Friday, March 28, 2008

Overpopulation is not a dog and cat problem- adopt a child

While it is true, dogs and cats in shelters, waiting for adoption is sad- far more children are experiencing the same fate- yet the Animal Rights movement will attempt to convince us that people who have a litter of puppies are "bad" because they are contributing to "over population". Well- Overpopulation is NOT a dog and cat problem. It IS a human problem. Telling people they can not have children will never happen. Neither should telling people they can't have puppies or kittens. A look at the trends of children in Foster Care should open someone's eyes to the fact that PEOPLE need help- Adopt a child!

The data show that the estimated number of children in foster care on the last day (September 30) of each federal fiscal year has decreased steadily from 552,000 in FY 2000 to 514,000 in FY 2005. After remaining relatively stable from FY 2000 through FY 2003, the number of children entering care increased in both FY 2004 and FY 2005. The estimated number of children exiting foster care increased between FY 2000 and FY 2005 from 272,000 to 287,000.

Each year, the number of children entering care has exceeded the number of children exiting care. Concurrently, the number of children in care on the last day of each fiscal year has been declining. Based on extensive review of the data, the Children's Bureau is confident that the data depicted in the chart for entries into foster care and for children in care on the last day of the fiscal year accurately reflect national trends. However, the Children's Bureau continues to examine the data and explore programmatic issues to resolve the apparently conflicting trends.

The estimated number of children waiting to be adopted declined between FY 2000 and FY 2005 from 131,000 to 115,000. The estimated number of children whose parents have had their rights terminated shows no distinct pattern. Between FY 2000 and FY 2005 the number of children whose parental rights had been terminated ranged from 73,000 to 65,000. The estimated number of children adopted annually from FY 2000 through FY 2005 remained relatively constant in the low 50,000's. After having remained relatively stable from FY 2000 through FY 2002 at between 811,000 and 813,000, the number of children served declined in FY 2003 through FY 2005 to approximately 800,000. (source:

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

PA- Can't run loose, can't tether (in SC can't even pen them up)


HB1065 - A tethering bill that delivers consequences to dog owners who abuse their pets. The bill calls for owners to take their dogs inside between 10 pm and 6 am. It restricts how long you can restrain your dog during the day. If you're caught breaking the law he fine is $300, and your dog could be taken away. State Representative Mario Scavello (R-Monroe) has decided to sponsor the bill, after hearing about some horrific stories of dogs abused across the Commonwealth. The tethering bill is in committee right now, it still has to go to the House for approval.

Bristol - The borough council will pursue a zero tolerance approach to loose dogs running around town for fear of an attack on a child playing outdoors."It's a time bomb waiting to happen," council President Ralph DiGuiseppe said at Monday's council meeting. The borough has asked state Rep. John Galloway, D-140, to push for a stricter state law against attacking dogs. The current law gives attacking dogs a second chance."Our hands are tied because its state legislation," DiGuiseppe said. "We need to muzzle dogs and protect the people of Bristol. We need to go on the offense and pass legislation in Harrisburg. Something must be done." "The state has to change," said Councilwoman Betty Rodriguez. DiGuiseppe is considering adopting a local ordinance even though dog regulations are under the state's jurisdiction. Borough solicitor William Salerno warned the council that Bristol can't create a law stricter than the state's, but DiGuiseppe said he's ready to fight the state in court if it challenges a local dog ordinance.
Harrisburg - State Rep. Bill Kortz (D-38) wants to give pet owners a little more time to find their lost pooch. The state official proposed adjusting Pennsylvania's dog laws. The first bill adjusts the minimum holding period before animals are given up for adoption or euthanized. The second deals with euthanization methods. Kortz said several constituents came to him, explaining their issues with dog catchers.

SC: Tethering Bill now includes Crates and Pens

*Personal Commentary*- Confining an animal in a "cruel manner" as outlined by a-f of (1) is not necessary consistant with what is written in paragraph (1)- an animal in a Cage, crate, pen or even tethered. If that animal is able to stand, turn, sit, lie down in a normal position, has access to sustenance, is properly ventilated, and can eliminate, then is it confined in a cruel manner? Pens? Cages? Even tethering would meet a-f. What do they mean? Are not most kennels pen situations? Is that now considered cruel?


March 19, 2008

*S. 833*

Introduced by Senator Knotts

S. Printed 3/19/08--S.

Read the first time June 7, 2007.



Amend Title To Conform

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:

SECTION 1. Chapter 1, Title 47 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 47-1-45. (A) It is unlawful to knowingly or intentionally
confine or restrain an animal in a cruel manner or knowingly or
intentionally cause such cruel confinement or restraining of an animal.

(B) For purposes of this section:

(1) 'Confine an animal in a cruel manner' or cruel confinement of an
animal' means confining an animal by means of a cage, crate, pen, or
similar confinement under circumstances in which the person intends to
endanger the animal's health or safety, or the person reasonably should
have known would endanger the animal's health or safety. 'Confine an
animal in a cruel manner' or 'cruel confinement of an animal' includes,
but is not limited to, a confinement that:

(a) confines an animal for such an unreasonable period of time that
the animal's health or safety is endangered;

(b) does not permit an animal to stand, turn around, sit, and lie
down in a normal position;

(c) cause bodily injury to an animal;

(d) does not permit an animal access to sustenance;

(e) does not permit proper ventilation for an animal; or

(f) is not kept in a sanitary condition.

(2) 'Restrain an animal in a cruel manner' or 'cruel restraining of
an animal' means tethering, fastening, chaining, tying, attaching, or
otherwise restraining an animal to a tree, fence, post, or other
stationary object or a running line, pulley, cable trolley system, or
similar system by means of a chain, rope, tether, leash, cable, or
similar restraint under circumstances in which the person intends to
endanger the animal's health or safety, or the person reasonably should
have known would endanger the animal's health or safety. 'Restrain an
animal in a cruel manner' or 'cruel restraining of an animal' includes,
but is not limited to, a restraint that:

(a) restricts an animal's movement for such an unreasonable period of
time that the animal's health or safety is endangered;

(b) is of a weight that excessively burdens an animal;

(c) causes an animal to choke or causes bodily injury to an animal;

(d) is too short for an animal to move around or for an animal to
urinate or defecate in a separate area from the area where the animal
must eat, drink, or lie down;

(e) is situated such that an animal will likely become entangled;

(f) does not permit an animal access to sustenance and shelter;

(g) does not permit an animal to escape reasonably foreseeable harm;

(h) is attached to an animal by means of a collar, harness, or
similar device that is not properly fitted for the age and size of the
animal such that the collar, harness, or similar device causes trauma or
injury to the animal; or

(i) is attached to an unsupervised animal by means of a
choke-type or pronged collar.

(C) A person who knowingly or intentionally violates this section is
guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be punished by
imprisonment not exceeding sixty days or by a fine not less than one
hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, or both, for a first
offense; by imprisonment not exceeding ninety days or by a fine not
exceeding eight hundred dollars, or both, for a second offense; or by
imprisonment not exceeding two years or by a fine not exceeding two
thousand dollars, or both, for a third or subsequent offense. A person
may be issued a correction warning in lieu of an infraction requiring
the person to correct the cruel confinement or restraining of an animal
within seventy-two hours unless the violation endangers the health or
safety of the animal, the animal has been wounded as a result of the
violation, or a correction warning has previously been issued to the

(D) Nothing in this section prohibits local governments from adopting
more stringent local ordinances governing the confinement or restraining
of an animal; however, a local government may assess only civil
penalties for such ordinances."

SECTION 2. This act becomes effective July 1, 2008.

Animal Rights and the Showing Fancier


by Tam Cordingley

The Animal Rights/ Animal Control/ Humane Society people have lined
up against the dog people to create what they view as a solution to
the dog/cat overpopulation problem. In fact the group I represent
don't wish to be lumped in with the backyard breeders and commercial
market breeders. We are a group of dedicated, responsible
hobbyists, much akin to the hunting dog people. We wish to be a
part of the solution, not a part of the problem.

The solution to the Animal Control and overpopulation problem lies
not in legislating responsible hobbyists out of their hobby, but in
making a distinction between the careless indiscriminate puppy
producer, and the responsible Show or Field exhibitor. Most
legislation specifically excludes the hunting dog people. This
exclusion is because the dogs are used recreationally, kept fenced
when not under the owner's direct control, vaccinated, and too
valuable to end up a ward of Animal Control. All of these same
conditions apply to the showing fancier who typically spends money
and time on and with their dogs. They contribute significantly to
the revenue of their respective states.

Look at a typical dog show exhibitor. They either have a motor home
or stay numerous weekends a year in local motels, they eat at
restaurants, buy gasoline, enter events and buy products at dog
shows in their state. Most are property owners, all vaccinate their
pets, most keep older retired dogs until they die, they breed seldom
and place puppies carefully. They all keep their dogs fenced for
security. These are not the people creating the animal control
nightmare, they are the law abiding citizens who will be harmed by
restrictive and all inclusive legislation.

I see this not as dog people against Animal Control but rather as a
triangular issue. One side being Animal rights and Animal Control,
a second being the hunting or exhibiting breed fancier, and the
third being the backyard breeder and the mass producers. In many
communities the Animal Control people and the fanciers are strongly
aligned and are of significant help to each other. For example,
every breed has a rescue committee that will take dogs of their
breeds from shelters, spay or neuter, and place them in homes. In
well over 40 years as a dog show and obedience trial exhibitor I
have never met a fellow dog show exhibitor that didn't fence their
dogs, or otherwise confine them. I have also never met one who
didn't vaccinate for rabies.

As dog people it is our responsibility to educate the legislators
about Issues WE know. The AR people work mightily to push thru
legislation in many states and it sounds fine if you don't truly
understand the situation. To this end, and hopefully to improve the
situation of the showing fancier, I would ask you to cut and paste
the 3 paragraphs above to any and all discussion groups to which you
belong and to as many dog people as you know.

Showing Fanciers of America is a group dedicated to helping in a
positive way to educate the legislators without being viewed as
breeders. The simple word Breeder, to us as hobbyists a proud
title, is viewed by AR and AC people as the bad guy. The only way
to differentiate ourselves and be seen as different from the
backyard breeder or puppy miller is to label ourselves differently.

Tam Cordingley, Foxridge Fox Terriers

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

VA: HB 538 passes senate....first bill of it's kind to limit # of bitches

HB-538 (PAWS-Plus for Virgina) has passed the Senate by a vote of
34:5. This bill would create a first-in-the-nation limit of 50 dogs
any breeding operation, with expensive new provisions for breeders
maintain over 29 bitches (cumulative for the year) for breeding

Other new provisions would apply to all species: There are new rules
about access to places where animals are kept, some of which may
apply to other species and there's this new all-species provision:

> § 3.1-796.122:1. Sale of animals after cruelty or neglect
> conviction; penalty.
> Any person who has been convicted of a violation of any law
> concerning abuse, neglect, or cruelty to animals that sells, offers
> for sale, or trades any companion animal is guilty of a Class 1
> misdemeanor. However, a person may dispose of animals under the
> provisions of a court order.

Since it had already passed the House but in a slightly
different form the next step will be a 'committee of conference' to
resolve the differences between the two versions. Committees of
conference are limited to splitting differences; they cannot add new
provisions or remove something that is in both versions.

The conference committee usually happens quickly, the (slightly)
revised bill then goes in the same form to both houses and is usually
passed promptly and sent on to the Governor for signature.

There was an amendment; it was called 'technical' which would
ordinarily mean no more than punctuation or perhaps a minor internal
inconsistency. We do not have the text of that amendment yet.

Links to the various forms of the bill may be found at:

Anyone reading this who is thinking, "well 29 bitches sounds like a lot. And 50 dogs is a Lot." You just don't understand how dog breeding for show dogs. Not every dog is kept for breeding. Some dogs are kept, because the have "show potential" but during a developmental stage- they no longer have "show potential". An example of this would be the issue of teeth. Show dogs must have a full count of teeth and they can not be misaligned in any way. Dogs do not get all of their adult teeth until they are around 6 months. This means that until that dog is 6 months, it is unknown if it will be a "show dog" or not. Another example is size. For many breeds, there is a hight requirement. Dogs often do not reach their full hight until 10-11 months of age. For breeds with hight restrictions, it is unknown if they are "show dogs" until they have grown.

In one year a breeder may "grow out" a number of puppies and only end up keeping one to breeding age- many of those puppies never overlapping in time and place at the kennel, but in a "cumulative" total- they count.

Many, many people buy young adult dogs that "didn't make it" as show dogs.