individual whose sole job was to walk this bill through the
legislature. The most frightening aspect of this fight was the bias
of nearly every newspaper in the state.

Dog owners wrote numerous editorials and letters to the editor but
most of the newspapers refused to print them. Because the bill also
included a small tax on pet food, the newspapers and most other media
outlets insisted that money-grubbing dog breeder and hunters were too
cheap to pay a small price to help unwanted stray dogs. Once again,
while the dog owners may have won this battle, they lost the "image"

State regulation of breeding. A few months ago, a Massachusetts
lawmaker introduced a bill that redefined the term "commercial
breeder." The original bill said that anyone who bred more than a
single litter per year was a commercial breeder. Commercial breeders
have to comply with some fairly expensive state regulations. For
example, a commercial breeder must have a separate kitchen for the
dogs. (Are you listening? Get ready for lots more renovations!)
Fortunately, Massachusetts already had a strong federation of dog
clubs. When they responded, the bill was first amended to three
litters, and then withdrawn.

What is so frightening about the introduction of this bill? Well,
first of all, Massachusetts does not have an overpopulation of
unwanted dogs. In fact, Massachusetts shelter populations have
dropped so much that they are importing unwanted dogs from North
Carolina and Puerto Rico.

Secondly, this represents one of the sneakier tactics of the AR
movement. They introduce a bill they know we will hate. When we
object, they smile sweetly and say, "Well, how many litters do YOU
think a breeder should have in a year?" They are counting on us to be
non-confrontational at this point.

They want us to give them a number, no matter how high. Why? Because
they just want to establish the principle that the state can tell you
how many litters you may have each year. If we agree to 20 litters,
next year they will be proposing an amendment to reduce the number of

Massachusetts breeders were too smart for them this time. They
objected to the bill and offered no compromise. The bill was
ultimately withdrawn.

NJ is now facing a similar bill, but because of strong opposition
from the dog people, this bill appears to be headed for a similar

Guardian v. owner. This AR-driven concept has a warm, fuzzy appeal to
legislators and, in many cases, dog owners. Elliot Katz, the head of
In> Defense of Animals, has had lots of success in convincing
lawmakers that this is just a way of forcing dog owners to feel more
responsibility for their animals. Of course, the AR true believers
know that this change would completely strip dog owners of their
constitutional protections. As a property owner, your right to own
your dog is protected by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution that
states that you may not be deprived of your property without due
process of law. As a guardian, your relationship with your dog is
defined by the state, subject to the whims of local lawmakers and
supervising judges. In Michigan, for example, where guardians may not
legally interfere with a ward's reproductive rights, a dog guardian
could not legally spay or neuter his dog.

Cruelty as felony. Most of us at one time or another have read about
some horrendous act of cruelty or neglect and thought, "That dirt bag
should do hard time." So when a state proposes to make animal cruelty
a felony, most of us think, "Why not?" This is another situation
where the AR people expect us to agree with them, put the law in
place, and then tighten the screws each year. The problem is in the
definition of cruelty. Take a look at how this played out in a court
in Washington State.

A couple was charged with second-degree animal cruelty for having two
severely malnourished horses on their farm. The Washington state
cruelty law states: An owner of an animal is guilty of second degree
animal cruelty if he or she knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal
negligence fails to provide the animal with necessary food, water,
shelter, rest, sanitation, ventilation, space, or medical attention
and the animal suffers unnecessary or unjustifiable physical pain as
a result of the failure.
The court said:
As "pain" is not defined by the statute, we must give it its
ordinary, dictionary meaning. State v. Edwards, 84 Wn. App. 5, 10,
924 P.2d 397 (1996), review denied, 131 Wn.2d 1016 (1997). Webster's
Third New International Dictionary 1621 (1969) defines "pain", in
pertinent part, as "a state of physical or mental lack of well-being
or physical or mental uneasiness that ranges from mild discomfort or
dull distress to acute often unbearable agony." Webster's II New
College Dictionary 539 (1999) defines "hunger" as "the discomfort,
weakness, or pain caused by a lack of food."

The jury heard testimony from several neighbors, Humane Society
officers, and a veterinarian, all of whom supported the State's
theory that the horses were underweight and malnourished.

The court ruled: That Princess Tarzana and Silver felt extreme
hunger is a reasonable inference from this evidence. And that
extreme hunger is capable of causing at least "mild discomfort" is
also a reasonable inference. Webster's Third New International
Dictionary 1621. The nature of our sufficiency review requires that
we accept these inferences. Therefore, sufficient evidence indicates
that Princess Tarzana and Silver suffered unnecessary and
unjustifiable "pain' under the governing definition of the term.
Think about it. Causing mild discomfort is sufficient to justify a
felony conviction of animal cruelty. Is there anyone reading this who
hasn't jerked a lead, pinched an ear, treated a wound, or otherwise
caused mild discomfort to a dog? Activist courts, egged on by AR-
influenced media can change the meaning of language until it

Banning the use of dogs on public land. AR organizations have
encouraged their true believers to take jobs in areas where they may
influence the ability of hunters to use public lands. This tactic has
started to pay dividends this past year when field trialers suddenly
found themselves denied the use of public lands. The most common
excuse for these bans is protection of the environment, but it's
clear from reading AR web sites that they see this as a means of
eliminating hunting. Fortunately, hunters are better organized and
more politically aware than the average dog owner and they are
successfully resisting these changes in most jurisdictions.

There are many, many more weapons in the AR arsenal than can be
included in this article. However, while they have struck the first
blows with success, dog owners everywhere are starting to win some
victories. North Carolina, Massachusetts, and New Jersey dog owners
have stood fast for their rights, and have some wins to show for it.
But before we get too smug, know this:

Last year, 72% of all people claiming to support animal rights
contacted a legislator at least once about an animal-related issue.
Can you and your dog-owning friends match that? You had better.

Friday, February 15, 2008

Children's dreams are no longer an option to them

The HSUS is currently working hard (and fairly effectively) to make animal breeding (of all animals), animal consumption, and animal ownership illegal too. THIS is why I am VEHEMENTLY opposed to HSUS. How odd that we live in "The land of the Free" but something as benign as having a litter of puppies will be illegal in many states, institutionalized in many states, regulated by the government in all states.

For those of you with children- if your children dream of someday living a life of animal husbandry, you might as well tell them that those dreams are no longer an option and please "choose a dream from one of the following acceptable categories" (as always- to be determined by special interest groups and our government)

So- my objection is not about cracking down on abuse or cruelty- my objection is 100% about HSUS and the threat they pose to my dogs. Odd isen't it? The HSUS is a threat to "man's best friend"? That is not what they will tell you, but yes, they want us ALL to live in an animal free world, (or as they would say, a "free animal" world)- but that is not the world that I want to live in. What world do you want to live in?

We're Mad As Hell And We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore

We're Mad As Hell And We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore!

By: Robin Cannon

"We're mad as hell and we're not gonna take it anymore!"

Dog lovers everywhere should be shouting this mantra from the rooftops today: as it is a sad day for our society, and our dogs.

Another part of our great country fell today to the propaganda being spouted by the Animal Rightists...Palm Beach County, Florida. Just a few days ago, it was the "City of Angels" herself, Los Angeles, CA. And as of this writing, the final vote there will take place on February 12, 2008. "What's the deal?", you ask. Read on. (NOTE: As of February 12, 2008, the city of Los Angeles, CA, one of the largest cities in the United States, has passed their mandatory spay/castrate law.)

Mandatory spay/neuter (MSN) laws (laws designed to end "pet overpopulation" by forcing law abiding dog owners to castrate their animals or be a criminal) are being proposed and passed faster than we can keep up with. Sad. Considering that we, the breeders, owners, exhibitors, and pet owners, outnumber the Animal Rights (AR) fanatics proposing such laws. We all have a voice, a mind...a thinking, reasoning brain! Why is it increasingly so easy for "them" (the Animal Rightists) to have their lies and propaganda swallowed and accepted as the "gospel"? Have we, the American voters, put into office, people so dense that they can't see a constitutional violation when it smacks 'em upside their heads? Is the American public that gullible as well, that we are willing to let our rights to own property be taken away? Sad.

The answer to the first question is fairly easy to answer: the ARs have had since the 1980's to get their act together, spreading the "overpopulation" myth to lawmakers and the gullible, trusting public. "Give us your money! We will save the animals!" They warned us they were here...they spoke of their "true" agenda. An agenda so outlandish that we all laughed at the notion of a "no pet nation", and "animal liberation" for all animals, including DOGS! To put their "agenda" in the simplist form: Animal Rightists believe that no animal (cow, dog, cat, horse, rat, etc) should be "enslaved" or "used" by mankind, for anything: not for food, not for companionship,not for clothing, not for entertainment,not for hunting, not for herding, and not for dog shows. To the ARs, "we" (humans) are no better, nor more superior, than the common sewer rat. All animals should "live free and die free". While going about our daily routines, ignoring the ketchup throwing, loud-mouthed "nuts", at the forefront was PETA (People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals), an extremist group that thrived on media attention to further their "don't wear fur" and "animals aren't food"...blah, blah...They were so "out there" to the majority of JQ Public, that we ignored them, or laughed when a T.V. station showed their latest antics. But the money still rolled the millions. "Just a little more time, and we can put our plan in motion against the unsuspecting, trusting, gullible pet owning public. Step by step", as they smiled their smug little smiles.

Enter into the picture H$U$ (Humane Society of the United States), what a lot of people call "PeTa in a suit and tie", or the "cleaned up for Sunday dinner" version of their counterpart in crime, PeTa. While PeTa was raking in millions from the Hollyweird jet-set, and the public, H$U$ had a more "warm, fuzzy wuzzy All-American" appeal, designed to rake in the BILLIONS from the Average Joe Pet Owner and Average Joe Pet Lover. The plan worked. Two of the most dangerous Animal Right's groups to ever set foot on God's green earth had the money rolling in from ALL facets of American society: from the obscenely weathly, to the middle class dog owner, they were building an empire with which to carry out their ultimate dream: End ALL pet ownership. Again, we laughed at this notion, all the while sending in those donations for those cute little return address labels.

I must mention at this point that NEITHER organization operates an animal shelter, nor assists shelter animals. Oh, wait! Unless you want to count the "death shelter" PeTa operates in Virginia at which over 12,000 dogs and cats were euthanized and ONLY *12* animals were "adopted out" during 2006, according to documents PeTa filed with the state of Virginia, as is required of their "501(c)3" status. The donations sent in for the past several decades has all gone to lobbying, paying lavish salaries to employees, and spouting their "overpopulation" and "abuse" propaganda. H$U$ kept a lower profile than PeTa, making them more acceptable to the average American pet owner. All they had to do was release another video of a "puppymill" raid to the media, showing doggies in cages and deplorable conditions, and the money rolled in again. Throw in a few comments from the local shelter of choice stating how "overcrowded" they are...and BAM! Public sympathy and dough out the ying-yang!

So now we've had several decades of "overpopulation" brainwashing: video upon video of dogs being used as personal ATMs living in filth, along with the gradual addition of "all breeders are evil and greedy, not just the "puppymills" and "backyard breeders" and my personal favorite, "Don't breed or buy while shelter animals die!"...and eventually someone had to say it: "There oughtta be a law! Some way to STOP it all! Stop the senseless murder of shelter animals!" In strolls the ARs..."We have a solution! Pass a law that mandates castration at 16 weeks of age (since most dogs are capable of being bred at an early age) for ALL dogs!" And the "overpopulation" problem is solved! What???? Someone in the government is FORCING me to have a surgical procedure done on MY dog? What if I don't want to??? What if I can't afford it?? What if I can't afford the astronomically high dollar "intact animal" permit?? Ahhh, then you are deemed a criminal if you do not abide, and, gee, if you can't afford such a procedure, then, well, you'll have to surrender your dog to the shelter!

But wait! Aren't the shelters overcrowded already? What will happen to my dog if I surrender it? If all the dogs are castrated, who will breed the service dogs, and police dogs, and drug dogs and the quality bred purebreds? Why, that's simple! There won't be any! And they begin to see their decades of work of spreading propaganda pay off!.....

When are we going to wake up and take back control of our RIGHTS and our PROPERTY? When are we going to wake up and join forces and take back what is rightfully ours? Do you wait until the floodwater is lapping at your own door before you begin to try to save your property? Sadly, that has what has happened to our rights when it comes to our dogs. We have all sat back and watched as cities and states have been taken over by the lies of overpopulation. And now we're ALL drowning in it. Some people simply looked the other way, while others decided that since it wasn't "their city or their state", it wasn't "their problem" and "that law will never pass!" For those who continue to bury their heads in the proverbial sand, can you say , "Lousiville, Ky", "Albuquerqe, New Mexico", "The entire STATE OF MAINE!"???? Pennsylvania, Virginia, Texas, Minnesota, Wisconsin! These laws are a REAL threat to our dogs and our Constitutional Rights! Why do we as dog OWNERS continue to sit on our haunches? Are we lazy? Or are we still living under the delusion that this is America and our "government" won't let something that silly pass???

The time is now. Now is the time to stand up and get mad! Get Proactive! Spend just a measly 5 minutes per week writing, emailing or faxing the powers that be in whatever state is under fire! Don't wait until it's "your dog", stand up NOW and make your voice heard! Dog owners outnumber the ARs by the hundreds of thousands! Imagine what a difference we could ALL make by taking 5 minutes out of a WEEK to write a letter! Imagine further if we banded together as a single voice and turned the tables on them! Stand up for YOUR dogs, YOUR rights, get active! Donate to groups that are working hard on OUR side, such as PetPac, or the ACF, or We The People Pets! (and numerous others) The only people that are going to save OUR dogs is US!

Shout out:

"I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!"

For more information on how to take back YOUR rights or the "AR Agenda", please visit the following websites: (Peta Kills Animals) (Pet-Law, learn how to protect YOUR rights) (American Canine Foundation) (Fighting MSN) (We The People)

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Directly from VA House Bill 538

§ 3.1-796.77:3. Right of entry.

A. The Commissioner, the State Veterinarian or his assistant, any animal control officer, and any public health or safety official employed by the locality where a commercial breeder resides or maintains breeding operations may, upon receiving a complaint or upon his own motion, investigate any violation of the provisions of this chapter. Such investigation may include (i) the inspection of the books and records of any commercial breeder, (ii) the inspection of any companion animal owned by the commercial breeder, and (iii) the inspection of any place where animals are bred or maintained. In conducting the inspection, the Commissioner or animal control officer may enter any premises where animals may be bred or maintained during daytime hours.

B. Any commercial breeder who is the subject of an investigation by the Commissioner, the State Veterinarian, or an animal control officer shall, upon request, provide assistance to the Commissioner or the animal control officer in making any inspection authorized by this section.

Commentary on this portion:
Anyone who breeds dogs and maintains those dogs in the home will be required to allow animal control to enter your home during daytime hours. This bill dose not specify if you need to be home or not. The wording of this is vague enough that an animal control officer who is a jerk will just enter your home regardless, and state that they are allowed to do so. Well, the only way around that may be to build an actual kennel- and that is not the purpose for many who love and breed purbred dogs.

VA- U.S. HB538 passes- Hobby breeders loose

The Humane Society of the U.S. HB538 "commercial" breeder measure passed the Virginia House on 2/12/2008. It will clear our Senate within days. HSUS is about to gain in Virginia what it couldn't in years of Washington lobbying the Santorum Pet Animal Welfare Statute - AKA PAWS. VAPAWS (HB538) requires hobby dog breeder licensing and inspection for anyone selling puppies at retail as well as wholesale, if they're over a certain size. Virginia has an early, very short and frenetic legislative session. Its 2008 agenda included over 30 animal rightist supported bills. HB538 was HSUS's top priority.

Sportsmen and hobby breeders here lost to HSUS's five paid Richmond professional lobbyists, its DC personnel and numerous very well coordinated local semi-pro anti activists. HB538 duplicates and supplants the federal licensing system that registers and inspects all large dog breeders and investigates any dog breeder with four (4) or more females about whom a tip or a legitimate complaint has been received. USDA-APHIS has 5700+ Class A breeders that it monitors and inspects at least once per year, including 14 in Virginia. The federal government did 10,000 inspections last year, checking compliance with 60 pages of detailed dog care standards.

HSUS personnel used the public firestorm over Michael Vick's despicable dogfighting and created their own inflammatory anti-dog breeder hyped press. Horton's Dogs in Carroll County, Virginia, the HSUS "Virginia is for Puppy Mills" cause cilhbre, was well known to local authorities and the animal control officer (ACO) for years. He had a business license, a 500 dog kennel permit, five employees, bought dog food by the ton and advertised puppies in newspapers and on the Internet. He sold both retail and to pet stores and should have been federally licensed and inspected by law, but wasn't. On that there's no dispute.
That situation was a local political problem, not a federal law or enforcement shortfall. Someone could have brought Horton to the USDA's attention at any time. Three months after the well-publicized HSUS November "raid," there still hasn't been a complaint lodged with USDA, nor has the local ACO returned to that facility, which continues to sell puppies. Horton remains in business and still meets the USDA definition of a licensed "dealer." The fourteen USDA licensed and inspected VA dog breeders are listed on the USDA-APHIS website. This isn't some mysterious, unknown or unaccountable animal welfare service, just one the State Veterinarian's Office and ACOs need to learn about, rather than being asked to supplant, or duplicate the federal program at great cost to local taxpayers and risk to responsible dog owners.

HB538 requires local county ACOs to review pet store records and to enforce both new state dog kennel inspection standards and those of USDA-APHIS. This is totally absurd, as the bill has internal self-contradictions, as well as numerous conflicts with federal animal care regulations. Further, the new inspection system will cost $ millions to implement, none of which has been budgeted. The counties and cities have been saddled with another unfunded mandate from Richmond. The bill's precise details may be found at
Suffice it to say that Virginia's new "commercial" breeder definition includes many hunt clubs, those with co-owned dogs and other responsible breeders that aren't "puppy mills."

Despite all of this opposition, it's usually easier to stop a bill than it is to pass one. That didn't happen in Virginia, for the second significant time in three years. We lost the crucial committee vote (9-Y 8-N). The lessons learned during our 2005 PAWS opposition fight were forgotten. HSUS announced last year that it was taking its PAWS anti-breeder effort to the states and that Virginia was its first target. Please learn from our mistakes and prepare to better defend your sport and your dogs.

Freely forward and cross post.


Bob Kane, President
Virginia Hunting Dog Owners' Association
Chairman Emeritus, Sportsmen and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

FL- Anti-breeding law passes

Commissioners enact tougher pet laws


Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

WEST PALM BEACH — County commissioners formally enacted stronger dog
and cat breeder laws this afternoon after hearing from an impassioned

By a 5-1 vote, commissioners passed an ordinance that penalizes dog
breeders who do not register with the county. Dog and cats must be
spayed or neutered if they don't pay for the unaltered tag. Hobby
breeders are limited to breeding no more than two litters in one

County Animal Care and Control Division Director Dianne Sauve has
argued that tougher breeder rules will help stem the county's pet
overpopulation problem. The proposed rules will require all residents
to spay or neuter their pets, unless they pay for a more expensive
license and sign an affidavit agreeing not to breed the animals.

Breeder groups have said the law unfairly targets them, the
responsible pet owners.

For about two hours, applause showered on those speaking for and
against the county's proposal inside the packed county commission

Some opponents are waving yellow signs that read "Bad Ordinance," and
are wearing red ribbons that say, "I own a dog. I vote."

Diane Albers, president of the Florida Association of Kennel Clubs,
drove from Lake Mary to West Palm Beach for the meeting.

"This law that they are adopting has already failed everywhere in our
country," Albers said in a brief interview in the county commission
chambers. "It will drive euthanasias up. It will divide your
community. It will divide neighbor against neighbor. The licensing
will go down."

Supporters argued something must be done to drive down the pet
overpopulation numbers, while breeders would still be allowed to do

"The breeders can still get a permit" and can be grandfathered in for
free, if they sign up within 90 days of the law passing, said Wendy
Duncan, a West Palm Beach resident who owns five mixed-breed
dogs. "Like any law, if you follow it, you won't have any problems."

..."Other businesses are required to have licensing fees, so why not
the breeders?" Zwicker said. "This is not an issue of an owner's
rights. It is an issue of animals' rights to have a life. Owning an
animal is not a person's right. It is not a constitutional right."

More on

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Breeders need to WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fellow breeders: Awake from your Sleep! Sound the Alarm! There is a War going on and we are LOSING!
by C. Pruss

One reason breeders are losing the fight is because we have BOUGHT INTO to the rhetoric of the Animal Rights movement. Words like "responsible breeder" (who doesn’t want to be "responsible"?) and "puppy mill" have caused us to change our own behavior- for the worse! No one wants to be considered a "puppy mill" and everyone wants to be "responsible" but we have opened the doors- WIDE- for the animal rights to move right in. We have embraced the rhetoric that "responsible breeders" only sell on spay neuter and limited registrations. We have been policing ourselves so hard, that we ourselves verge on Animal Rights Activists.

How breeder’s have bought into the rhetoric:
1. We have labeled fellow breeders who have a few more litters a year than we do "puppy mills".
2. We have labeled breeders that sell to "novice people who also want to breed a litter" as "irresponsible".
3. We have chastised the breeder who houses their dogs differently than we do
4. We have chastised the breeder who owns more dogs than we do.
This list far exceeds 4 – but I am going to stop there.

How AKC bought into the rhetoric:
1. Lowering the litter threshold for inspection. AKC might send an inspector out to visit a breeder when as few as 4 litters have been registered. This really has nothing to do with the integrity of the registry. This is the AKC stepping up and saying “hey USDA, if you are going to make it mandatory to inspect “breeders” then we want to be the ones to do it- and see- we are already tougher than you are, so let us do it.”
- well AKC- what about those who are not using your registry? Do you really want to drive more breeders away? That is what this action is likely to do.

2. Embracing industries that are “anti” breeders such as Pet Health Insurance. How many breeders can purchase pet health insurance for each puppy they want to grow out. So often puppies that had “show potential” “go off” and are then offered to pet homes. Pet Insurance is not designed with the breeder in mind- yet more and more the breeder is expected to do expensive health tests on each breeding dog.

• The good news* Recently the AKC has been putting out “position statements” stating “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.”
We are still faced with the question of who decides “who take their responsibilities seriously:

How Veterinarians bought into the rhetoric:
1. Too bad AKC is not spending time and energy educating our Veterinarians. Far too many Vets are experts at spaying and neutering and far too few are experts in pre-natal/post-natal care. Veterinarians are bombarded by the Animal Rights rhetoric in Vet School and when they graduate, they frown on “breeders”. They support rescue operations, shelters, and spay/neuter of everything.

The Veterinary industry should be on the side of the breeder. They should be supporting the breeder by providing the best possible health care they can- why? Because BOTH the breeder and the Veterinarian LOVES ANIMALS- that is why they both do what they do- isn’t it?

None of this is helpful to our cause. The results have amounted to a "takings" of our rights (The Fifth Amendment provides that private property shall not be taken without just compensation. What actions of government constitute "takings"?). While the "takings" cause really only refers to actual property- the concept remains the same. Our ability to breed as we choose (to show or not to show, to test for certain health ailments or not, to have 1 litter or 20) is at stake.

Who is the appropriate decision maker? You?...... the Government?.......... a private interest group?

What can be done? Well, ALL of US (and this includes you AKC) must FIGHT for the BREEDER. AKC says "we're more than champion dogs, we're the dog's champion"- does that include the dog BREEDER's Champion too?

1. AKC must take a Stand (and I do think they are moving in that direction)
2. Infiltration into Vet schools and Law Schools is a MUST. The Animal Rights have already done it.
3. Provide appropriate “rhetoric” of our own for distribution at shows, to each dog that is registered, to breeders to put into puppy packets
4. TV commercials need to be purchased – ESPECIALLY during the showing of televised dog shows
3. At EACH AKC sanctioned event- the “junior handlers” must be empowered to ACT.
a. This is mostly the responsibility of the show giving club
4. Breeders must take a Stand (not enough are actually doing this)
a. we need to stuff our puppy packets with information on organizations that are working to protect our RIGHTS as breeders
5. We need to INVITE our legislators (State mostly- but Federal also) to dog shows being held in their Districts. ---- Hey- this would be a good opportunity to empower the Juniors! Invite the politician to a lunch with the exhibitors- and PLAN judging schedule so that there is a REAL lunch break.
6. Clubs have been great at getting together to hold “clusters” of shows- why not organize to have a “Capital Day” and invite the Politicians from the represented districts to a lunch.

There are many, many things we can do, but hiding the number of dogs we have and hoping it won’t reach our community is not one of those things.