HB 39
These proceedures may be done by a licensed Veterinarian, but a certificate must accompany the dog stating the procedure was done by a licensed Veterinarian. I sure hope you don't find a nice dog at a shelter with cropped ears, or a docked tail- those papers will most likely not have been surrendered with the dog, and the shelter will forage them to make the dog "legal"
Thursday, January 29, 2009
When was HSUS elected to represent Illinois District 11?
Representative John Fritchey (D, 11) recently introduced House Bill 198, Licensing - Dog Breeder (aka Chloe’s Bill), an overzealous, animal rightist anti-breeder piece of legislation. Every breeder in the state who owns 3 or more intact female dogs would be classified as a commercial entity, subjected to licensing, impossible kennel regulations, invasive inspections inside their homes, and excessive record keeping and reporting. Completing the assault on dog breeders is the proposed bill’s requirement for fingerprinting and criminal background checks.
A constituent emailed the following to Rep. Fritchey: “Under your proposed legislation I would be subject to a criminal background check and fingerprinting, an untrained investigator would have access to my home and could at any time inspect my "facilities" and demand that I build a kennel that meets their idea of what is appropriate as well as exceeding USDA standards.” She continues, “I certainly think that you need to go back and look at what you are proposing recognizing that there are honest, decent people who you will hurt if this is passed.”
Unbelievably, her email was answered by Jordan Matyas, the HSUS Illinois State Director!
When did HSUS take charge of answering correspondence for legislators? Was HSUS elected to represent Illinois constituents in the 11th District? Has Matyas been hired as a staff member or consultant?
In his reply Matyas does not even give direct answers, rather repeats the standard HSUS rhetoric about the need to regulate bad breeders then placates the writer with a pretended interest in hearing her concerns.
The audacity of Rep. Fritchey deferring correspondence to HSUS is nothing short of breath-taking. The gauntlet has been thrown down and dog breeding in the state of Illinois is being criminalized. All breeders, hobbyists and sportsmen need to begin a concerted effort to oppose this legislation.
HB 198 has been referred to the Rules Committee. Talking points and contact information to oppose HB 198 are now posted on the SAOVA website We will provide further updates as information becomes available.
SAOVA commends Rep. Michael P. McAuliffe (R, 20) and Rep. JoAnn D. Osmond (R, 61) for removing themselves as cosponsors.
Please share this message widely.
Susan Wolf
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance - http://saova.org
Issue lobbying and working to identify and elect supportive legislators
A constituent emailed the following to Rep. Fritchey: “Under your proposed legislation I would be subject to a criminal background check and fingerprinting, an untrained investigator would have access to my home and could at any time inspect my "facilities" and demand that I build a kennel that meets their idea of what is appropriate as well as exceeding USDA standards.” She continues, “I certainly think that you need to go back and look at what you are proposing recognizing that there are honest, decent people who you will hurt if this is passed.”
Unbelievably, her email was answered by Jordan Matyas, the HSUS Illinois State Director!
When did HSUS take charge of answering correspondence for legislators? Was HSUS elected to represent Illinois constituents in the 11th District? Has Matyas been hired as a staff member or consultant?
In his reply Matyas does not even give direct answers, rather repeats the standard HSUS rhetoric about the need to regulate bad breeders then placates the writer with a pretended interest in hearing her concerns.
The audacity of Rep. Fritchey deferring correspondence to HSUS is nothing short of breath-taking. The gauntlet has been thrown down and dog breeding in the state of Illinois is being criminalized. All breeders, hobbyists and sportsmen need to begin a concerted effort to oppose this legislation.
HB 198 has been referred to the Rules Committee. Talking points and contact information to oppose HB 198 are now posted on the SAOVA website We will provide further updates as information becomes available.
SAOVA commends Rep. Michael P. McAuliffe (R, 20) and Rep. JoAnn D. Osmond (R, 61) for removing themselves as cosponsors.
Please share this message widely.
Susan Wolf
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance - http://saova.org
Issue lobbying and working to identify and elect supportive legislators
HSUS Maps Agenda For President Obama
HSUS Maps Agenda For President
Asks President And Congress To Federally Regulate
Dog Hobbyists, Name Animal Rights Legal Advocates
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
This article is archived
WASHINGTON The Humane Society of the United
States is asking President Barack Obama and
Congress to require everyone who raises dogs and
cats to be regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, documents show.
HSUS also is asking for the creation of an animal
protection division within the U.S. Department of
Justice that is “similar to the Civil Rights
Division, to ensure strong enforcement of federal
animal protection laws,” thus granting animals
rights similar to humans. HSUS also calls for a
new position of animal protection liaison in the White House.
A fourth provision calls for a ban on hunting on new public lands.
Those are only three of the 100 recommendations
that HSUS has sent to Obama in what is called a
“change agenda for animals.” The American
Sporting Dog Alliance has obtained access to this
document, which has been sent to animal
protection organizations asking for their support.
HSUS is a radical animal rights group. Despite
its name, it does not operate a single animal
shelter, but exists only as a political
organization. The long-range goal of HSUS is to
gradually eliminate all animal ownership and use,
including their use as companion and food animals, and to ban hunting.
The 100 goals sent to Obama reflect many issues,
but this report will concentrate on the issues
that most directly affect dog owners, with added
emphasis on the sporting breeds.
However, we urge our readers to read the full
HSUS document, which includes a crackdown on
alleged farm pollution, tough animal and poultry
husbandry and slaughter rules, and many
environmental and wildlife management measure.
Here is a link the actual document:
http://www.hsus. org/web-files/ PDF/change- agenda-for- animals-1- 14-09.pdf.
Please read this document.
In a letter to a New York horse owners’
association that was made available to the
American Sporting Dog Alliance, HSUS President
Wayne Pacelle asks for support of the 100-point agenda.
“With the changing of the guard at the White
House comes the prospect of new possibilities for
moving our goals forward, and to mark this latest
transfer of power, the HSUS and the Humane
Society Legislative Fund (HSLF) are advancing a
100-point ‘Change Agenda for Animals,’” Pacelle
wrote. “ Never before has the animal protection
movement so carefully articulated a vast array of
critical animal protection reforms in the domains
of so many federal agencies—Agriculture ,
Interior, Commerce, Defense, Health and Human Services, State, and others.”
Dog Breeding Regulation
A top priority of HSUS for several years has been
to require federal regulation of everyone who
raises dogs and cats. Under current law, only
commercial breeders who sell puppies and kittens
on a wholesale basis are federally regulated.
Hobby breeders who sell puppies or kittens
directly to the public are not required to be federally licensed or inspected.
HSUS wants everyone who raises and sells puppies
to be licensed and inspected by the USDA, and
also wants to see much tougher regulations and standards for animal care.
About four years ago, the HSUS-sanctioned Pet
Animal Welfare Act (PAWS) was defeated in
Congress by a narrow margin. PAWS would have
imposed federal licensing and inspection on all hobby breeders.
Last year, U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, who
has very close personal and political ties to
President Obama, introduced a bill he called PAWS
2, which echoed many of the provisions of its
predecessor. When PAWS 2 stalled, Sen. Durbin
attempted to attach it as an amendment to the
2008 Farm Bill, but failed to get enough support.
Durbin came back with a similar bill in late
2008, dubbed “PUPS” or “Baby’s Bill,” which is
formally called the Puppy Uniform Protection Act,
but Congress adjourned without taking action.
These bills all originated from HSUS, and all of
them clearly were aimed at hobby breeders.
The 100-point agenda says HSUS wants to “require
all dog and cat breeders to comply with AWA
(federal Animal Welfare Act) requirements,
including those who sell directly to the public….”
It is PAWS all over again.
Now, however, HSUS has a much stronger hand in
Washington. In the November election, HSUS
strongly endorsed President Obama and had a
95-percent success rate in re-electing the
congressional candidates it endorsed. A
questionnaire obtained by the American Sporting
Dog Alliance showed that the President aggressively sought HSUS endorsement.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance continues to
believe that President Obama and many members of
Congress will listen to the concerns of dog
owners, but only if we stand up in large numbers
to defend ourselves and our rights, and take an
active role in the political process.
If we do not stand up and be counted in large
numbers, we expect HSUS will get its way on most
of the measures in the 100-point agenda. Dog
owners will have no one to blame but themselves
for being relegated to the legal status of
second-class citizens. The Bill of Rights and
personal freedom always are the first victims of HSUS policy.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance will be
working hard to defeat these HSUS legislative
proposals, but we need your help if we are to
succeed in turning back these challenges. We urge
all dog owners to join and support the
organization of their choice, and also to support
farmers, hunters and other allies in the fight
against the HSUS version of a “brave new world.”
The Rest Of The Story
Here are some other parts of the 100-point agenda
that pertain to dog owners in general, and also
owners of the sporting breeds in particular. HSUS
is calling on President Obama and Congress to:
Create an animal protection division in the
Justice Department to act on behalf of animals by
aggressive prosecution of people who violate laws
about animals. In essence, this gives animals
legal status, and the federal government will act
as their advocate. HSUS likened it to the Civil
Rights Division, which advocates for aggressive
protection of human rights. Animals thus would be
given the same legal status as people in the Department of Justice.
Create an animal protection liaison in the White
House, which would mean that HSUS will have
direct access to President Obama and his top
advisors to advocate for animal rights groups on
policy, regulatory and legislative issues.
Immediately strengthen enforcement of
USDA-regulated commercial kennels and other
animal owners covered by the Animal Welfare Act.
(AWA). Increase USDA budget and staffing for this
purpose, and make fines and penalties more
severe. Include all vertebrate species under the AWA.
Completely implement the ban on importing dogs
from other countries that HSUS succeeded in attaching to the 2008 Farm Bill.
Focus on non-lethal methods to control wildlife
populations, which means lessening the use of hunting as a management tool.
Mandate the use of microchips for companion
animals, and all other animals covered by the AWA.
Do not open any new public land or national wildlife refuges to hunting.
Transfer all wildlife programs away from the
USDA, and put them under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior.
Ban hunting on shooting preserves, which HSUS
labels “canned hunts” and calls “cruel.” Also ban so-called Internet hunting.
Make it a crime to show anything that HSUS calls
animal cruelty in films, on television, in books
and magazine, or on the Internet. Require the
Department of Justice to collect and analyze data
on animal cruelty cases and create a separate
crime database for this information.
Require the U.S. Census Bureau and the Center for
Disease Control to include questions about the
animals people own when surveying the public, in
order “to assess impacts on human health and
well-being, develop more effective approaches to
community animal control, and ensure appropriate disaster preparation.”
Allow foreign animal rights groups to have an
official advisory role in the United States.
Ban the mail shipment of any kind of birds or
animals through the U.S. Postal Service,
including for “agriculture and sport.” Baby
chicks were specifically mentioned, and this also
would apply to gamebird chicks, adults and eggs
that are used by sporting dog trainers and in field trials.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents
owners, breeders and professionals who work with
breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also
welcome people who work with other breeds, as
legislative issues affect all of us. We are a
grassroots movement working to protect the rights
of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional
relationships between dogs and humans maintains
its rightful place in American society and life.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs
your help so that we can continue to work to
protect the rights of dog owners. Your
membership, participation and support are truly
essential to the success of our mission. We are
funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web at
http://www.american sportingdogallia nce.org. Our email is asda@csonline. net.
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS
The American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.american sportingdogallia nce.org
Please Join Us
Asks President And Congress To Federally Regulate
Dog Hobbyists, Name Animal Rights Legal Advocates
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
This article is archived
WASHINGTON The Humane Society of the United
States is asking President Barack Obama and
Congress to require everyone who raises dogs and
cats to be regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, documents show.
HSUS also is asking for the creation of an animal
protection division within the U.S. Department of
Justice that is “similar to the Civil Rights
Division, to ensure strong enforcement of federal
animal protection laws,” thus granting animals
rights similar to humans. HSUS also calls for a
new position of animal protection liaison in the White House.
A fourth provision calls for a ban on hunting on new public lands.
Those are only three of the 100 recommendations
that HSUS has sent to Obama in what is called a
“change agenda for animals.” The American
Sporting Dog Alliance has obtained access to this
document, which has been sent to animal
protection organizations asking for their support.
HSUS is a radical animal rights group. Despite
its name, it does not operate a single animal
shelter, but exists only as a political
organization. The long-range goal of HSUS is to
gradually eliminate all animal ownership and use,
including their use as companion and food animals, and to ban hunting.
The 100 goals sent to Obama reflect many issues,
but this report will concentrate on the issues
that most directly affect dog owners, with added
emphasis on the sporting breeds.
However, we urge our readers to read the full
HSUS document, which includes a crackdown on
alleged farm pollution, tough animal and poultry
husbandry and slaughter rules, and many
environmental and wildlife management measure.
Here is a link the actual document:
http://www.hsus. org/web-files/ PDF/change- agenda-for- animals-1- 14-09.pdf.
Please read this document.
In a letter to a New York horse owners’
association that was made available to the
American Sporting Dog Alliance, HSUS President
Wayne Pacelle asks for support of the 100-point agenda.
“With the changing of the guard at the White
House comes the prospect of new possibilities for
moving our goals forward, and to mark this latest
transfer of power, the HSUS and the Humane
Society Legislative Fund (HSLF) are advancing a
100-point ‘Change Agenda for Animals,’” Pacelle
wrote. “ Never before has the animal protection
movement so carefully articulated a vast array of
critical animal protection reforms in the domains
of so many federal agencies—Agriculture ,
Interior, Commerce, Defense, Health and Human Services, State, and others.”
Dog Breeding Regulation
A top priority of HSUS for several years has been
to require federal regulation of everyone who
raises dogs and cats. Under current law, only
commercial breeders who sell puppies and kittens
on a wholesale basis are federally regulated.
Hobby breeders who sell puppies or kittens
directly to the public are not required to be federally licensed or inspected.
HSUS wants everyone who raises and sells puppies
to be licensed and inspected by the USDA, and
also wants to see much tougher regulations and standards for animal care.
About four years ago, the HSUS-sanctioned Pet
Animal Welfare Act (PAWS) was defeated in
Congress by a narrow margin. PAWS would have
imposed federal licensing and inspection on all hobby breeders.
Last year, U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, who
has very close personal and political ties to
President Obama, introduced a bill he called PAWS
2, which echoed many of the provisions of its
predecessor. When PAWS 2 stalled, Sen. Durbin
attempted to attach it as an amendment to the
2008 Farm Bill, but failed to get enough support.
Durbin came back with a similar bill in late
2008, dubbed “PUPS” or “Baby’s Bill,” which is
formally called the Puppy Uniform Protection Act,
but Congress adjourned without taking action.
These bills all originated from HSUS, and all of
them clearly were aimed at hobby breeders.
The 100-point agenda says HSUS wants to “require
all dog and cat breeders to comply with AWA
(federal Animal Welfare Act) requirements,
including those who sell directly to the public….”
It is PAWS all over again.
Now, however, HSUS has a much stronger hand in
Washington. In the November election, HSUS
strongly endorsed President Obama and had a
95-percent success rate in re-electing the
congressional candidates it endorsed. A
questionnaire obtained by the American Sporting
Dog Alliance showed that the President aggressively sought HSUS endorsement.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance continues to
believe that President Obama and many members of
Congress will listen to the concerns of dog
owners, but only if we stand up in large numbers
to defend ourselves and our rights, and take an
active role in the political process.
If we do not stand up and be counted in large
numbers, we expect HSUS will get its way on most
of the measures in the 100-point agenda. Dog
owners will have no one to blame but themselves
for being relegated to the legal status of
second-class citizens. The Bill of Rights and
personal freedom always are the first victims of HSUS policy.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance will be
working hard to defeat these HSUS legislative
proposals, but we need your help if we are to
succeed in turning back these challenges. We urge
all dog owners to join and support the
organization of their choice, and also to support
farmers, hunters and other allies in the fight
against the HSUS version of a “brave new world.”
The Rest Of The Story
Here are some other parts of the 100-point agenda
that pertain to dog owners in general, and also
owners of the sporting breeds in particular. HSUS
is calling on President Obama and Congress to:
Create an animal protection division in the
Justice Department to act on behalf of animals by
aggressive prosecution of people who violate laws
about animals. In essence, this gives animals
legal status, and the federal government will act
as their advocate. HSUS likened it to the Civil
Rights Division, which advocates for aggressive
protection of human rights. Animals thus would be
given the same legal status as people in the Department of Justice.
Create an animal protection liaison in the White
House, which would mean that HSUS will have
direct access to President Obama and his top
advisors to advocate for animal rights groups on
policy, regulatory and legislative issues.
Immediately strengthen enforcement of
USDA-regulated commercial kennels and other
animal owners covered by the Animal Welfare Act.
(AWA). Increase USDA budget and staffing for this
purpose, and make fines and penalties more
severe. Include all vertebrate species under the AWA.
Completely implement the ban on importing dogs
from other countries that HSUS succeeded in attaching to the 2008 Farm Bill.
Focus on non-lethal methods to control wildlife
populations, which means lessening the use of hunting as a management tool.
Mandate the use of microchips for companion
animals, and all other animals covered by the AWA.
Do not open any new public land or national wildlife refuges to hunting.
Transfer all wildlife programs away from the
USDA, and put them under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior.
Ban hunting on shooting preserves, which HSUS
labels “canned hunts” and calls “cruel.” Also ban so-called Internet hunting.
Make it a crime to show anything that HSUS calls
animal cruelty in films, on television, in books
and magazine, or on the Internet. Require the
Department of Justice to collect and analyze data
on animal cruelty cases and create a separate
crime database for this information.
Require the U.S. Census Bureau and the Center for
Disease Control to include questions about the
animals people own when surveying the public, in
order “to assess impacts on human health and
well-being, develop more effective approaches to
community animal control, and ensure appropriate disaster preparation.”
Allow foreign animal rights groups to have an
official advisory role in the United States.
Ban the mail shipment of any kind of birds or
animals through the U.S. Postal Service,
including for “agriculture and sport.” Baby
chicks were specifically mentioned, and this also
would apply to gamebird chicks, adults and eggs
that are used by sporting dog trainers and in field trials.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents
owners, breeders and professionals who work with
breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also
welcome people who work with other breeds, as
legislative issues affect all of us. We are a
grassroots movement working to protect the rights
of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional
relationships between dogs and humans maintains
its rightful place in American society and life.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs
your help so that we can continue to work to
protect the rights of dog owners. Your
membership, participation and support are truly
essential to the success of our mission. We are
funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web at
http://www.american sportingdogallia nce.org. Our email is asda@csonline. net.
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS
The American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.american sportingdogallia nce.org
Please Join Us
TN- Agency trying to be "pro-active" raids a Dog Breeders Home
According to the Chattanoogan A dog breeders home was "raided" in a "pro-active" search for cruelty cases. The McKamey employees admit that this breeder turned out to be "an exception as far as the care of her animals. Her dogs are in great shape." Additional fees still imposed.
The full story:
Dog Breeder Says Home "Raided," Must Pay Almost $900 In Fees
posted January 28, 2009
An East Brainerd chihuahua breeder said her home was "raided" by officers
from the McKamey Animal Trust and she was required to pay almost $900 infees. Terry Boydston appeared before members of the City Council along with McKamey official Steve Mayo on Tuesday. Ms. Boydston she keeps 13 chihuahuas inside her home on Skyline Drive,including eight that are "breeders." She said on a Sunday morning "three trucks pulled up with six men. I was scared to death. The neighbors were all looking. They thought I was beingraided."
Ms. Boydston said she treats her dogs well and keeps meticulous records. She said she grooms the dogs for show appearances.She said she only sold one puppy last year, but will have to pay extra fees because that put her in the category of a dog dealer. She said she was also classified as a dog breeder and as a multiple pet owner. She said she had to pay the almost $900 and that will be an annual expense. She said she may have to sell more puppies in order to be able to pay the fee.
Ms. Boydston said she maintains a website that is mainly devoted to telling others how to properly care for their pets. Mr. Mayo said McKamey officials are concerned about "puppy mills," though he said Ms. Boydston turned out to be "an exception as far as the care of her animals. Her dogs are in great shape." He said there were 78 ads in that day's newspaper by dog dealers. Mr. Mayo said some dog dealers are cruel to their animals and his agency is trying to be "pro-active" to find such cases. Council members asked McKamey officials to consider whether there may be some duplication in fees and whether they should be so high on Ms. Boydston.
Councilwoman Carol Berz said, "There is a difference between a puppy mill and a dog breeder, and I think that our law does not differentiate enough."
RPOA Texas Outreach (501 C4)Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (501 C3)
900 NE Loop 410 #311-DSan Antonio, TX 78209
Website: www.responsiblepetowners.org
$15 Annual dues (January - December)To subscribe or unsubscribe,e-mail rpoa@texas.net.
The full story:
Dog Breeder Says Home "Raided," Must Pay Almost $900 In Fees
posted January 28, 2009
An East Brainerd chihuahua breeder said her home was "raided" by officers
from the McKamey Animal Trust and she was required to pay almost $900 infees. Terry Boydston appeared before members of the City Council along with McKamey official Steve Mayo on Tuesday. Ms. Boydston she keeps 13 chihuahuas inside her home on Skyline Drive,including eight that are "breeders." She said on a Sunday morning "three trucks pulled up with six men. I was scared to death. The neighbors were all looking. They thought I was beingraided."
Ms. Boydston said she treats her dogs well and keeps meticulous records. She said she grooms the dogs for show appearances.She said she only sold one puppy last year, but will have to pay extra fees because that put her in the category of a dog dealer. She said she was also classified as a dog breeder and as a multiple pet owner. She said she had to pay the almost $900 and that will be an annual expense. She said she may have to sell more puppies in order to be able to pay the fee.
Ms. Boydston said she maintains a website that is mainly devoted to telling others how to properly care for their pets. Mr. Mayo said McKamey officials are concerned about "puppy mills," though he said Ms. Boydston turned out to be "an exception as far as the care of her animals. Her dogs are in great shape." He said there were 78 ads in that day's newspaper by dog dealers. Mr. Mayo said some dog dealers are cruel to their animals and his agency is trying to be "pro-active" to find such cases. Council members asked McKamey officials to consider whether there may be some duplication in fees and whether they should be so high on Ms. Boydston.
Councilwoman Carol Berz said, "There is a difference between a puppy mill and a dog breeder, and I think that our law does not differentiate enough."
RPOA Texas Outreach (501 C4)Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (501 C3)
900 NE Loop 410 #311-DSan Antonio, TX 78209
Website: www.responsiblepetowners.org
$15 Annual dues (January - December)To subscribe or unsubscribe,e-mail rpoa@texas.net.
Bills introduced in NJ, NY, ME, FL, MN, IL, CA, CO, VA, MT
HSUS Off To Fast Start In 2009, But
Dog Owners Triumph In VA And MT
Beware Bills Introduced In NJ, NY, ME, FL, MN, IL, CA, CO, VA, MT
And Expect Legislation Soon In TX, MA, WI, MI, IN, OH, OK, AZ, NM
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
This article is archived:
Dog owners will face unprecedented and potentially devastating challenges in 2009, and it will take dedication and commitment to protect our rights. Sitting on the sidelines simply is not an option. It will take standing up and making your voice count.
The radical Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), buoyed by the victories of 95% of the state and federal candidates it endorsed in the November general election, has struck quickly in 2009 with legislation in 10 states that would severely restrict the rights of dog owners. Our sources also tell us that HSUS-anointed legislation will be introduced shortly in at least nine more states.
HSUS has launched this full-court press in only three weeks, and dog owners must act quickly and decisively or they will be overwhelmed.
However, there is some good news. This week, dog owners won the first two rounds in Virginia and Montana with the sound defeat of mandatory spay/neuter and breed-specific legislation.
In Virginia, HSUS and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals were s trongly in support of Senate Bill 1151, which would have mandated the spaying or neutering of any dog taken to an animal shelter for a second time. The legislation was killed this week by the Senate Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources Committee by an 8-6 vote.
This bill would have had a strong impact on hunting dogs, especially, and would have opened the door to many animal rights group kidnappings of hunting and companion dogs. Animal rights group kidnappings are becoming more common, and their goal is to take dogs to distant animal shelters were they will be euthanized.
In Montana, HSUS attempted to ram through breed-specific legislation after its usual media bombardment of inflammatory news stories, but it was killed in committee by a 17-1 vote after a reported 150 dog owners attended a hearing to voice opposition. Only three people spoke in favor of the bill.
While breed-specific legislation most often is seen as about “pit bulls,” many local ordinances have extended it to several other breeds ranging from Rottweilers to German shepherds. Moreover, the American Sporting Dog Alliance is concerned about this kind of le gislation because we see hunting breeds as next on the list of HSUS targets. Animal rights group websites frequently and falsely portray hunting dogs as vicious, some states are seriously considering banning or restricting hunting with hounds, and all hunting breeds were targeted specifically in failed federal legislation just two years ago.
HSUS-inspired legislation introduced in eight other states would affect all people who raise dogs. Those states are New York, New Jersey, Maine, Florida, Minnesota, Colorado, Illinois and California. Legislation also will be introduced soon in Texas, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is taking an active and aggressive role to defeat this legislation, which takes aim at people who raise dogs as an avocation and reflects the HSUS agenda of working toward the complete elimination of domestic animal ownership in America. We are urging dog owners to join with us to work to defeat this dangerous legislation.
Here is a synopsis of the legislation that has been introduced in each state:
New York
It looks like HSUS has learned a new trick in New York and trying for a rerun on an old one.
Legislation has been introduced that would require every dog and every dog owner to complete certified obedience training as a condition of licensing. Another bill would mandate microchipping of all dogs in order to get a license for them. Assembly Member Jose Peralta (D-Queens) introduced both bills.
AB 1540 mandates obedience training and certification. No dog could be licensed without an obedience training certificate, and no owner could buy a dog license without undergoing training. Ironically, Peralta exempts residents of his own city from the legislation.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly opposes this kind of legislation, which places a substantial burden on dog owners, bears no relationship to the realities of most dog ownership, is a solution in search of a problem, will result in a decrease in rabies and licensing law compliance, and will cause many pets to be abandoned when their owners can’t afford the services of a certified school.
Obedience courses are not available in many rural areas, and certification inevitably leads toward favoritism toward certain methods of training that are not endorsed by many dog owners. In addition, many dog owners are skilled trainers themselves and have no need for such services.
In many urban areas, a basic obedience course costs $1,000 or more. No evidence is shown that would justify imposing this kind of burden on the vast majority of dog owners. Moreover, many people simply will not be able to afford to provide this kind of training, especially in today’s poor economy, and this will force people to abandon their pets or fly under the radar without licensing their dogs or obtaining rabies vaccinations.
Here is a link to the text of this bill:
The second bill, AB 255, requires all dogs in New York to be microchipped by the age of four months.
In addition, a state registry would be created for microchip data for every dog in the state and their owners.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly opposes mandatory microchipping, which is controversial among some dog owners. Other options are available, such as name tags or tattoos. We also strongly oppose creating a state registry, which allows animal control agencies to go on a “fishing expedition” to enforce a variety of other laws, and thus invades the privacy of everyone without cause.
Here is a link to the text of this bill:
Both bills have been referred to the Assembly’s Agriculture Committee. We urge New York dog owners to=2 0contact Agriculture Committee members to voice strong opposition. Here is a link to members of the committee:
We also are studying two other pieces of New York legislation.
The first is a bill redefining a “pet dealer” in a way that might lead to including hobby breeders. Last year, failed legislation would have brought all hobby breeders under strict “pet dealer” regulations. This year’s legislation creates some ambiguity in this regard, but basically does little to change the law. This alarms us, as it might lead to an attempt to make amendments on the floor similar to last year’s bill. Here is a link:
The second bill, AB 2069 would impose stringent regulations on boarding kennels, which include training kennels and day care services. It is a backdoor approach to regulation, because it is based on health code compliance (not on animal law) and requires health department inspection and certification.
We see much potential to harm kennel owners without any good reason from this approach, which also creates a new and cumbersome level of bureaucracy.
We are very alarmed that this legislation is both an attempt to redefine animal care as a public health issue, and to give health inspectors unrestricted access to kennels when there is no proof of any relationship between kennels and human health concerns in the community. We see it as an attempt to add another unjustified regulatory burden on kennel owners.
Here is a link to the legislation:
New Jersey
New Jersey dog owners=2 0are facing one of the toughest and most restrictive pieces of breeding legislation in history this year, and a second bill will have a heavy impact on lost hunting dogs.
Anyone who sells five or more dogs, cats, puppies or kittens in a year would have to be licensed and inspected as a commercial breeder and also as a pet dealer, which means facing Draconian restrictions and truly devastating fines and penalties.
That translates into a person having only one litter of puppies a year, in most cases. Even hobby breeding of the smallest possible scale would be unable to survive this legislation.
The legislation also pays snitches to turn in breeders, and the reward can be in the thousands of dollars.
AB 1591 is sponsored by Assemblywomen Joan M. Voss (D-Bergen) and Dawn Marie Addieggo (D-Burlington). It is before the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.
A breeder is defined as anyon e who sells five or more dogs and cats a year. A pet dealer is defined as anyone who sells even one dog or cat for use as pets. A breeding facility is defined as a building or kennel, including a home, where two or more dogs or cats are kept for breeding.
Those definitions snag up everyone who raises dogs, and many people who simply keep a couple of dogs for hunting or pets.
The law also prohibits anyone from selling more than 25 dogs and/or cats a year, and specifically bans brother-sister matings.
Every word in the bill is inspired by HSUS and its agenda to eliminate animal ownership in America.
Every breeder (that’s you) must register with the Department of Health, which the legislations specifically says will develop regulations and standards of care through working closely with the radical HSUS. The bill says that the regulations also will cover spaying and neutering. Specific care and kenneling requirements also are covered. Extensive paperwork, veterinary examinations, and guarantees to buyers also20are required. A veterinarian must inspect and perform stool tests on every dog or puppy no longer than 14 days before a sale.
Anyone who buys or sells a dog without the proper New Jersey license, or who violates any of the above provisions, is subject to civil penalties of up to $10,000, heavy fines and imprisonment.
Even a first offense for a minor technical violation will result in a $5,000 civil penalty, fines and a ban against selling a dog or cat for five years. Someone who buys a dog or cat from an unlicensed breeder faces a $1,000 penalty for the first offense.
Accused dog owners will be denied their constitutional right to a day in court. They will be allowed only an administrative hearing before the same agency that charged them.
A frightening provision is that anyone who turns in a breeder will get 10-percent of the civil penalty as a reward, but not less than $250. Snitching by animal rights fanatics could become full-time and lucrative jobs in New Jersey if this bill passes!
0A
Here is a link to the actual legislation:
The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly urges all New Jersey dog owners to contact members of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee to voice clear opposition to this terrible legislation, which will destroy a lifetime of work by many of the most dedicated and high quality hobby breeders in America.
Here is a link to the committee members’ contact information:
New Jersey dog owners also face a second piece of bad legislation, AB 1568, which requires all dogs taken to an animal shelter to be sterilized before they are reclaimed by their owners.
This legislation will have a strong impact if a dog gets lost while hunting and is taken to an animal shelter by a good Samaritan, is found by an animal control officer or is kidnapped by an animal rights activist.
Exemptions are possible only for currently active show dogs or show champions. No exemption is provided for field trial, performance or hunting dogs.
In addition, a dog can meet the requirements for being spayed only by having a tattoo put on its belly by a veterinarian.
AB 1568 is sponsored by Assemblywoman Linda R. Greenstein (D- Mercer and Middlesex). It’s committee assignment has not been published.
Here is a link to the text of AB 1568:
Maine
Maine’s animal control director, Norma Worley, has clearly established herself as a staunch supporter of animal rights who is pursuing a personal crusade against people who raise dogs. There have been numerous reports of confrontational approaches to dog owners and heavy-handed enforcement since Worley’s appointment, and her writing and comments quoted in newspapers closely echoes HSUS position papers. She also uses the same derogatory labels as HSUS to describe people who raise dogs.
Worley rammed restrictive draft legislation through a task force, and now has presented it to the Legislature. The task force made few changes in the draft legislation prepared by Worley, and she wrote a report to the Legislature that ignored the views of most dog ownership advocates and made it falsely appear that they concurred. The attached minority reports recommended even tougher laws, and the Maine Federation of Dog Clubs refused to submit a minority report because of the biased nature of the participants and process.
This legislation would strip away dog owners’ constitutional rights to due process and equal treatment under the law, and eliminate constitutional requirements for search warrants, seizure warrants and appeals to a court of law. It is typical of all HSUS-backed legislation, which is designed to reduce dog owners to the status of second-class citizens.
Dog and kennel owners also would have their license costs increased dramatically, in order to pay for hiring many more enforcement personnel and funding a bureaucracy that recklessly overspent its budget by $600,000 last year. Worley claims that this extra money was needed to care for dogs that were seized, but we can’t imagine how it would cost $600,000 to provide short-term care for fewer than 300 dogs and cats. That would be more than $2,000 per animal!
The draft legislation requires anyone who owns five or more dogs to get a kennel license and be inspected by the state. Hunting and field trial dogs were mentioned specifically in this requirement.
Anyone who owns more than five female dogs that have not been spayed would be classified as a breeding kennel, subject to intensive regulation and inspection. Hunting, show, sled dog and field trial kennels would be exempt from this requirement, but only if they are municipally licensed and offer fewer than 16 dogs for sale in the year.
Anyone who sells even one dog would be classified as a vendor. They are required to follow complex disclosure rules to buyers, offer contractual guarantees, and have a veterinarian examine each dog or puppy that is sold.
Please read Worley’s report and the proposed legislation, which is located about midway through the document:
Worley sent the proposed legislation to the Legislature’s Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee. The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging Maine dog owners to contact each member of this committee and tell them why you are opposed to the legislation. Here is a link that lists all committee members: Each name links to a page with contact information.
FLORIDA
Almost every dog and cat in Florida would have to be spayed or neutered under the terms of House Bill 451.
Sterilization would have to be done within 30 days of an animal reaching four months of age, which is an age that much recent research has shown may be medically dangerous.
The only exceptions would be for severe medical risks, or if a municipality passes an ordinance that allows dogs registered with an approved registry to be licensed as a show animal, an animal actively engaged in competition, a guide dog, or a dog used by police officers or the military. Certain registries, such as Field Dog Stud Book, have not been approved in any place that has mandatory spay/neuter laws.
No dog or cat could be bred in Florida, except by virtue of a county ordinance allowing the sale of a breeding permit.
In the absence of a county ordinance, no one could breed a dog or cat in Florida. However, the legislation also allows counties to impose more strict ordinances, and even to ban all dog breeding outright.
Stiff fines are provided, and a third offense becomes a misdemeanor charge with possible jail time.
The preamble to the bill, which describes the reason for it, is based on several faulty or inaccurate presumptions. None of the stated reasons have been documented, and much research contradicts several of them.
Florida’s legislative session officially begins in March, and it is not known at this time what committee will get HB 451. It was introduced by Rep. Scott Randolph, D-Orange County.
Here is a link to the actual legislation:
We also urge all Floridians to contact their own legislator and express your opposition to this legislation. Here is a link page for each legislator’s contact information:
Illinois
Illinois House Bill 0198 is one of the most repressive and malicious pieces of animal rights legislation ever introduced in America. It takes aim at people who are hobby breeders of hunting dogs and other breeds of purebred dogs.
Anyone who owns more than three intact females and sells puppies would be classi fied as a commercial breeding kennel, subject to high fees for licensure, rigorous inspections, the forfeiture of several constitutional protections, mandatory fingerprinting and criminal background checks by the state police and Federal Bureau of Investigation, forfeiture of the right to redress in a court of law, heavy loads of paperwork, unworkable standards of care, and the forcible invasion of personal and financial records.
In addition, no one would be permitted to keep or own more than 20 dogs that are not spayed or neutered. No dog could be bred unless it is inspected by a veterinarian. Also, people would not be able to raise a litter of puppies inside their home if other adult dogs are present. It would be illegal to keep more than three dogs together, which would apply to the number of dogs kept inside a home, ban the common practice of kenneling a pack of hounds together and eliminate large fenced lots to allow young dogs to get plenty of exercise.
There also is an ambiguous provision that requires the state to pass judgment on the “qualifications” of a kennel license applicant before issuing a license. This would be an entirely subjective judgment by the kennel inspector, as the legislation does not define adequate qualifications.
Only veterinarians could euthanize a dog, which causes terrible suffering and agony if a veterinarian cannot be located quickly.
Dog owners also could face heavy fines and loss of licenses for irrelevant violations, such as surface rust on wires, a few cobwebs, a knocked over water bowl or chipped paint. Temperature requirements would make it impossible for people to acclimate hunting, herding and performance dogs to weather conditions, thus creating danger for the dogs. Fine and civil penalties would multiply exponentially, and even minor offenses have the potential to destroy a dog owner financially and cause the loss of her or his home and lifetime savings.
The legislation also contains numerous powers to seize dogs, or to require their owners to turn them over to an animal shelter within seven days of license revocation, or if a dog owner is incorrectly licensed.
This legislation, which is clearly out of the HSUS playbook, is being sponsored by State Rep. John A. Fritchey (D-Chicago). It has been cosponsored by Reps. Angelo Saviano, Deborah Mell, Jack D. Franks, Daniel J. Burke, Greg Harris, Michael J. Zalewski, JoAnn D. Osmond, Keith Farnham, Lou Lang and Harry Osterman (click on a name for a link to a contact page). It’s Senate counterpart, SB 53, will be sponsored by Sen. Dan Kotowski (D- Mt. Prospect).
The bill has been referred to the House Rules Committee. The House has not yet completed committee assignments, and the names of committee members are not yet available.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges Illinois dog owners to contact their senator and representative to voice opposition to HB 0198 and SB 53 to voice their opposition. In addition, we ask dog owners to contact the bill’s cosponsors to ask them to withdraw their support for the legislation.
The bill’s formal name is the Dog Breeders License Act. HSUS and other animal rights groups are nicknaming it “Chloe’s Bill,” for a dog allegedly rescued from an Illinois “puppy mill.”
HSUS has focused many of its resources on Illinois, and recently named a new State Director, attorney Jordan Matyas. We have received confirmed reports that Rep. Fritchey is sending correspondence about this bill directly to Matyas, and the replies to constituents are coming directly from HSUS.
Propaganda for the bill makes it sound like legislation to stop poorly operated commercial kennels, which have been dubbed “puppy mills” by HSUS. However, the bill actually targets small scale hobby breeders of purebred dogs. Large commercial kennels already are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the State of Illinois, and all kennels are under the jurisdiction of state animal cruelty laws.
Matyas and his cronies also continue to spread their agenda of canine destruction in neighboring Wisconsin and Indiana, which are expected to see similar legislation very soon, and in the City of Chicago.
Chicago
We are receiving some indications that a strong response from dog owners and veterinarians has put a proposed citywide spay and neuter mandate on the ropes. This ordinance, which is focused on destroying hobbyists in the city, has been a top priority for HSUS, Matyas and their allies from the wealthy and powerfu l PAWS animal rights group in Chicago.
The animal rights groups were stung by support for dog owners from the Chicago Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) and the Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association (ISVMA), and also by research by the American Sporting Dog Alliance, which shows the incredible success of the city’s sheltering program. The success of Chicago’s animal shelters has come very close to the ideal of not killing any healthy and adoptable animals, and destroys much of the rationale for the ordinance.
The CVMA and ISVMA have taken strong and courageous stances against the proposed ordinance, as have several animal sheltering and rescue organizations. Here is a link to some of these position statements:
In essence, a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance compromises the relationship between a veterinarian and patient.
For government to mandate veterinarians to perform certain medical proc edures also is a violation of at least two provisions of the American Veterinary Medical Association Code of Ethics, as was a requirement in the original proposed ordinance that would require veterinarians to report people who own dogs that are not spayed or neutered, documents show.
In addition, many veterinarians and dog owners oppose universal spay/neuter mandates because much of the most recent research shows elevated risks of serious and potentially fatal medical conditions from pet sterilization, especially at an early age. Because of this, veterinarians believe that the decision should be made on an individual basis by weighing benefits and risks as part of the client/patient/veterinarian relationship.
Veterinarians and sheltering group leaders also say that the proposed ordinance is very divisive and will harm the kind of community support that is needed to continue with the success of Chicago’s animal shelter alliance.
Aldermen Ed Burke and Ginger Rugai proposed the ordinance, and HSUS, Matyas and PAWS are its major proponents.
PAWS has even attempted to use strong-arm tactics against the veterinarians, by strongly hinting that it will ask its supporters to boycott any individual veterinarian who doesn’t support the ordinance.
Because of the veterinarians’ opposition, HSUS and the two aldermen have backpedaled on some of the requirements of the initial proposal. A revised ordinance draft removes the requirement for veterinarians to turn in their patients who have not sterilized their pets. In other communities that have passed sterilization mandates, compliance with rabies vaccination and licensing laws has plummeted because of the requirement to report violations.
However, the revised ordinance has not changed the requirement for pet owners to prove that their animals have been sterilized to get a license. In other communities, this has caused a dramatic decrease in licensing revenues, and the Los Angeles animal control program has become bankrupted since a spay/neuter ordinance was passed a year ago, and doesn’t have enough money to enforce it or even to operate its animal shelters now.
Other changes in the revised ordinance are softened language about the alleged health benefits of sterilization (which has been seriously questioned by much recent research), a greater emphasis on preventing dog fighting and dog attacks (even though research indicates that this is questionable, at best), and the elimination of heavy fines for a third offense.
It is clear that the real purpose of the ordinance has nothing to do with its stated purposes. Instead, it is directed at law-abiding people who raise dogs.
Existing city ordinances prohibit allowing a dog to roam, and dog attacks would be addressed if they are enforced. It is not directed at dangerous dogs, as Illinois already has a strong dangerous dog law. Nor is it directed at dog fighting, as Illinois law makes this a felony, and only about seven percent of the dogs in America are from “pit bull” breeds and crosses. Nor is it directed against criminals and the drug culture, as an existing Illinois law forbids most convicted felons of possessing a dog that has not been spayed or neutered and microchipped, or which has been shown to be dangerous.
The ordinance is directed against law-abiding dog owners. It requires all dogs and cats20over six months of age to be sterilized. Exceptions are made for show and competition dogs, although the “Catch 22” is that no registry meets the requirements. A dog can be bred, but only if the owner is willing to pay a fee of $100 per dog, keep extensive paperwork and submit to a background check.
It also ignores the fact that 70-percent of the dogs in America already are sterilized.
And it ignores the fact that Chicago already has serious budget problems and cannot adequately fund the animal control and shelter program.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges Chicagoans to contact their alderman to voice opposition to this proposed ordinance. Here is a link to the web pages of each of the aldermen, where you will find contact information:
Also, please contact local organizers to coordinate with us and a newly forming Chicago group that is opposed to the ordinance. They are Karen Perry (ouilmette4@sbcglobal.net), Margo Milde (mrm1206@yahoo.com), Michele Smith (msmith@cmscrescue.com) and Ami Moore (DOGDORIGHT@aol.com).
We hope that Chicago City Council takes a long hard look at other cities that have passed spay/neuter mandates recently, such as Fort Worth, which saw rabies compliance plummet and rabies cases soar before it scrapped the ordinance; Louisville, which faces a federal lawsuit, and brutal home invasions to enforce the ordinance have led to the destruction of the private animal rescue network; several cities which saw shelter admissions and euthanasia rates soar while license revenues fell; and most of all20to Los Angeles (see below).
California
Animal rights groups in California were soundly defeated last year when they attempted to get a statewide law mandating pet sterilization, and its key proponent in the legislature was trounced in the November election. That’s not surprising, as a Parade Magazine poll last year showed that 91-percent of the people oppose sterilization mandates.
This year they are trying to take their failed doctrine to the local level again, starting with Santa Barbara and Riverside counties.
But they don’t want to talk about Los Angeles, which passed a spay/neuter mandate a year ago and created a disaster zone for animals and taxpayers alike. Since the ordinance was introduced, shelter admission and euthanasia rates have soared far beyond the level created by the mortgage foreclosure crisis, and declining license revenues have driven the city’s animal control agency into bankruptcy, documents show.
The situation has become so critical that Los Angeles Controller Laura Chick urged the mayor and city council to privatize the sheltering program, in a letter dated December 22, 2008. Chick pointed out that the animal control budget increased from $16.2 million in FY 2005-06 to $22 million in FY 2007-08, in order to pay operating expenses and the salaries of 300 employees. In addition, she wrote, the city is paying off bond issues to build and repair animal shelters at the rate of $12.4 million a year.
This is balanced against revenues of only $2.8 million, which now are in steep decline because of major losses in licensing revenues following the ordinance.
Widespread employee layoffs and animal shelter closures have been discussed, and Chick said no money is available to enforce the spay/neuter and other animal ordinances, or to perform many other public services.
Chick suggested turning the animal shelter program over to private nonprofit groups, which can operate them much more economi cally and efficiently, her letter shows. The city would provide the animal shelter facilities at no charge, and the private groups would operate them.
What happened in Los Angeles also underscores the murderous intent of animal rights groups toward dogs and cats. On one hand, it is widely documented that spay/neuter mandates invariably cause major increases in animal shelter admission and euthanasia rates for several years. They kill innocent dogs and cats unnecessarily!
But the current economic situation in California further underscores the brutality of the animal rights agenda.
At a time when many pet owners are losing their homes or facing job losses, anyone who cares about animals should be showing compassion for both dogs and their owners. Anyone who cares should be doing everything possible to keep pets in their homes, or to provide short-term fostering programs until people get back on their feet and can reunite with their pets.
Instead, Los Angeles has passed an ordinance that will make it much harder for people to keep their pets in a tough economy, or if they have lost their homes.
The dogs are paying the price.
In Los Angeles, passage of the ordinance reversed a 10-year-long rapid decline in shelter admission and euthanasia rates, and this needless destruction of a successful sheltering program has been exacerbated by the economic crisis.
Shelter admission and euthanasia rates continued to fall for the first six months of the most recent fiscal year, despite the rapidly worsening foreclosure crisis, but this progress was destroyed in the six months following the ordinance’s introduction by skyrocketing shelter admission and euthanasia rates.
Shelter admissions declined steadily from 34,692 in 2001-02 to 25,553 in 2006-07, but shot up 19-percent to 30,513 following passage of the ordinance. All of the increase occurred in the six months after the ordinance was introduced. Undoubtedly some of this increase is the result of the foreclosure crisis, but California’s housing economy has been in deep trouble for most of this pe riod when shelter rates continued to improve.
The euthanasia rate rose even more steeply since the ordinance was passed, by 22-percent, from 6,070 to 7,414. Once again, the entire increase occurred after the ordinance was introduced. This follows a steady decline from 17,509 in 2001-02 to 6,070 in 2006-07.
The good news is that adoptions increased by 30-percent and owner-reclaimed rates rose by 10-percent. But the bad news is the divisiveness of the ordinance within the animal welfare community, which caused rescues to decline somewhat in the six months after the ordinance was passed.
Santa Barbara
Now it’s Santa Barbara’s turn to face the brutality of the animal rights agenda, as a task force created to provide non-mandatory ways to reduce shelter populations and euthanasia has become a stacked deck of people who want to bring the failed and discredited policy of mandatory pet sterilization to=2 0this county. We hope the county supervisors are wise enough to learn from the mistakes of Los Angeles and several other cities.
Dog owners on the task force may get some help to counterbalance the presence of Dr. Ron Faoro, the group’s chairman. Faoro strongly supports mandatory pet sterilization and has rode roughshod over the committee on several occasions.
The guest speaker at the Feb.18 task force meeting will be noted California veterinarian John A. Hamil. Dr. Hamil, who has spent a lifetime studying animal shelter admission and euthanasia issues, is strongly opposed to spay and neuter mandates. Hamil says mandatory measures make the problems worse, not better, and also are undesirable or counterproductive for several other reasons.
Here is a link to Dr. Hamil’s views about the defeated statewide mandate: He is very articulate and knows what he is talking about.
Task force members have been denied access to needed statistical data to put shelter and euthanasia numbers in perspective. After several years of miraculous success, Santa Barbara’s sheltering system saw large increases in both shelter admissions and euthanasia rates in the past year. Those increases are generally attributed to the economy, and the foreclosure crisis has hit Santa Barbara especially hard.
Data has been concealed about why the euthanasia rate has increased by more than 2.5 times the admission rate in the first six months of 2008. Admissions went up by 554, or 14-percent, but euthanasia increased 313, or 35-percent.
This simply does not make sense, except as a deliberate policy decision to kill more animals. The situation is made even more inexplicable because owner redemptions increased by 4.9 percent and adoptions increased by 12-percent.
Data also has not been made available to allow analysis of the admissions rates, such as a projected increase in enforcement, and the actual reasons why owners=2 0are surrendering dogs. Effective decisions are not possible without this information, which is being kept from the task force and public by animal services department personnel.
All of the evidence shows that a spay/neuter mandate will make shelter and animal control problems worse during economic hard times when many people are losing their homes and jobs.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is preparing a strategy to address these economic problems compassionately and effectively. Our proposals will include tax credits and rebates for people who adopt dogs and cats from animal shelters and rescue groups, tax incentives for people who are willing to provide temporary foster care or rescue services for displaced pets, exempting people who foster or rescue from pet limit and other animal control laws, and changing state funding formulas to penalize shelter programs that kill healthy and adoptable animals when all other alternatives have not been explored.
Minnesota
Two years ago, Minnesota dog owners had a close call with devastating animal rights legislation that was narrowly defeated in the legislature.
It’s back, and HSUS is throwing its full weight behind it.
SF 7, introduced by Sen. Don Betzold (D-Fridley), has been introduced into the Senate Agriculture and Veterans Committee.
This bill exempts what it calls “hobby breeders,” which means someone who has fewer than six intact females over six months old.
But it includes most people who actually are hobby breeders in real life, most of whom own at least six intact females, even though they may not be used for breeding in any year. Numbers add up quickly when retired dogs, older puppies, dogs being evaluated, dogs in competition, hunting dogs, breeding dogs and just plain pets are counted.
Most hobby breeders would have to undergo e xtensive licensing investigations, inspections (possibly including a veterinarian, police officer or animal cruelty officer), license fees, paperwork, mandatory microchipping, and standards of care that are vaguely defined.
One standard of care is especially alarming, in that it gives the state the undefined and unlimited power to develop and enforce “additional standards the board considers necessary to protect the public health and welfare of animals….”
The law also gives the state the power to seize animals when undefined standards of care are not met, and provides civil penalties of up to $5,000 for each alleged deficiency. Criminal charges, fines and imprisonment also are provided for violations.
The right of appeal to a court of law is denied. Instead, an accused dog owner is allowed only an administrative hearing before the state agency that is prosecuting him or her.
Here is a link to the legislation:
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all Minnesotans to contact members of the Senate Agriculture and Veterans Committee to voice strong opposition. Here is a link to committee members and contact information: http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/committees/committee_bio.php?cmte_id=1001&ls=#members.
Colorado
Colorado dog owners face some restrictions under HB 1172, sponsored by Reps. Elizabeth McCann (D-Denver) and Randy Fischer (D-Larimer). HSUS and other animal rights groups are supporting the legislation.
This legislation requires licensing and inspection, limits the number of un sterilized dogs a person may own, and requires a veterinary examination before a dog can be bred.
No dog breeder (including hobby breeders, who are defined as someone who produces fewer than two litters of puppies a year) in Colorado will be able to own or keep more than 25 dogs over six months of age that are not spayed or neutered, if the legislation passes.
In addition, no one would be allowed to breed any dog without an annual veterinary examination and certification of suitable health.
Existing law also was amended to allow inspectors unrestrained access to a dog owner’s home, kennel, property and records at any time, day or night, upon consent of an “administrative” search warrant. An administrative warrant circumvents constitutional guarantees of court review of a search warrant application.
Here is a link to the text of this legislation:
HB 1172 is now before the House Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources Committee.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance asks Colorado dog owners to contact members of this committee to oppose this legislation as being needlessly intrusive and restrictive.
Committee members are: Representative Curry, Chairman; Representative Fischer, Vice-Chairman; Gardner C., Hullinghorst, Labuda, Looper, McKinley, McNulty, Pace, Solano, Sonnenberg, Tipton and Vigil
Here is a link to contact information for committee members and all other legislators:
Upcoming Legislation
Texas – Breaking news: McAllen, TX, is considering a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance. We have not had time to research this in depth, and will make a full report soon. Here is a link to a news article about it: However, McAllen is only the beginning. All Texas dog owners will face a fight this year. Animal rights groups, including several with direct ties to the ultra-radical People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and HSUS, are hoping to take their successes in Texas cities to the state level. Buoyed by their success in ramming through spay/neuter mandates in Dallas, Houston and San Antonio, they are backing a bill aimed at all dog breeding statewide. Several organizations, centered around the Texas Humane Legislation Network (THLN) are pressuring the Legislature to “study puppy mill issues,” and legislation is in the works to restrict dog breeding statewide. Supporters of dog breeding legislation always claim that it focuses on commercial kennels, which they call “puppy mills.” But the legislation invariably focuses much more on small hobby breeders in its actual text.
Wisconsin – Dog owners narrowly turned back highly restrictive breeding and lemon law legislation last year that would have devastated hobby breeding of purebred dogs. Animal rights groups have substantial support in the legislature, and have vowed to come back with an even tougher bill this year. Political gains in the Legislature by animal rights groups make Wisconsin ripe for a major push again this year. HSUS is pouring resources into the state.
Indiana – Kennel and breeding legislation is expected here following a major drive by HSUS in the Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan region. Billboards have been spotted in several places, and anti-breeder newspaper articles are proliferating.
Ohio – Dog owners were able to block legislation tightening animal control laws and another bill that would have destroyed hobby breeding in the Buckeye State. However, sponsors and supporters of this legislation vowed to reintroduce it early in the current session. They have stronger support in the Legislature now than they did last year, following the November election.
Michigan – Anti-breeder legislation is expected early here, following withdrawal of devastating legislation late last year after American Sporting Dog Alliance disclosures of the text of the bill, which had been hidden even from its sponsor.
Massachusetts – HSUS has announced that it will try again to get an anti-breeder law passed here.
Arizona – A major push is expected for mandatory spay/neuter legislation here. Residents are battling local legislation in several counties, as well.
New Mexico – Mandatory spay/neuter legislation and overly zealous enforcement of animal cruelty laws are expected here in 2009.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web. Our email is asda@csonline.net.
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS
The American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
Please Join Us
Dog Owners Triumph In VA And MT
Beware Bills Introduced In NJ, NY, ME, FL, MN, IL, CA, CO, VA, MT
And Expect Legislation Soon In TX, MA, WI, MI, IN, OH, OK, AZ, NM
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
This article is archived:
Dog owners will face unprecedented and potentially devastating challenges in 2009, and it will take dedication and commitment to protect our rights. Sitting on the sidelines simply is not an option. It will take standing up and making your voice count.
The radical Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), buoyed by the victories of 95% of the state and federal candidates it endorsed in the November general election, has struck quickly in 2009 with legislation in 10 states that would severely restrict the rights of dog owners. Our sources also tell us that HSUS-anointed legislation will be introduced shortly in at least nine more states.
HSUS has launched this full-court press in only three weeks, and dog owners must act quickly and decisively or they will be overwhelmed.
However, there is some good news. This week, dog owners won the first two rounds in Virginia and Montana with the sound defeat of mandatory spay/neuter and breed-specific legislation.
In Virginia, HSUS and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals were s trongly in support of Senate Bill 1151, which would have mandated the spaying or neutering of any dog taken to an animal shelter for a second time. The legislation was killed this week by the Senate Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources Committee by an 8-6 vote.
This bill would have had a strong impact on hunting dogs, especially, and would have opened the door to many animal rights group kidnappings of hunting and companion dogs. Animal rights group kidnappings are becoming more common, and their goal is to take dogs to distant animal shelters were they will be euthanized.
In Montana, HSUS attempted to ram through breed-specific legislation after its usual media bombardment of inflammatory news stories, but it was killed in committee by a 17-1 vote after a reported 150 dog owners attended a hearing to voice opposition. Only three people spoke in favor of the bill.
While breed-specific legislation most often is seen as about “pit bulls,” many local ordinances have extended it to several other breeds ranging from Rottweilers to German shepherds. Moreover, the American Sporting Dog Alliance is concerned about this kind of le gislation because we see hunting breeds as next on the list of HSUS targets. Animal rights group websites frequently and falsely portray hunting dogs as vicious, some states are seriously considering banning or restricting hunting with hounds, and all hunting breeds were targeted specifically in failed federal legislation just two years ago.
HSUS-inspired legislation introduced in eight other states would affect all people who raise dogs. Those states are New York, New Jersey, Maine, Florida, Minnesota, Colorado, Illinois and California. Legislation also will be introduced soon in Texas, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is taking an active and aggressive role to defeat this legislation, which takes aim at people who raise dogs as an avocation and reflects the HSUS agenda of working toward the complete elimination of domestic animal ownership in America. We are urging dog owners to join with us to work to defeat this dangerous legislation.
Here is a synopsis of the legislation that has been introduced in each state:
New York
It looks like HSUS has learned a new trick in New York and trying for a rerun on an old one.
Legislation has been introduced that would require every dog and every dog owner to complete certified obedience training as a condition of licensing. Another bill would mandate microchipping of all dogs in order to get a license for them. Assembly Member Jose Peralta (D-Queens) introduced both bills.
AB 1540 mandates obedience training and certification. No dog could be licensed without an obedience training certificate, and no owner could buy a dog license without undergoing training. Ironically, Peralta exempts residents of his own city from the legislation.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly opposes this kind of legislation, which places a substantial burden on dog owners, bears no relationship to the realities of most dog ownership, is a solution in search of a problem, will result in a decrease in rabies and licensing law compliance, and will cause many pets to be abandoned when their owners can’t afford the services of a certified school.
Obedience courses are not available in many rural areas, and certification inevitably leads toward favoritism toward certain methods of training that are not endorsed by many dog owners. In addition, many dog owners are skilled trainers themselves and have no need for such services.
In many urban areas, a basic obedience course costs $1,000 or more. No evidence is shown that would justify imposing this kind of burden on the vast majority of dog owners. Moreover, many people simply will not be able to afford to provide this kind of training, especially in today’s poor economy, and this will force people to abandon their pets or fly under the radar without licensing their dogs or obtaining rabies vaccinations.
Here is a link to the text of this bill:
The second bill, AB 255, requires all dogs in New York to be microchipped by the age of four months.
In addition, a state registry would be created for microchip data for every dog in the state and their owners.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly opposes mandatory microchipping, which is controversial among some dog owners. Other options are available, such as name tags or tattoos. We also strongly oppose creating a state registry, which allows animal control agencies to go on a “fishing expedition” to enforce a variety of other laws, and thus invades the privacy of everyone without cause.
Here is a link to the text of this bill:
Both bills have been referred to the Assembly’s Agriculture Committee. We urge New York dog owners to=2 0contact Agriculture Committee members to voice strong opposition. Here is a link to members of the committee:
We also are studying two other pieces of New York legislation.
The first is a bill redefining a “pet dealer” in a way that might lead to including hobby breeders. Last year, failed legislation would have brought all hobby breeders under strict “pet dealer” regulations. This year’s legislation creates some ambiguity in this regard, but basically does little to change the law. This alarms us, as it might lead to an attempt to make amendments on the floor similar to last year’s bill. Here is a link:
The second bill, AB 2069 would impose stringent regulations on boarding kennels, which include training kennels and day care services. It is a backdoor approach to regulation, because it is based on health code compliance (not on animal law) and requires health department inspection and certification.
We see much potential to harm kennel owners without any good reason from this approach, which also creates a new and cumbersome level of bureaucracy.
We are very alarmed that this legislation is both an attempt to redefine animal care as a public health issue, and to give health inspectors unrestricted access to kennels when there is no proof of any relationship between kennels and human health concerns in the community. We see it as an attempt to add another unjustified regulatory burden on kennel owners.
Here is a link to the legislation:
New Jersey
New Jersey dog owners=2 0are facing one of the toughest and most restrictive pieces of breeding legislation in history this year, and a second bill will have a heavy impact on lost hunting dogs.
Anyone who sells five or more dogs, cats, puppies or kittens in a year would have to be licensed and inspected as a commercial breeder and also as a pet dealer, which means facing Draconian restrictions and truly devastating fines and penalties.
That translates into a person having only one litter of puppies a year, in most cases. Even hobby breeding of the smallest possible scale would be unable to survive this legislation.
The legislation also pays snitches to turn in breeders, and the reward can be in the thousands of dollars.
AB 1591 is sponsored by Assemblywomen Joan M. Voss (D-Bergen) and Dawn Marie Addieggo (D-Burlington). It is before the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.
A breeder is defined as anyon e who sells five or more dogs and cats a year. A pet dealer is defined as anyone who sells even one dog or cat for use as pets. A breeding facility is defined as a building or kennel, including a home, where two or more dogs or cats are kept for breeding.
Those definitions snag up everyone who raises dogs, and many people who simply keep a couple of dogs for hunting or pets.
The law also prohibits anyone from selling more than 25 dogs and/or cats a year, and specifically bans brother-sister matings.
Every word in the bill is inspired by HSUS and its agenda to eliminate animal ownership in America.
Every breeder (that’s you) must register with the Department of Health, which the legislations specifically says will develop regulations and standards of care through working closely with the radical HSUS. The bill says that the regulations also will cover spaying and neutering. Specific care and kenneling requirements also are covered. Extensive paperwork, veterinary examinations, and guarantees to buyers also20are required. A veterinarian must inspect and perform stool tests on every dog or puppy no longer than 14 days before a sale.
Anyone who buys or sells a dog without the proper New Jersey license, or who violates any of the above provisions, is subject to civil penalties of up to $10,000, heavy fines and imprisonment.
Even a first offense for a minor technical violation will result in a $5,000 civil penalty, fines and a ban against selling a dog or cat for five years. Someone who buys a dog or cat from an unlicensed breeder faces a $1,000 penalty for the first offense.
Accused dog owners will be denied their constitutional right to a day in court. They will be allowed only an administrative hearing before the same agency that charged them.
A frightening provision is that anyone who turns in a breeder will get 10-percent of the civil penalty as a reward, but not less than $250. Snitching by animal rights fanatics could become full-time and lucrative jobs in New Jersey if this bill passes!
0A
Here is a link to the actual legislation:
The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly urges all New Jersey dog owners to contact members of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee to voice clear opposition to this terrible legislation, which will destroy a lifetime of work by many of the most dedicated and high quality hobby breeders in America.
Here is a link to the committee members’ contact information:
New Jersey dog owners also face a second piece of bad legislation, AB 1568, which requires all dogs taken to an animal shelter to be sterilized before they are reclaimed by their owners.
This legislation will have a strong impact if a dog gets lost while hunting and is taken to an animal shelter by a good Samaritan, is found by an animal control officer or is kidnapped by an animal rights activist.
Exemptions are possible only for currently active show dogs or show champions. No exemption is provided for field trial, performance or hunting dogs.
In addition, a dog can meet the requirements for being spayed only by having a tattoo put on its belly by a veterinarian.
AB 1568 is sponsored by Assemblywoman Linda R. Greenstein (D- Mercer and Middlesex). It’s committee assignment has not been published.
Here is a link to the text of AB 1568:
Maine
Maine’s animal control director, Norma Worley, has clearly established herself as a staunch supporter of animal rights who is pursuing a personal crusade against people who raise dogs. There have been numerous reports of confrontational approaches to dog owners and heavy-handed enforcement since Worley’s appointment, and her writing and comments quoted in newspapers closely echoes HSUS position papers. She also uses the same derogatory labels as HSUS to describe people who raise dogs.
Worley rammed restrictive draft legislation through a task force, and now has presented it to the Legislature. The task force made few changes in the draft legislation prepared by Worley, and she wrote a report to the Legislature that ignored the views of most dog ownership advocates and made it falsely appear that they concurred. The attached minority reports recommended even tougher laws, and the Maine Federation of Dog Clubs refused to submit a minority report because of the biased nature of the participants and process.
This legislation would strip away dog owners’ constitutional rights to due process and equal treatment under the law, and eliminate constitutional requirements for search warrants, seizure warrants and appeals to a court of law. It is typical of all HSUS-backed legislation, which is designed to reduce dog owners to the status of second-class citizens.
Dog and kennel owners also would have their license costs increased dramatically, in order to pay for hiring many more enforcement personnel and funding a bureaucracy that recklessly overspent its budget by $600,000 last year. Worley claims that this extra money was needed to care for dogs that were seized, but we can’t imagine how it would cost $600,000 to provide short-term care for fewer than 300 dogs and cats. That would be more than $2,000 per animal!
The draft legislation requires anyone who owns five or more dogs to get a kennel license and be inspected by the state. Hunting and field trial dogs were mentioned specifically in this requirement.
Anyone who owns more than five female dogs that have not been spayed would be classified as a breeding kennel, subject to intensive regulation and inspection. Hunting, show, sled dog and field trial kennels would be exempt from this requirement, but only if they are municipally licensed and offer fewer than 16 dogs for sale in the year.
Anyone who sells even one dog would be classified as a vendor. They are required to follow complex disclosure rules to buyers, offer contractual guarantees, and have a veterinarian examine each dog or puppy that is sold.
Please read Worley’s report and the proposed legislation, which is located about midway through the document:
Worley sent the proposed legislation to the Legislature’s Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee. The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging Maine dog owners to contact each member of this committee and tell them why you are opposed to the legislation. Here is a link that lists all committee members: Each name links to a page with contact information.
FLORIDA
Almost every dog and cat in Florida would have to be spayed or neutered under the terms of House Bill 451.
Sterilization would have to be done within 30 days of an animal reaching four months of age, which is an age that much recent research has shown may be medically dangerous.
The only exceptions would be for severe medical risks, or if a municipality passes an ordinance that allows dogs registered with an approved registry to be licensed as a show animal, an animal actively engaged in competition, a guide dog, or a dog used by police officers or the military. Certain registries, such as Field Dog Stud Book, have not been approved in any place that has mandatory spay/neuter laws.
No dog or cat could be bred in Florida, except by virtue of a county ordinance allowing the sale of a breeding permit.
In the absence of a county ordinance, no one could breed a dog or cat in Florida. However, the legislation also allows counties to impose more strict ordinances, and even to ban all dog breeding outright.
Stiff fines are provided, and a third offense becomes a misdemeanor charge with possible jail time.
The preamble to the bill, which describes the reason for it, is based on several faulty or inaccurate presumptions. None of the stated reasons have been documented, and much research contradicts several of them.
Florida’s legislative session officially begins in March, and it is not known at this time what committee will get HB 451. It was introduced by Rep. Scott Randolph, D-Orange County.
Here is a link to the actual legislation:
We also urge all Floridians to contact their own legislator and express your opposition to this legislation. Here is a link page for each legislator’s contact information:
Illinois
Illinois House Bill 0198 is one of the most repressive and malicious pieces of animal rights legislation ever introduced in America. It takes aim at people who are hobby breeders of hunting dogs and other breeds of purebred dogs.
Anyone who owns more than three intact females and sells puppies would be classi fied as a commercial breeding kennel, subject to high fees for licensure, rigorous inspections, the forfeiture of several constitutional protections, mandatory fingerprinting and criminal background checks by the state police and Federal Bureau of Investigation, forfeiture of the right to redress in a court of law, heavy loads of paperwork, unworkable standards of care, and the forcible invasion of personal and financial records.
In addition, no one would be permitted to keep or own more than 20 dogs that are not spayed or neutered. No dog could be bred unless it is inspected by a veterinarian. Also, people would not be able to raise a litter of puppies inside their home if other adult dogs are present. It would be illegal to keep more than three dogs together, which would apply to the number of dogs kept inside a home, ban the common practice of kenneling a pack of hounds together and eliminate large fenced lots to allow young dogs to get plenty of exercise.
There also is an ambiguous provision that requires the state to pass judgment on the “qualifications” of a kennel license applicant before issuing a license. This would be an entirely subjective judgment by the kennel inspector, as the legislation does not define adequate qualifications.
Only veterinarians could euthanize a dog, which causes terrible suffering and agony if a veterinarian cannot be located quickly.
Dog owners also could face heavy fines and loss of licenses for irrelevant violations, such as surface rust on wires, a few cobwebs, a knocked over water bowl or chipped paint. Temperature requirements would make it impossible for people to acclimate hunting, herding and performance dogs to weather conditions, thus creating danger for the dogs. Fine and civil penalties would multiply exponentially, and even minor offenses have the potential to destroy a dog owner financially and cause the loss of her or his home and lifetime savings.
The legislation also contains numerous powers to seize dogs, or to require their owners to turn them over to an animal shelter within seven days of license revocation, or if a dog owner is incorrectly licensed.
This legislation, which is clearly out of the HSUS playbook, is being sponsored by State Rep. John A. Fritchey (D-Chicago). It has been cosponsored by Reps. Angelo Saviano, Deborah Mell, Jack D. Franks, Daniel J. Burke, Greg Harris, Michael J. Zalewski, JoAnn D. Osmond, Keith Farnham, Lou Lang and Harry Osterman (click on a name for a link to a contact page). It’s Senate counterpart, SB 53, will be sponsored by Sen. Dan Kotowski (D- Mt. Prospect).
The bill has been referred to the House Rules Committee. The House has not yet completed committee assignments, and the names of committee members are not yet available.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges Illinois dog owners to contact their senator and representative to voice opposition to HB 0198 and SB 53 to voice their opposition. In addition, we ask dog owners to contact the bill’s cosponsors to ask them to withdraw their support for the legislation.
The bill’s formal name is the Dog Breeders License Act. HSUS and other animal rights groups are nicknaming it “Chloe’s Bill,” for a dog allegedly rescued from an Illinois “puppy mill.”
HSUS has focused many of its resources on Illinois, and recently named a new State Director, attorney Jordan Matyas. We have received confirmed reports that Rep. Fritchey is sending correspondence about this bill directly to Matyas, and the replies to constituents are coming directly from HSUS.
Propaganda for the bill makes it sound like legislation to stop poorly operated commercial kennels, which have been dubbed “puppy mills” by HSUS. However, the bill actually targets small scale hobby breeders of purebred dogs. Large commercial kennels already are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the State of Illinois, and all kennels are under the jurisdiction of state animal cruelty laws.
Matyas and his cronies also continue to spread their agenda of canine destruction in neighboring Wisconsin and Indiana, which are expected to see similar legislation very soon, and in the City of Chicago.
Chicago
We are receiving some indications that a strong response from dog owners and veterinarians has put a proposed citywide spay and neuter mandate on the ropes. This ordinance, which is focused on destroying hobbyists in the city, has been a top priority for HSUS, Matyas and their allies from the wealthy and powerfu l PAWS animal rights group in Chicago.
The animal rights groups were stung by support for dog owners from the Chicago Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) and the Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association (ISVMA), and also by research by the American Sporting Dog Alliance, which shows the incredible success of the city’s sheltering program. The success of Chicago’s animal shelters has come very close to the ideal of not killing any healthy and adoptable animals, and destroys much of the rationale for the ordinance.
The CVMA and ISVMA have taken strong and courageous stances against the proposed ordinance, as have several animal sheltering and rescue organizations. Here is a link to some of these position statements:
In essence, a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance compromises the relationship between a veterinarian and patient.
For government to mandate veterinarians to perform certain medical proc edures also is a violation of at least two provisions of the American Veterinary Medical Association Code of Ethics, as was a requirement in the original proposed ordinance that would require veterinarians to report people who own dogs that are not spayed or neutered, documents show.
In addition, many veterinarians and dog owners oppose universal spay/neuter mandates because much of the most recent research shows elevated risks of serious and potentially fatal medical conditions from pet sterilization, especially at an early age. Because of this, veterinarians believe that the decision should be made on an individual basis by weighing benefits and risks as part of the client/patient/veterinarian relationship.
Veterinarians and sheltering group leaders also say that the proposed ordinance is very divisive and will harm the kind of community support that is needed to continue with the success of Chicago’s animal shelter alliance.
Aldermen Ed Burke and Ginger Rugai proposed the ordinance, and HSUS, Matyas and PAWS are its major proponents.
PAWS has even attempted to use strong-arm tactics against the veterinarians, by strongly hinting that it will ask its supporters to boycott any individual veterinarian who doesn’t support the ordinance.
Because of the veterinarians’ opposition, HSUS and the two aldermen have backpedaled on some of the requirements of the initial proposal. A revised ordinance draft removes the requirement for veterinarians to turn in their patients who have not sterilized their pets. In other communities that have passed sterilization mandates, compliance with rabies vaccination and licensing laws has plummeted because of the requirement to report violations.
However, the revised ordinance has not changed the requirement for pet owners to prove that their animals have been sterilized to get a license. In other communities, this has caused a dramatic decrease in licensing revenues, and the Los Angeles animal control program has become bankrupted since a spay/neuter ordinance was passed a year ago, and doesn’t have enough money to enforce it or even to operate its animal shelters now.
Other changes in the revised ordinance are softened language about the alleged health benefits of sterilization (which has been seriously questioned by much recent research), a greater emphasis on preventing dog fighting and dog attacks (even though research indicates that this is questionable, at best), and the elimination of heavy fines for a third offense.
It is clear that the real purpose of the ordinance has nothing to do with its stated purposes. Instead, it is directed at law-abiding people who raise dogs.
Existing city ordinances prohibit allowing a dog to roam, and dog attacks would be addressed if they are enforced. It is not directed at dangerous dogs, as Illinois already has a strong dangerous dog law. Nor is it directed at dog fighting, as Illinois law makes this a felony, and only about seven percent of the dogs in America are from “pit bull” breeds and crosses. Nor is it directed against criminals and the drug culture, as an existing Illinois law forbids most convicted felons of possessing a dog that has not been spayed or neutered and microchipped, or which has been shown to be dangerous.
The ordinance is directed against law-abiding dog owners. It requires all dogs and cats20over six months of age to be sterilized. Exceptions are made for show and competition dogs, although the “Catch 22” is that no registry meets the requirements. A dog can be bred, but only if the owner is willing to pay a fee of $100 per dog, keep extensive paperwork and submit to a background check.
It also ignores the fact that 70-percent of the dogs in America already are sterilized.
And it ignores the fact that Chicago already has serious budget problems and cannot adequately fund the animal control and shelter program.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges Chicagoans to contact their alderman to voice opposition to this proposed ordinance. Here is a link to the web pages of each of the aldermen, where you will find contact information:
Also, please contact local organizers to coordinate with us and a newly forming Chicago group that is opposed to the ordinance. They are Karen Perry (ouilmette4@sbcglobal.net), Margo Milde (mrm1206@yahoo.com), Michele Smith (msmith@cmscrescue.com) and Ami Moore (DOGDORIGHT@aol.com).
We hope that Chicago City Council takes a long hard look at other cities that have passed spay/neuter mandates recently, such as Fort Worth, which saw rabies compliance plummet and rabies cases soar before it scrapped the ordinance; Louisville, which faces a federal lawsuit, and brutal home invasions to enforce the ordinance have led to the destruction of the private animal rescue network; several cities which saw shelter admissions and euthanasia rates soar while license revenues fell; and most of all20to Los Angeles (see below).
California
Animal rights groups in California were soundly defeated last year when they attempted to get a statewide law mandating pet sterilization, and its key proponent in the legislature was trounced in the November election. That’s not surprising, as a Parade Magazine poll last year showed that 91-percent of the people oppose sterilization mandates.
This year they are trying to take their failed doctrine to the local level again, starting with Santa Barbara and Riverside counties.
But they don’t want to talk about Los Angeles, which passed a spay/neuter mandate a year ago and created a disaster zone for animals and taxpayers alike. Since the ordinance was introduced, shelter admission and euthanasia rates have soared far beyond the level created by the mortgage foreclosure crisis, and declining license revenues have driven the city’s animal control agency into bankruptcy, documents show.
The situation has become so critical that Los Angeles Controller Laura Chick urged the mayor and city council to privatize the sheltering program, in a letter dated December 22, 2008. Chick pointed out that the animal control budget increased from $16.2 million in FY 2005-06 to $22 million in FY 2007-08, in order to pay operating expenses and the salaries of 300 employees. In addition, she wrote, the city is paying off bond issues to build and repair animal shelters at the rate of $12.4 million a year.
This is balanced against revenues of only $2.8 million, which now are in steep decline because of major losses in licensing revenues following the ordinance.
Widespread employee layoffs and animal shelter closures have been discussed, and Chick said no money is available to enforce the spay/neuter and other animal ordinances, or to perform many other public services.
Chick suggested turning the animal shelter program over to private nonprofit groups, which can operate them much more economi cally and efficiently, her letter shows. The city would provide the animal shelter facilities at no charge, and the private groups would operate them.
What happened in Los Angeles also underscores the murderous intent of animal rights groups toward dogs and cats. On one hand, it is widely documented that spay/neuter mandates invariably cause major increases in animal shelter admission and euthanasia rates for several years. They kill innocent dogs and cats unnecessarily!
But the current economic situation in California further underscores the brutality of the animal rights agenda.
At a time when many pet owners are losing their homes or facing job losses, anyone who cares about animals should be showing compassion for both dogs and their owners. Anyone who cares should be doing everything possible to keep pets in their homes, or to provide short-term fostering programs until people get back on their feet and can reunite with their pets.
Instead, Los Angeles has passed an ordinance that will make it much harder for people to keep their pets in a tough economy, or if they have lost their homes.
The dogs are paying the price.
In Los Angeles, passage of the ordinance reversed a 10-year-long rapid decline in shelter admission and euthanasia rates, and this needless destruction of a successful sheltering program has been exacerbated by the economic crisis.
Shelter admission and euthanasia rates continued to fall for the first six months of the most recent fiscal year, despite the rapidly worsening foreclosure crisis, but this progress was destroyed in the six months following the ordinance’s introduction by skyrocketing shelter admission and euthanasia rates.
Shelter admissions declined steadily from 34,692 in 2001-02 to 25,553 in 2006-07, but shot up 19-percent to 30,513 following passage of the ordinance. All of the increase occurred in the six months after the ordinance was introduced. Undoubtedly some of this increase is the result of the foreclosure crisis, but California’s housing economy has been in deep trouble for most of this pe riod when shelter rates continued to improve.
The euthanasia rate rose even more steeply since the ordinance was passed, by 22-percent, from 6,070 to 7,414. Once again, the entire increase occurred after the ordinance was introduced. This follows a steady decline from 17,509 in 2001-02 to 6,070 in 2006-07.
The good news is that adoptions increased by 30-percent and owner-reclaimed rates rose by 10-percent. But the bad news is the divisiveness of the ordinance within the animal welfare community, which caused rescues to decline somewhat in the six months after the ordinance was passed.
Santa Barbara
Now it’s Santa Barbara’s turn to face the brutality of the animal rights agenda, as a task force created to provide non-mandatory ways to reduce shelter populations and euthanasia has become a stacked deck of people who want to bring the failed and discredited policy of mandatory pet sterilization to=2 0this county. We hope the county supervisors are wise enough to learn from the mistakes of Los Angeles and several other cities.
Dog owners on the task force may get some help to counterbalance the presence of Dr. Ron Faoro, the group’s chairman. Faoro strongly supports mandatory pet sterilization and has rode roughshod over the committee on several occasions.
The guest speaker at the Feb.18 task force meeting will be noted California veterinarian John A. Hamil. Dr. Hamil, who has spent a lifetime studying animal shelter admission and euthanasia issues, is strongly opposed to spay and neuter mandates. Hamil says mandatory measures make the problems worse, not better, and also are undesirable or counterproductive for several other reasons.
Here is a link to Dr. Hamil’s views about the defeated statewide mandate: He is very articulate and knows what he is talking about.
Task force members have been denied access to needed statistical data to put shelter and euthanasia numbers in perspective. After several years of miraculous success, Santa Barbara’s sheltering system saw large increases in both shelter admissions and euthanasia rates in the past year. Those increases are generally attributed to the economy, and the foreclosure crisis has hit Santa Barbara especially hard.
Data has been concealed about why the euthanasia rate has increased by more than 2.5 times the admission rate in the first six months of 2008. Admissions went up by 554, or 14-percent, but euthanasia increased 313, or 35-percent.
This simply does not make sense, except as a deliberate policy decision to kill more animals. The situation is made even more inexplicable because owner redemptions increased by 4.9 percent and adoptions increased by 12-percent.
Data also has not been made available to allow analysis of the admissions rates, such as a projected increase in enforcement, and the actual reasons why owners=2 0are surrendering dogs. Effective decisions are not possible without this information, which is being kept from the task force and public by animal services department personnel.
All of the evidence shows that a spay/neuter mandate will make shelter and animal control problems worse during economic hard times when many people are losing their homes and jobs.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is preparing a strategy to address these economic problems compassionately and effectively. Our proposals will include tax credits and rebates for people who adopt dogs and cats from animal shelters and rescue groups, tax incentives for people who are willing to provide temporary foster care or rescue services for displaced pets, exempting people who foster or rescue from pet limit and other animal control laws, and changing state funding formulas to penalize shelter programs that kill healthy and adoptable animals when all other alternatives have not been explored.
Minnesota
Two years ago, Minnesota dog owners had a close call with devastating animal rights legislation that was narrowly defeated in the legislature.
It’s back, and HSUS is throwing its full weight behind it.
SF 7, introduced by Sen. Don Betzold (D-Fridley), has been introduced into the Senate Agriculture and Veterans Committee.
This bill exempts what it calls “hobby breeders,” which means someone who has fewer than six intact females over six months old.
But it includes most people who actually are hobby breeders in real life, most of whom own at least six intact females, even though they may not be used for breeding in any year. Numbers add up quickly when retired dogs, older puppies, dogs being evaluated, dogs in competition, hunting dogs, breeding dogs and just plain pets are counted.
Most hobby breeders would have to undergo e xtensive licensing investigations, inspections (possibly including a veterinarian, police officer or animal cruelty officer), license fees, paperwork, mandatory microchipping, and standards of care that are vaguely defined.
One standard of care is especially alarming, in that it gives the state the undefined and unlimited power to develop and enforce “additional standards the board considers necessary to protect the public health and welfare of animals….”
The law also gives the state the power to seize animals when undefined standards of care are not met, and provides civil penalties of up to $5,000 for each alleged deficiency. Criminal charges, fines and imprisonment also are provided for violations.
The right of appeal to a court of law is denied. Instead, an accused dog owner is allowed only an administrative hearing before the state agency that is prosecuting him or her.
Here is a link to the legislation:
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all Minnesotans to contact members of the Senate Agriculture and Veterans Committee to voice strong opposition. Here is a link to committee members and contact information: http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/committees/committee_bio.php?cmte_id=1001&ls=#members.
Colorado
Colorado dog owners face some restrictions under HB 1172, sponsored by Reps. Elizabeth McCann (D-Denver) and Randy Fischer (D-Larimer). HSUS and other animal rights groups are supporting the legislation.
This legislation requires licensing and inspection, limits the number of un sterilized dogs a person may own, and requires a veterinary examination before a dog can be bred.
No dog breeder (including hobby breeders, who are defined as someone who produces fewer than two litters of puppies a year) in Colorado will be able to own or keep more than 25 dogs over six months of age that are not spayed or neutered, if the legislation passes.
In addition, no one would be allowed to breed any dog without an annual veterinary examination and certification of suitable health.
Existing law also was amended to allow inspectors unrestrained access to a dog owner’s home, kennel, property and records at any time, day or night, upon consent of an “administrative” search warrant. An administrative warrant circumvents constitutional guarantees of court review of a search warrant application.
Here is a link to the text of this legislation:
HB 1172 is now before the House Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources Committee.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance asks Colorado dog owners to contact members of this committee to oppose this legislation as being needlessly intrusive and restrictive.
Committee members are: Representative Curry, Chairman; Representative Fischer, Vice-Chairman; Gardner C., Hullinghorst, Labuda, Looper, McKinley, McNulty, Pace, Solano, Sonnenberg, Tipton and Vigil
Here is a link to contact information for committee members and all other legislators:
Upcoming Legislation
Texas – Breaking news: McAllen, TX, is considering a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance. We have not had time to research this in depth, and will make a full report soon. Here is a link to a news article about it: However, McAllen is only the beginning. All Texas dog owners will face a fight this year. Animal rights groups, including several with direct ties to the ultra-radical People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and HSUS, are hoping to take their successes in Texas cities to the state level. Buoyed by their success in ramming through spay/neuter mandates in Dallas, Houston and San Antonio, they are backing a bill aimed at all dog breeding statewide. Several organizations, centered around the Texas Humane Legislation Network (THLN) are pressuring the Legislature to “study puppy mill issues,” and legislation is in the works to restrict dog breeding statewide. Supporters of dog breeding legislation always claim that it focuses on commercial kennels, which they call “puppy mills.” But the legislation invariably focuses much more on small hobby breeders in its actual text.
Wisconsin – Dog owners narrowly turned back highly restrictive breeding and lemon law legislation last year that would have devastated hobby breeding of purebred dogs. Animal rights groups have substantial support in the legislature, and have vowed to come back with an even tougher bill this year. Political gains in the Legislature by animal rights groups make Wisconsin ripe for a major push again this year. HSUS is pouring resources into the state.
Indiana – Kennel and breeding legislation is expected here following a major drive by HSUS in the Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan region. Billboards have been spotted in several places, and anti-breeder newspaper articles are proliferating.
Ohio – Dog owners were able to block legislation tightening animal control laws and another bill that would have destroyed hobby breeding in the Buckeye State. However, sponsors and supporters of this legislation vowed to reintroduce it early in the current session. They have stronger support in the Legislature now than they did last year, following the November election.
Michigan – Anti-breeder legislation is expected early here, following withdrawal of devastating legislation late last year after American Sporting Dog Alliance disclosures of the text of the bill, which had been hidden even from its sponsor.
Massachusetts – HSUS has announced that it will try again to get an anti-breeder law passed here.
Arizona – A major push is expected for mandatory spay/neuter legislation here. Residents are battling local legislation in several counties, as well.
New Mexico – Mandatory spay/neuter legislation and overly zealous enforcement of animal cruelty laws are expected here in 2009.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web. Our email is asda@csonline.net.
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS
The American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
Please Join Us
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Website to Track the US Congress
Open Congress is a website designed to show you what bills and resolutions are being introduced and voted on in Washington D.C.
This is a geat site. You can track lots of issues, Senators, Representitive, and you can leave comments.
Keep track of your Congressmen/women and let them know what you think of their voting record.
This is a geat site. You can track lots of issues, Senators, Representitive, and you can leave comments.
Keep track of your Congressmen/women and let them know what you think of their voting record.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
CA- Women gives birth to a Litter of 8 babies
What Gives Los Angeles? Didn’t pet sterilization become law in this California City because of a perceived dog and cat overpopulation problem? It was only 1 year ago that Bob Barker was jubilantly proclaiming, “The next time 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’.” And City Officials were saying “Los Angeles animal shelters took in 50,000 cats and dogs last year and euthanized approximately 15,000 at a cost of $2 million”- as if that is the measure of Overpopulation.
According to the quote above from the Los Angeles city officials, 30% of the animals brought to the shelter were euthanized (so 70% must have been adopted). Well according the National Data Analysis System, 81,174 children (in the state of California) were in “Out-of-Home Care”- in the custody of Child Welfare. Only 7,490 children (in the State of California) were adopted through a public agency- Less than 10% of the children were adopted. Well you didn’t euthanize them- so they are still costing money- are you calling this an overpopulation problem?
Mr. Barker and City officials- The number of human multiple births has increased over the last decades. According to the U.S. Natality Files in 1980, the total number of multiple births in the United States was 69,676 and increased to 101,709 in 1995, which represents a 46% increase in multiple births between these two time periods. Even though this evidence was for a study done in 1995, it still indicates that multiples have been increasing, and because of this the risks are becoming more of a concern for the mothers and fetuses of multiples. (From wikipedia)
Babies from multiple births are usually born premature, have a low birth weight, have and increased risk of cerebral palsy, and other health problems. These babies have extended hospital stays and often long-term heath care issues.
In the highly public case of Jon & Kate (plus 8), he lost his job because of the amount of work tending to a “litter of 6”. Good thing Americans are so voyeuristic and this family was able to make a living out of exploiting the family situation on Television.
Passing Spay/neuter laws for dogs and cats is a waste of time. Dogs and Cats are not the problem. Spend your time on issues that matter.
According to the quote above from the Los Angeles city officials, 30% of the animals brought to the shelter were euthanized (so 70% must have been adopted). Well according the National Data Analysis System, 81,174 children (in the state of California) were in “Out-of-Home Care”- in the custody of Child Welfare. Only 7,490 children (in the State of California) were adopted through a public agency- Less than 10% of the children were adopted. Well you didn’t euthanize them- so they are still costing money- are you calling this an overpopulation problem?
Mr. Barker and City officials- The number of human multiple births has increased over the last decades. According to the U.S. Natality Files in 1980, the total number of multiple births in the United States was 69,676 and increased to 101,709 in 1995, which represents a 46% increase in multiple births between these two time periods. Even though this evidence was for a study done in 1995, it still indicates that multiples have been increasing, and because of this the risks are becoming more of a concern for the mothers and fetuses of multiples. (From wikipedia)
Babies from multiple births are usually born premature, have a low birth weight, have and increased risk of cerebral palsy, and other health problems. These babies have extended hospital stays and often long-term heath care issues.
In the highly public case of Jon & Kate (plus 8), he lost his job because of the amount of work tending to a “litter of 6”. Good thing Americans are so voyeuristic and this family was able to make a living out of exploiting the family situation on Television.
Passing Spay/neuter laws for dogs and cats is a waste of time. Dogs and Cats are not the problem. Spend your time on issues that matter.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
MN-Breeder Bills up for Consideration on Jan.27
Friday, January 23, 2009]
Two Minnesota Senate proposals, SF 7 and SF 201, each featuring different breeder regulation proposals, will be heard on Tuesday, January 27, by the Senate Agriculture and Veterans Affairs Committee. It is vitally important that all responsible dog breeders and owners in Minnesota attend Tuesday’s committee hearing to express their positions on these bills or contact the committee members prior to the committee hearing to express their concerns with these bills.
SENATE FILE 7
Sponsored by Senator Don Betzold, SF 7 seeks to establish strict regulatory requirements for breeders, to require inspections of breeders’ facilities, and to impose undisclosed fee increases upon breeders. The proposed changes in this bill include:
Changing the definition of "breeder" to those who own 6 or more intact adult females, defined as any dog over 24 weeks old, for breeding purposes and who are engaged in the business of direct or indirect sale or exchange.
Limiting, by July 2010, the number of dogs a breeder may keep at a facility for the purpose of breeding to 50.
Requiring all breeders to obtain an annual license for each facility they own and operate. Additionally, the statement must include the number of adult dogs and the estimated number of puppies to be kept, housed, and maintained at the facility for the year. Licenses must be prominently displayed in each facility.
Mandating all breeders to pay an undisclosed fee to register their facility.
Calling for the annual inspection of each facility, with no advance notice required.
Imposing strict requirements for breeders beyond current federal and local laws and regulations.
If passed and signed into law, the changes proposed in this legislation would have a significant, negative impact on dog breeders in Minnesota. The changes proposed in Senate Bill 7 are impractical, costly, and unenforceable: Most importantly, will not improve the quality of life for dogs in Minnesota. It is imperative that breeders and concerned dog owners contact their senator and committee members to express their opposition to Senate Bill 7.
SENATE FILE 201
Sponsored by Senator Steve Dille, this bill seeks to provide for the registration of, and standards of care applicable to, dog and cat breeders in Minnesota. Substantially different from SF 7, SF 201 seeks to:
Permit animal control authorities to charge dog breeders unidentified "reasonable" fees for registration.
Define "breeder" as someone other than a hobby breeder, who is engaged in the business of breeding animals for sale and who possesses 20 or more intact adult females for the purposes of breeding.
Defines "hobby breeder" as someone who is engaged in the business of breeding animals for direct sale and who possesses less than 10 intact adult females for the purpose of breeding. It is unclear how those owning between 11-19 intact adult females would be regulated.
Require breeders to register, by March 1, 2010, with the local animal control authority. Registration is required every four years thereafter.
Allow breeders the option of complying with USDA care standards or complying with standards issued by the Commissioner of Agriculture.
Limit investigations to only those instances when a formal complaint alleging violations of standards of care is received by the Minnesota Board of Animal Health, a local animal control authority, a peace officer, or a feedlot inspector.
Allow breeders 30 days after notification to correct any violations found during an investigation.
Permit seizure of affected animals only in cases where a breeder has not corrected a violation after 30 days and only if such violations threaten the health and welfare of an animal.
AKC is concerned with several provisions contained in SF 201, including, but not limited to: the threshold discrepancy between the definitions to "breeder" and "hobby breeder"; the undetermined fee to be charged for dog breeders to register with local animal control authorities; and the potential that, if breeders opt to adhere to regulatory standards of care issued by the Commissioner, such standards may be unreasonable and onerous without public input.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Attend the Agriculture and Veterans Committee hearing on Tuesday, January 27, 2009, at 3:00 p.m. and express your positions on these bills. The hearing will be held at:
Minnesota State Capitol Building
Room 107
75 Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Contact your State Senator to express your opposition. To find your Senator, click here.
Contact the members of the Minnesota Senate Agriculture and Veterans Committee to express your opposition.
Chairman: Jim Vickerman
(651) 296-5650
Click here to contact Chairman Vickerman
Vice-Chair: Sharon Erickson Ropes
(651) 296-5649
sen.sharon.erickson.ropes@senate.mn
Ranking Minority Member: Steve Dille
(651) 296-4131
sen.steve.dille@senate.mn
Satveer Chaudhary
(651) 296-4334
sen.satveer.chaudhary@senate.mn
Lisa Fobbe
(651) 296-8075
sen.lisa.fobbe@senate.mn
Joe Gimse
(651) 296-3826
sen.joe.gimse@senate.mn
David Hann
(651) 296-1749
Click here to contact Senator Hann
Bill Ingebrigtsen
(651) 297-8063
sen.bill.ingebrigtsen@senate.mn
Paul Koering
(651) 296-4875
sen.paul.koering@senate.mn
Gary Kubly
(651) 296-5094
sen.gary.kubly@senate.mn
Keith Langseth
(651) 296-3205
Click here to contact Senator Langseth
Tony Lourey
(651) 296-0293
sen.tony.lourey@senate.mn
Steve Murphy
(651) 296-0293
Click here to contact Senator Murphy
Rod Skoe
(651) 296-4196
sen.rod.skoe@senate.mn
Dan Skogen
(651) 296-5655
sen.dan.skogen@senate.mn
Two Minnesota Senate proposals, SF 7 and SF 201, each featuring different breeder regulation proposals, will be heard on Tuesday, January 27, by the Senate Agriculture and Veterans Affairs Committee. It is vitally important that all responsible dog breeders and owners in Minnesota attend Tuesday’s committee hearing to express their positions on these bills or contact the committee members prior to the committee hearing to express their concerns with these bills.
SENATE FILE 7
Sponsored by Senator Don Betzold, SF 7 seeks to establish strict regulatory requirements for breeders, to require inspections of breeders’ facilities, and to impose undisclosed fee increases upon breeders. The proposed changes in this bill include:
Changing the definition of "breeder" to those who own 6 or more intact adult females, defined as any dog over 24 weeks old, for breeding purposes and who are engaged in the business of direct or indirect sale or exchange.
Limiting, by July 2010, the number of dogs a breeder may keep at a facility for the purpose of breeding to 50.
Requiring all breeders to obtain an annual license for each facility they own and operate. Additionally, the statement must include the number of adult dogs and the estimated number of puppies to be kept, housed, and maintained at the facility for the year. Licenses must be prominently displayed in each facility.
Mandating all breeders to pay an undisclosed fee to register their facility.
Calling for the annual inspection of each facility, with no advance notice required.
Imposing strict requirements for breeders beyond current federal and local laws and regulations.
If passed and signed into law, the changes proposed in this legislation would have a significant, negative impact on dog breeders in Minnesota. The changes proposed in Senate Bill 7 are impractical, costly, and unenforceable: Most importantly, will not improve the quality of life for dogs in Minnesota. It is imperative that breeders and concerned dog owners contact their senator and committee members to express their opposition to Senate Bill 7.
SENATE FILE 201
Sponsored by Senator Steve Dille, this bill seeks to provide for the registration of, and standards of care applicable to, dog and cat breeders in Minnesota. Substantially different from SF 7, SF 201 seeks to:
Permit animal control authorities to charge dog breeders unidentified "reasonable" fees for registration.
Define "breeder" as someone other than a hobby breeder, who is engaged in the business of breeding animals for sale and who possesses 20 or more intact adult females for the purposes of breeding.
Defines "hobby breeder" as someone who is engaged in the business of breeding animals for direct sale and who possesses less than 10 intact adult females for the purpose of breeding. It is unclear how those owning between 11-19 intact adult females would be regulated.
Require breeders to register, by March 1, 2010, with the local animal control authority. Registration is required every four years thereafter.
Allow breeders the option of complying with USDA care standards or complying with standards issued by the Commissioner of Agriculture.
Limit investigations to only those instances when a formal complaint alleging violations of standards of care is received by the Minnesota Board of Animal Health, a local animal control authority, a peace officer, or a feedlot inspector.
Allow breeders 30 days after notification to correct any violations found during an investigation.
Permit seizure of affected animals only in cases where a breeder has not corrected a violation after 30 days and only if such violations threaten the health and welfare of an animal.
AKC is concerned with several provisions contained in SF 201, including, but not limited to: the threshold discrepancy between the definitions to "breeder" and "hobby breeder"; the undetermined fee to be charged for dog breeders to register with local animal control authorities; and the potential that, if breeders opt to adhere to regulatory standards of care issued by the Commissioner, such standards may be unreasonable and onerous without public input.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Attend the Agriculture and Veterans Committee hearing on Tuesday, January 27, 2009, at 3:00 p.m. and express your positions on these bills. The hearing will be held at:
Minnesota State Capitol Building
Room 107
75 Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Contact your State Senator to express your opposition. To find your Senator, click here.
Contact the members of the Minnesota Senate Agriculture and Veterans Committee to express your opposition.
Chairman: Jim Vickerman
(651) 296-5650
Click here to contact Chairman Vickerman
Vice-Chair: Sharon Erickson Ropes
(651) 296-5649
sen.sharon.erickson.ropes@senate.mn
Ranking Minority Member: Steve Dille
(651) 296-4131
sen.steve.dille@senate.mn
Satveer Chaudhary
(651) 296-4334
sen.satveer.chaudhary@senate.mn
Lisa Fobbe
(651) 296-8075
sen.lisa.fobbe@senate.mn
Joe Gimse
(651) 296-3826
sen.joe.gimse@senate.mn
David Hann
(651) 296-1749
Click here to contact Senator Hann
Bill Ingebrigtsen
(651) 297-8063
sen.bill.ingebrigtsen@senate.mn
Paul Koering
(651) 296-4875
sen.paul.koering@senate.mn
Gary Kubly
(651) 296-5094
sen.gary.kubly@senate.mn
Keith Langseth
(651) 296-3205
Click here to contact Senator Langseth
Tony Lourey
(651) 296-0293
sen.tony.lourey@senate.mn
Steve Murphy
(651) 296-0293
Click here to contact Senator Murphy
Rod Skoe
(651) 296-4196
sen.rod.skoe@senate.mn
Dan Skogen
(651) 296-5655
sen.dan.skogen@senate.mn
Friday, January 23, 2009
FL- Proposed House Bill HB451 Mandatory Spay/Neuter for dogs and cats and Licensing of Cats
Proposed HB 451
Is a MANDATORY spay/neuter bill and also requires the licensing of cats.
Page 2, Lines 31-35 make false health claims. This bill claims that spaying and neutering have "positive effects, including decreased aggression and temperament problems; reduced risk of cancer;" While the risk of certain cancers is reduced, the risk of other cancers has been shown to increase. Early sterilization dose not provide the body with the proper hormones for full development. Studies are now coming out that are proving an increase in certain cancers as a result. This broad and general statement is misleading to the point where it gives the public a false sense that their dog or cat will not suffer from cancer, where in fact they are more likely to suffer from cancer than if they were spayed or neutered at 12 months of age.
Behavior problems are widespread and have little to do with spaying and neutering. In today's society, most pet dogs are spayed or neutered, yet owners still seek dog trainers to address behavior problems.
Sterilization at 4 months of age (12 weeks) is dangerous to the growth and development of dogs and cats and laws such as these clearly demonstrate lawmakers lack of canine development.
It is proven that dogs that are spayed and neutered at young ages grow longer than dogs and cats that are spayed after physical development has occurred. Dogs are not reproductively viable until 6 months of age, and growth slows down at 5 months of age so 12 weeks is excessive and dangerous to the health of dogs and cats.
Take action now. If you are not a resident of FL- you should still contact your US Congressmen/women and US House Representative and let them know you are concerned with the laws being proposed around the country.
Is a MANDATORY spay/neuter bill and also requires the licensing of cats.
Page 2, Lines 31-35 make false health claims. This bill claims that spaying and neutering have "positive effects, including decreased aggression and temperament problems; reduced risk of cancer;" While the risk of certain cancers is reduced, the risk of other cancers has been shown to increase. Early sterilization dose not provide the body with the proper hormones for full development. Studies are now coming out that are proving an increase in certain cancers as a result. This broad and general statement is misleading to the point where it gives the public a false sense that their dog or cat will not suffer from cancer, where in fact they are more likely to suffer from cancer than if they were spayed or neutered at 12 months of age.
Behavior problems are widespread and have little to do with spaying and neutering. In today's society, most pet dogs are spayed or neutered, yet owners still seek dog trainers to address behavior problems.
Sterilization at 4 months of age (12 weeks) is dangerous to the growth and development of dogs and cats and laws such as these clearly demonstrate lawmakers lack of canine development.
It is proven that dogs that are spayed and neutered at young ages grow longer than dogs and cats that are spayed after physical development has occurred. Dogs are not reproductively viable until 6 months of age, and growth slows down at 5 months of age so 12 weeks is excessive and dangerous to the health of dogs and cats.
Take action now. If you are not a resident of FL- you should still contact your US Congressmen/women and US House Representative and let them know you are concerned with the laws being proposed around the country.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
MT- Breed Specific Legislation to be considered Tomorrow!
MT BSL Bill to be Considered Thursday, Jan 22!
Print This Article
[Monday, January 19, 2009]
Montana House Bill 191–which, with little exception, seeks to prohibit the ownership, harboring, or keeping of dogs described as "pit bulls"–is scheduled for consideration by the House Local Government Committee on Thursday, January 22, at 3PM, in room 172 of the capitol building, 1301 East Sixth Avenue in Helena. The American Kennel Club encourages all Montanans to contact the committee members listed below and express their respectful yet strong opposition to this draconian bill.
The bill, which prohibits the ownership, harboring, or keeping of dogs described as "pit bulls", defines "pit bulls" to include Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and "any dog that has the physical characteristics that substantially conform to the standards established for those breeds by the American Kennel Club." If the bill is passed and signed into law, all such dogs would be seized and euthanized.
The American Kennel Club strongly opposes any legislation, like HB 191, that determines a dog to be "dangerous" based on specific breeds or phenotypic classes of dogs. Instead, we support 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. AKC believes that Montana’s existing breed-neutral law should remain the effective law of the state.
RESOURCES:
For tips on contacting Montana's legislature, including an online e-mail form, click here.
For a downloadable copy of our Disagree Diplomatically brochure, click here.
For a sample customizable letter of opposition, click here.
All letters should be addressed to:
Representative ______________
Montana House of Representatives
P.O. Box 200400
Helena, MT 59620-0400
Members of the Montana House Local Government Committee:
Representative Elsie Arntzen, Chair
Representative Betsy Hands, Vice Chair
Representative Gary MacLaren, Vice Chair
Representative Arlene Becker
Representative Gerald Bennett
Representative Tom Berry
Representative Robyn Driscoll
Representative Bob Ebinger
Representative Wanda Grinde
Representative Robin Hamilton
Representative Pat Ingraham
Representative Mike Menahan
Representative Michael More
Representative Scott Reichner
Representative Michele Reinhart
Representative Diane Sands
Representative Wayne Stahl
Representative Gordon Vance
For a copy of HB 191, Click here
For a downloadable copy of our Deed, Not Breed flyer, click here.
For more information, please contact AKC's Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.
Print This Article
[Monday, January 19, 2009]
Montana House Bill 191–which, with little exception, seeks to prohibit the ownership, harboring, or keeping of dogs described as "pit bulls"–is scheduled for consideration by the House Local Government Committee on Thursday, January 22, at 3PM, in room 172 of the capitol building, 1301 East Sixth Avenue in Helena. The American Kennel Club encourages all Montanans to contact the committee members listed below and express their respectful yet strong opposition to this draconian bill.
The bill, which prohibits the ownership, harboring, or keeping of dogs described as "pit bulls", defines "pit bulls" to include Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and "any dog that has the physical characteristics that substantially conform to the standards established for those breeds by the American Kennel Club." If the bill is passed and signed into law, all such dogs would be seized and euthanized.
The American Kennel Club strongly opposes any legislation, like HB 191, that determines a dog to be "dangerous" based on specific breeds or phenotypic classes of dogs. Instead, we support 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. AKC believes that Montana’s existing breed-neutral law should remain the effective law of the state.
RESOURCES:
For tips on contacting Montana's legislature, including an online e-mail form, click here.
For a downloadable copy of our Disagree Diplomatically brochure, click here.
For a sample customizable letter of opposition, click here.
All letters should be addressed to:
Representative ______________
Montana House of Representatives
P.O. Box 200400
Helena, MT 59620-0400
Members of the Montana House Local Government Committee:
Representative Elsie Arntzen, Chair
Representative Betsy Hands, Vice Chair
Representative Gary MacLaren, Vice Chair
Representative Arlene Becker
Representative Gerald Bennett
Representative Tom Berry
Representative Robyn Driscoll
Representative Bob Ebinger
Representative Wanda Grinde
Representative Robin Hamilton
Representative Pat Ingraham
Representative Mike Menahan
Representative Michael More
Representative Scott Reichner
Representative Michele Reinhart
Representative Diane Sands
Representative Wayne Stahl
Representative Gordon Vance
For a copy of HB 191, Click here
For a downloadable copy of our Deed, Not Breed flyer, click here.
For more information, please contact AKC's Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.
IL- Breeders Bill Limits Dog Ownership, Unreasonably Restricts Breeders
[Wednesday, January 21, 2009]
Representative John Fritchey is sponsoring HB 198, a bill that would regulate dog breeders by limiting the number of dogs they can own and requiring licensing for anyone who maintains three or more females (even if they are not bred) "for the purpose of the sale of their offspring." The bill would also mandate unannounced inspections, fingerprinting, and require breeders to pay an unspecified license fee. It is important that ALL fanciers, responsible dog owners, and breeders work together to oppose this burdensome and ineffective legislation.
The bill consists of 45 pages of requirements and regulations that are not based on proven animal husbandry practices, nor will they improve the health and welfare of dogs in Illinois.
Breeders would be prohibited from owning more than 20 intact dogs over a year old, regardless of whether the animals are being bred.
Breeders, defined as anyone who owns more than 3 breeding females and sells their offspring, would be required to:
Submit to an annual, unannounced home inspection – for an unspecified fee.
Undergo fingerprinting and criminal background checks – for an unspecified fee.
Build facilities to meet rigid engineering standards which exceed those required by the USDA. This will require most breeders to purchase expensive new equipment and build new facilities.
Breed only dogs between 18 months and 8 years of age.
Correct any deficiencies within 7 days or dispose of all intact animals at an animal control facility, a licensed Illinois shelter or have them euthanized by a veterinarian.
File detailed annual reports with the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation.
Provide specified disclosures to puppy purchasers.
Comply with any additional regulations drafted by the department.
The requirements in HB 198 are completely unreasonable for persons breeding dogs. Most of these requirements have no bearing on the ability of a person to produce healthy, well-cared-for pets. The way HB 198 is written, a breeder would have to comply with these requirements even if fewer than three females were bred in a year. It would even affect a breeder/owner who did not have a single litter!
The Department of Financial and Professional Regulation is not equipped to hire and train inspectors who are familiar with animal husbandry. Under current law, animal control authorities have the power to investigate suspected animal cruelty and we strongly support enforcement of those laws. This would be a better use of taxpayer funds and would more effectively address animal welfare concerns.
Representative John Fritchey is sponsoring HB 198, a bill that would regulate dog breeders by limiting the number of dogs they can own and requiring licensing for anyone who maintains three or more females (even if they are not bred) "for the purpose of the sale of their offspring." The bill would also mandate unannounced inspections, fingerprinting, and require breeders to pay an unspecified license fee. It is important that ALL fanciers, responsible dog owners, and breeders work together to oppose this burdensome and ineffective legislation.
The bill consists of 45 pages of requirements and regulations that are not based on proven animal husbandry practices, nor will they improve the health and welfare of dogs in Illinois.
Breeders would be prohibited from owning more than 20 intact dogs over a year old, regardless of whether the animals are being bred.
Breeders, defined as anyone who owns more than 3 breeding females and sells their offspring, would be required to:
Submit to an annual, unannounced home inspection – for an unspecified fee.
Undergo fingerprinting and criminal background checks – for an unspecified fee.
Build facilities to meet rigid engineering standards which exceed those required by the USDA. This will require most breeders to purchase expensive new equipment and build new facilities.
Breed only dogs between 18 months and 8 years of age.
Correct any deficiencies within 7 days or dispose of all intact animals at an animal control facility, a licensed Illinois shelter or have them euthanized by a veterinarian.
File detailed annual reports with the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation.
Provide specified disclosures to puppy purchasers.
Comply with any additional regulations drafted by the department.
The requirements in HB 198 are completely unreasonable for persons breeding dogs. Most of these requirements have no bearing on the ability of a person to produce healthy, well-cared-for pets. The way HB 198 is written, a breeder would have to comply with these requirements even if fewer than three females were bred in a year. It would even affect a breeder/owner who did not have a single litter!
The Department of Financial and Professional Regulation is not equipped to hire and train inspectors who are familiar with animal husbandry. Under current law, animal control authorities have the power to investigate suspected animal cruelty and we strongly support enforcement of those laws. This would be a better use of taxpayer funds and would more effectively address animal welfare concerns.
What to Do When Animal Rights Legislation Comes to Your Town
What Can You Do If Spay/Neuter Mandate Comes To Your Town?
Also Breed-Specific Laws, Pet Limits, Tethering Bans
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
_http://www.american sportingdogallia nce.org_
(http://www.american sportingdogallia nce.org/)
_asda@csonline. net_ (mailto:asda@csonline. net)
This report is archived at:
_http://eaglerock814 .proboards107. com/index. cgi?action= display&board= general&thread=15_
It can be a terrifying experience for dog owners when animal rights
legislation surfaces in the municipality where they live, and it’s a pretty
sure bet that someday soon it will happen to you.
You will feel powerless. You will be very scared. You will feel like a
victim of violence, and that is precisely what you are. The law is a loaded
weapon, and you know it can be pointed at you and the animals you love. You also know that animal rights extremists want to point that gun at you and your dogs, and pull the trigger.
No dog owner can feel safe from these legal attacks. Within the past year,
animal rights ordinances have arisen in communities as diverse as affluent
Santa Barbara, rural Greene County, TN, small towns and farm country in
Ohio, and inner city Chicago. It is fair to say that proposed ordinances that will harm you and your dogs will come to your community in the very near future. There is no escaping it.
This report is meant to be a clear and concise guide to defending yourself.
Protecting your rights won’t be easy, but it can be done. I speak as a dog
owner, professional dog trainer, and as an experienced activist working to
protect dog owners’ rights.
However, I am speaking mostly from the background of 20 years as a reporter and editor on daily newspapers. During that time, I watched hundreds of local political issues rise and fall. I learned what works, and what doesn’t. I have seen how small special interest groups can impose their will on an entire community, and I have seen what people can do to stop them. I also have learned the kinds of political mistakes people have made that have allowed special interest groups, such as animal rights groups, to win. I have seen what it takes to beat them.
The first thing you must understand fully is that you will have two strikes
against you by the time you even learn about impending animal rights
legislation.
Animal rights groups are pros. They know exactly what they are doing. They have the backing of powerful, wealthy, skilled and experienced national organizations, such as the radical Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), which has nothing to do with local humane societies and exists only as a political weapon to push for the elimination of animal ownership in America. These groups are very well organized, have money to burn and have been working behind the scenes for several years in your community.
By the time you realize that something is happening, the animal rights
groups will be close to the goal line. They will have the ordinance drafted,
with guidance from HSUS. They will have formed a “citizen’s committee” that has had the ear of local officials for months, if not years. They will have
controlled relevant data that officials need to make an informed decision,
and carefully hidden any inconvenient facts. They also will have made alliances with local news reporters, and the press is likely to be against you.
While there may be only 50 or fewer animal rights activists involved in most communities, they are truly dedicated to their beliefs. They write letters. They show up at meetings. They contact elected officials. They have money set aside. They have contacts with many other groups in your state and nearby communities, and can turn out 100 people at a meeting masquerading as locals to create the illusion of public support.
In contrast, you and other dog owners are alone. Only a few of you know
about what’s happening, and many of you will be afraid to step forward. You
are not organized. You have no effective means of communication. You do not have access to facts and statistics that tell the truth. You don’t know how to reach elected officials, have been iced out of the phony “citizen’s group,” and you don’t have contacts in the news media.
If that isn’t enough, you will be portrayed as pure evil. You will be lied
about, slandered and accused of things you would never even dream of doing. While you will be innocent of all of the accusations, you will find yourself on the defensive. The most difficult thing for a person to do is to prove her or his innocence, even if the allegations against them are completely absurd.
The accuser always has the upper hand.
It sounds hopeless, doesn’t it?
But it’s not.
You have one ally that the animal rights groups will never have. The truth
is on your side. Your job is to find the truth and communicate it effectively to local officials.
Six Absolute Rules
Here are six absolute rules that I have learned from 20 years of journalism,
and an equal amount of time as an activist on animal and constitutional
issues:
* You have to do it yourself. No one else will do it for you. No
national or statewide organization can win your fight, including our
organization. We can help you. We can give you information, statistics and research findings. We can help you organize and network with other local dog owners. We can tell you about the experiences of other communities. We can give you many bullets to take to the war. But only you can do it. Our job is to stand behind you and support your efforts.
* Local officials care only about one group of people: Local
residents. They care about the people they represent and serve, and they
couldn’t care less about outsiders. They care about the people who can actually vote for or against them. In local issues, only local people count. You must stand up and be counted. You need to bring together other local dog owners who also are willing to stand up and be counted.
* To bring people together, you must completely set aside your
personal insecurities and biases about race, ethnic heritage and economic
status. Every dog owner in your community is in this together. If you don’t hang together, you will hang separately. Never forget that a key part of the
animal rights strategy is to divide dog owners from each other, so that all can be conquered. There is no room for elitism of any kind when an animal rights ordinance is introduced.
* You need friends – lots of friends. That means that people who
actually live in your community must show support, even if the issue doesn’t directly affect them. You need people who have only one or two dogs, but respect your right to raise dogs. You need people who hate dogs, but respect your decision to love them. You need local veterinarians and the owners of local feed and pet stores. You need local businesses that rely on people who travel with pets. You need people who love freedom, and know that an attack on your freedom paves the way for an attack on their own.
* Some of the best friends you can have are local and statewide
organizations for sportsmen and firearms owners, even if you don’t hunt and won’t own a gun. These groups will have dozens if not hundreds of local members, and they already have set up excellent communications channels for their members and supporters. They will be on your side. Sportsmen understand the real agenda of animal rights groups, and gun owners understand the link between animal rights and gun control. In rural areas, alliances with farm organizations also are very important.
* And you should always take the high road. There is no substitute for
honesty and integrity. Always speak the truth. Never resort to dirty tricks.
If you stay on the ethical high ground, you will quickly set yourselves
apart from the animal rights groups, which rely on lies, distortions,
secrecy and innuendos. Many political battles are won by the side that displays the most credibility, and credibility is based on honesty and integrity. If you keep those six absolute rules firmly in mind, you are well on your way to protecting your rights as dog owners in your community. In every community in America where animal rights groups have won a political battle, dog owners have broken one or more of those rules.
What To Do?
Given those rules, what should you do?
The first step is to reach out to other local dog owners, both to inform
them and also to ask for their assistance. Here’s how:
* Call everyone you know who owns a dog, used to own a dog, or who
hunts, fishes or owns firearms. Specifically ask them to help, ask them what
they are willing to do, and write it down. Don’t be shy. Get on the phone
and burn leather.
* Search the Yellow Pages and Internet for local kennels, breeders and
pet services. Contact them. Local kennel clubs and field trial clubs often
provide good contact information for officers, members, breeders and judges. Write, email or phone club secretaries and ask them for help.
* When you get a few good people committed, organize a local dog
owners association. It doesn’t have to be formal or highly organized. Simply
put together a basic structure, and invite people to join. Membership should be free. If you occasionally need a little money, “passing the hat” works fine. Organize your group quickly, without delay. A local organization will be heard more easily than individual people going off in different directions. You don’t have to incorporate or become a non-profit. This is still America, and citizens have a right to form and participate in political groups. Just do it, and do it now.
* Create a website for your association with one of the free services,
such as Yahoo Geocities or Bravenet. You don’t have to know anything about building websites. They have “paint by numbers” templates. On the website, describe the organization, write about what is happening, and add a blog or message board for breaking news. Get a free email address from Yahoo, Hotmail, Gmail or other services. Use it.
* Publicize your website by posting short articles on Internet message
boards that cover your area, dogs, hunting and guns. Ask people who read
these message boards to pass the word along to their friends who live in or
near your community, and to crosspost your announcement on other boards.
* Get the word out in the community. Create simple posters with
contact information (copy paper will do) for supportive businesses to put in
their windows. Don’t be shy about asking for help or asking people to contact your organization. Hang posters in stores and veterinarians’ offices. Hang them in every part of town, and in every neighborhood. Post them on laundromat and grocery store bulletin boards, in union halls and fraternal organizations, and in churches and libraries. If you can get some help, pass out a few hundred in the local Wal-Mart parking lot or at community events.
* Pass the hat (or dig into your own wallet) and run inexpensive
classified ads in your local newspaper or swap sheet. Ads in the pets or
announcements sections are appropriate. A fifty-dollar- bill can reach
thousands of people this way. Also, see if your community has an online classifieds board, and use it. Many are free.
* Support and work with a national and/or statewide dog owners’ rights
organization. Most importantly, ask them to help you. National organizations can be invaluable sources of advice and counsel, know what has and has not worked in other communities, have access to important documents, studies and statistics that can help you, and have a large number of contacts in every state. They can help you get the word out, gain support and locate local dog owners. Consider these organizations as valuable resources to support you. Good organizations exist for the sole purpose of helping you.
* Look specifically for local veterinarians and attorneys, especially
if they own or raise dogs. Ask veterinarians to write letters opposing the
proposed ordinance (many will refuse, but probably most will not). Ask
attorneys to offer their services without charge to review the legality of
the ordinance, and put their comments in writing. If any of you are members of the local Chamber of Commerce, formally ask for their support (remember that pet owners pour a lot of money into local businesses. It is an economic issue, too.). Tourism organizations also may be appropriate, if your community hosts visiting hunters, or dog show or field trial participants. For tourists, it is important to have the image of being a “pet-friendly” community.
* An important tool is the simple fact that a large majority of
residents of your community will be on your side. Your task is to prove it.
Informal petitions are vital, because it will give you a long list of
community residents who oppose an ordinance. These should be presented to elected officials at an opportune time. The petitions do not have to meet the legal requirements for a petition for an election. They simply will show elected officials that a large number of local (repeat, local) people are on your side. People should sign, and then print out their names and addresses.
* And your most important weapon is the truth. The animal rights
groups will lie through their teeth to paint a false picture of a community
crisis. You must respond with the truth, and have the facts and figures to
back it up. Finding and assembling accurate information is a vital part of your arsenal. At this point, you will be ready to take your case to the local
news media.
If you follow those steps, you will develop a core group of activists and a
list of hundreds if not thousands of local people who are on your side.
Local residents who support you will include dog owners, their neighbors,
veterinarians, attorneys, business people and community leaders.
What You’ll Face
The animal rights groups will have laid the foundation for a destructive
ordinance long before you ever know about it. They won’t play fair. They won’t tell the truth.
Here is what to do:
· Most likely, your community’s animal rights activists will assemble around an existing organization, and may have even taken over the
leadership of that organization. This could include local humane societies,
rescue groups, and pet disaster response groups.
Many of them also will have ties to national groups, such as HSUS, People
for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and radical vegan vegetarian groups. You must learn the identities of local animal rights activists, research their ties to national groups, and then learn about the agenda of those groups. Don’t avoid these people. Meet them.
Introduce yourself. Flat out ask them their beliefs and affiliations with
animal rights groups. Many of them are proud of these affiliations. The
profile you develop will be important to present to elected officials at the right time. Rescue and sheltering organizations also have to learn a hard lesson. Dog owners are their major source of their support, and it is unwise to bite the hand that feeds you.
· Most likely, local animal rights activists will have formed some
sort of committee or task force. People who raise dogs will not be allowed
to participate. Probably they have been working for years to manufacture a
crisis in your community, have met with elected and/or appointed municipal officials several times, have painted themselves as a concerned citizens group to conceal their real agenda, have drafted an ordinance in cooperation with HSUS as a silent partner, and have found at least one sympathetic elected official to support and introduce the ordinance. Your job will be to prove that this group does not reflect the sentiments of the vast majority of residents of your community. You also will be able to prove that this group (and the participation of municipal officials) violates the spirit if not the letter of state open meetings laws or “sunshine laws.” It is an end-run around the concept of public accountability and transparency.
· You will need to be able to counter every one of their allegations
with the truth. If they say your community is full of “puppy mills,” for
example, you will need to learn exactly how many (if any) commercial kennels really exist. You will need to know how many (if any) have ever been cited for violating any kind of kennel or animal cruelty law. All violations a re matters of public record, and the information can be readily obtained. If they claim there is a problem with “pet overpopulation” in your community, you will need to obtain complete animal control statistics for several years, which also are public record. The simple facts will reduce the animal rights allegations to shambles.
· You also need to counter their outrageous allegations with a thorough knowledge of existing animal laws in your state, county and local
municipality. For example, if a lot of loose dogs are picked up in certain
neighborhoods, they may claim that the solution is a spay/neuter mandate. In reality, your community probably already has a leash law that is not being enforced. You must clearly point out a solution that fits the problem.
· You also must be able to counter the animal rights groups’ propaganda. You need to have access to documentation that similar ordinances
in other communities always have increased shelter admissions and euthanasia rates, always have led to a decrease in license law compliance and revenues to operate animal control programs, and always have led to a decline in rabies vaccinations because veterinarians are required to turn over information about each dog to local authorities. In addition, you must be able to refute the animal rights groups’ claims that pet sterilization is completely safe. The bulk of the most recent research has shown increases in serious and sometimes fatal health conditions caused by spaying or neutering, especially at a young age, and the national association for veterinary reproductive specialists has come out firmly against spay/neuter mandates for this reason. In addition, these mandates violate the doctor/patient relationship, and also the veterinary code of ethics in many states.
· The essence of all animal rights legislation is making innocent
and law-abiding animal owners pay for the sins of the tiny minority of
people who flaunt the law. That is because their goal is not to solve a problem. Their goal is to make it difficult for you to continue to raise or own dogs. You must answer with the facts, showing how existing laws and appropriate enforcement of those laws actually will solve whatever problems your community may be experiencing.
· A very common animal rights tactic is to take an isolated bad
situation, and then try to convince elected officials that it is the norm
and all dog owners need to be intensively regulated. For example, if someone in your community has been arrested for horrible violations of animal cruelty laws, the animal rights groups will claim that this is justification for more and stricter laws for all dog owners. The truth is that the arrest and conviction prove that existing laws are working very well. This is a point you must make repeatedly, until the truth sinks in.
· They will not fight fair. Animal rights groups tend to focus on
several communities in a state at the same time. If you start seeing a lot
of news stories about alleged abuses of dogs in your state, you will know that this is a coordinated effort to “spin” reality that was probably
orchestrated by HSUS. They are trying to paint an illusory picture to cause people to think dogs are in crisis, and new laws are needed. The truth once again is that these sensationalized stories prove that existing laws are working. Arrests are made, convictions are obtained, and the animals have been rescued. The laws work. The incidents are not a justification for laws that harm law-abiding and conscientious people.
· They will lie. For example, they will claim that a large number of
dogs entering the local animal shelter are “purebreds,” and that this
justifies laws restricting the ability to raise purebred dogs. But they lie
by not telling you the full story. The full story is that most actual purebreds
enter a shelter because their owners are seeking euthanasia services for
dogs that are very ill, seriously injured or in advanced old age. They also won’t tell you that the few purebred dogs that are picked up escaped confinement and were immediately reclaimed by their owners. They won’t tell you that the few purebreds that are surrendered to the shelter are immediately taken by
rescue
groups, because of the high demand for these dogs. And they won’t tell you
that they call a dog purebred if it looks “more or less” like a recognized
breed. Many of these are labeled “pit bulls,” which is not even a recognized
breed. See for yourself. Simply walk through your local animal shelter a few
times. I can guarantee you that you will see few if any dogs that appear to
be purebreds.
· They also will talk about shelter statistics as proof of the need
for restrictions on purebred dog breeding. They are lying. Walk through your local shelter and you will find few (if any) puppies. There actually is a
serious shortage of puppies in animal shelters, because these are the most
easily adopted dogs. Sheltering organizations must expend considerable
effort trying to talk people into adopting older dogs because of the scarcity of puppies.
· Another way that they will lie is to try to hide the successes of
animal control and sheltering programs, in order to “spin” a false picture
of a crisis. They won’t tell you that national shelter admissions have fallen
almost 60% over the past 15 years, while euthanasia rates have been cut by
75-percent. They won’t tell you that 70-percent of the dogs in America
already are spayed or neutered voluntarily by their owners. They won’t tell you that most shelters in the northeast, upper Midwest and on the West Coast already are close to “no-kill” for healthy and adoptable dogs. You need to learn the truth and make the truth the centerpiece of your rebuttals. To counter these claims, make use of your local and statewide open records laws and “sunshine laws” to get the full facts. Sometimes all you have to do is walk into your local animal control office and ask for them. Other times, these reports are filed with a state agency, and you can obtain them there. We can help you find this documentation.
· They will say awful things about you. They will tar you by creating imaginary links between dog owners and dog fighters. They will link you to
the drug culture and to people who abuse animals. They will accuse serious
and conscientious dog breeders of being “puppy mills” or “backyard
breeders.” Someone who raises animals because he or she loves them will be accused of being a “hoarder.” People who sell puppies will be accused of being greedy, or exploiting animals for profit. People who buy a purebred puppy will be accused of causing the death of a shelter dog. These claims are both absurd and outrageous. We can help you learn how to answer them with the truth.
· Never forget the real agenda of the animal rights groups, which is
to eventually eliminate all animal ownership. They are trying to make people into the guardians of their animals, rather than their owners. This makes animals into wards of the state, rather than private property. This reduces you to proving to the state that you are a fit guardian, and gives the state ultimate control of your animals. Stand up for American values, including the right to honorably seek profit. Don’t buy into the socialist belief that profit equals greed or that you are responsible to “society” for problems you didn’t create, and don’t be afraid to say that many of the leaders of major animal rights groups enjoy their six-figure incomes and multi-million- dollar facilities. They are as phony as a pile of three-dollar bills.
· And spend time studying the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights,
and your state’s constitution and bill of rights. Almost all animal rights
legislation infringes on human rights by denying due process of the law,
equal protection under the law, and protections against illegal searches and
seizures. Quite simply, almost all animal rights legislation is anti-American and reflects Marxist principles of state authority. You need to say this loudly and clearly, because it is the truth. In addition, many state constitutions define a right to own and enjoy private property, and many states have laws that clearly say that animals are private property. Learn the law and educate local elected officials.
Divide and Conquer
A favorite tactic of animal rights activists is to divide dog owners so that
we won’t stand up and fight for each other’s rights. Unfortunately, many
dog owners play right into their hands through a misguided sense of elitism.
Animal rights groups try to make certain categories of dog owners into “
untouchables,” so that other dog owners will be afraid to defend them. They
also will attempt to exploit racial, ethnic, cultural and economic differences and insecurities, which keeps us apart.
Make no mistake about it, animal rights groups are utterly unscrupulous.
Racism is one of their major tools, especially in urban areas. They exploit
fears of crime by talking about dog fighters, links to the drug culture and
“gangbangers” who own “pitbulls.” What they are really doing is exploiting
racial fears and prejudices, sometimes by fanning the flames of naked hatred. The divide and conquer strategy was a major part of what happened last year in Dallas, which passed a tough spay/neuter mandate, and it is happening now in Chicago, which is considering one.
When animal rights groups say “gangbanger,” they actually mean “Black” and “Hispanic.” They say “dogfighting,” but they mean “Black” and “Hispanic.” They say “pitbulls.” They mean “Black” and “Hispanic.” The animal rights activists are using racist implications to manipulate and exploit fear of high crime urban areas, thus dividing dog owners by race and neighborhood. They reduce anyone who is not like them to “those people.”
When it comes to regulating the breeding of dogs, the animal rights groups
usually link “puppy mills” to Amish people, thus encouraging and exploiting
ethnic differences. Conservative Christians who live according to the old
ways are no longer politically correct, and their religious beliefs forbid them from fighting back or filing a defamation of character suit. Some of the
inaccurate and bigoted comments I have heard from animal rights supporters about Amish people sound exactly like what the Ku Klux Klan says about racial minorities. It is hate speech at its worst.
With tethering issues or restrictions on hunting with hounds, they paint a
picture of “redneck” white people who fit every possible stereotype of
hillbilly degenerates. “Crazy old ladies” are fair game, too, under the
label of “hoarder.”
All are reduced to “those people.” They are objectified and dehumanized,
which to the animal rights fanatic is a justification to destroy them and
their way of life.
They try to divide the world between “people like us” and “people like them.
” They know that most people won’t support people that they can’t identify
with. It’s also a dirty trick. It causes too many of us to take our eyes off the
ball, which is how the regulations or laws will affect us and everybody
else.
The animal rights groups say they are targeting dogfighting, puppy mills or
hoarders, but read the fine print. It always will come down to targeting
you. A major goal of dividing us is to make some of us show a willingness to “compromise.” By “compromise,” I mean they are encouraging us to sell out certain kinds of dog owners who fail the political correctness test.
There is no such thing as compromise with animal rights groups, because
everything they stand for requires us to make all of the sacrifices, in order to give them what they want. They have nothing to exchange.
A true compromise is when both sides give up something in order to gain more important things. Animal rights groups have nothing to trade except the gun pointed at your head. They can shoot you in the heart, shoot you in the leg or simply shoot off one of your toes.
Some compromise!
It is like an armed robber who demands your wallet, takes the cash and
offers you a “compromise” of letting you keep your credit cards.
Playing on our fears also means we are not likely to seek support from all
racial, ethnic and economic groups. This was a huge reason why Dallas dog
owners lost their fight to stop a spay/neuter mandate.
Although a majority of Dallas residents are Black or Hispanic, their
assistance was not sought in defeating this ordinance. To put it bluntly,
most of the people who fought against the ordinance were white and of well above average means. They simply were afraid to go into poor neighborhoods, or seek support from Black and Hispanic people.
A majority of the members of Dallas City Council are Black or Hispanic, and
represent districts that are predominantly Black or Hispanic.
To put it even more bluntly, the dog owners they saw at City Council
meetings were upper middle class or wealthy white people. Most of them
raised show dogs, which were portrayed by the animal rights activists as toys for the rich. In contrast, animal rights groups succeeded in portraying themselves as nice people who love animals, when exactly the opposite is true. Thus, dog owners were immediately branded as selfish elitists.
That kind of label is suicide in big city politics, and Chicago dog owners
are close to falling into this trap today.
The irony is that the label is not true. The truth is that dog owners,
including people who raise, show and compete with dogs, extend across all
racial, ethnic, cultural and economic lines. We really are all in it together. If we unite, we can defeat the animal rights extremists. If we fail to unite, we
will lose.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance recognizes that dog owners have failed to bridge ethnic and economic differences. Thus, we are taking immediate and forceful steps to reach out to and support many other groups of dog owners, and have recently added inner city, Black and Hispanic dog ownership advocates to our leadership team.
We have made a formal alliance with a newly forming group called the
National Association of Canine Experts (NICE), which is working to break
down many of the barriers that separate dog owners. NICE founder Ami Moore now is a member of our advisory board, and I am a member of the NICE board.
Ms. Moore is a professional dog trainer from inner city Chicago who has
superb credentials as an obedience and behavioral trainer. She is
articulate, exceptionally intelligent and insightful, and passionately dedicated to preserving the rights of dog owners. Moreover, she is streetwise and as a Black person fully understands how subliminal racism is being used by animal rights groups to divide dog owners, as it has been used to divide Black people from their community in many other ways.
Dog owners everywhere also owe Ms. Moore a debt of gratitude. Animal rights groups went after her personally because she uses electric collars in dog training, as do most professional and amateur trainers everywhere. The
animal rights groups took her to court, alleging that the use of electric collars is animal cruelty. She didn’t back down, fought back through the legal system and won. All charges against her were dismissed and the use of electric collars as a humane training tool was fully exonerated in Illinois.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also has dedicated funds to advertise in
Chicago newspapers to gain support from urban dog owners to fight against
the proposed ordinance. An important part of the strategy that dog owners must learn to use is to be able to state clearly and categorically that we are the mainstream of America.
A reported 37-percent of American households own at least one dog. National polls from mainstream publications, such as Parade Magazine and MSN/NBC news, show that the vast majority of the American people oppose spay/neuter mandates. Opposition was at 91-percent in the recent Parade poll, for example.
Animal rights groups are the real minority, representing less than five
percent of any community, and probably less than one percent in most places. But they are organized and vocal, and they turn out in droves for meetings before elected officials. This has given them the appearance of being a large segment of the community, when that is purely an illusion.
That’s why local dog owners must organized and get a large turnout of their
supporters at municipal meetings.
We are the mainstream. Animal rights groups are the radical fringe.
Elected officials need to know this. So do news reporters.
Dealing With The News Media
Sooner or later (and probably sooner), every local dog owners’ organization
will have to deal with the news media. In many cases, it will not be a
pleasant experience. Animal rights groups have a well-developed strategy of identifying and cultivating friendly contacts in the news media long before an ordinance arises.
All news reporters are under intense and continual pressure on their jobs to
come up with a steady stream of news stories, and also to come up with
stories that will have high sensationalistic appeal to attract readers.
Animal rights groups have learned how to exploit this.
News reporters who are sympathetic to the animal rights groups know that
they will be given leads to many stories every year, as long as they don’t
work too hard to be fair and objective.
In addition, stories about controversial animal issues tend to cause a
strong emotional response with readers, which assures them prominent
placement in newspapers or on TV news shows. Both are important to a reporter’s job security.
The animal rights groups are pros at plucking emotional heartstrings by
their portrayals of animal abuse or euthanasia at the local animal shelter,
and then in using those horrible examples to further their own agenda against every dog owner.
The finger always gets pointed at us, and news reports often are hatchet
jobs on dog owners. Fair and balanced news coverage takes a backseat to
sensationalism and emotional response.
Our problem is that good news is inherently boring. A story about someone
who takes good care of her or his dogs usually is as dull as lukewarm milk.
It lacks drama. It lacks impact. But the news story about the one dog owner in a thousand who is abusive has plenty of drama, impact and reader appeal.
Dog owners’ first recourse should be to appeal to the sense of journalistic
professionalism in some reporters and editors. A worthy news story must be accurate, fair and balanced between opposing points of view. Any story that fails this test is poor journalism.
I strongly believe that dog owners always should take the high road, by
advocating what is right and fair. I don’t think we should use the animal
rights group strategy of trying to manipulate the news through “tame” or personally biased reporters.
Instead, we should formally object to poor reporting to the publisher,
station manager, editors and the parent company of local news outlets.
We also should state our objections in pointed letters to the editor, and
try to convince editors to give us space for an “op ed” column or an equal
time rebuttal to poor news coverage.
In dealing with reporters, it is essential for us to be armed with the
facts. We need to have the correct information, and state our case clearly
and effectively. We also have to be prepared to answer some downright nasty questions, such as: “How can you breed dogs when many dogs are euthanized by animal control.”
We have truthful and honest answers to those kinds of questions, and dog
owners have to be prepared for them. We can help.
The “news value” of a story depends on drama and conflict, which creates
high reader response.
Thus, we must learn to use drama and conflict in an effective and ethical
manner to answer the allegations of animal rights groups.
We must learn to set aside “good manners” and “call a spade a spade.”
That means confronting the lies and distortions of the animal rights groups
with the facts, and sometimes at public meetings we have to be prepared to speak bluntly.
It means objecting to the secrecy of the so-called task force
meeting, talking publicly about the real agenda of the animal rights groups
and their assault on American values, and defending freedom in a clear voice.
Dog owners definitely face a tough fight and a stacked deck when animal
rights ordinances are proposed on a local level. But we believe we have shown how these bad ordinances can be defeated by truth, honesty and integrity.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and
professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We
also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative issues affect all of us.
We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can
continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership,
participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission.
We are funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web at _http://www.american sportingdogalliace.org_
(http://www.american sportingdogallia nce.org/) . Our email is_asda@csonline. net_
(mailto:asda@csonline. net) .
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS
The American Sporting Dog Alliance
_http://www.american sportingdogallia nce.org_
(http://www.american sportingdogallia nce.org/)
Please Join Us
Also Breed-Specific Laws, Pet Limits, Tethering Bans
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
_http://www.american sportingdogallia nce.org_
(http://www.american sportingdogallia nce.org/)
_asda@csonline. net_ (mailto:asda@csonline. net)
This report is archived at:
_http://eaglerock814 .proboards107. com/index. cgi?action= display&board= general&thread=15_
It can be a terrifying experience for dog owners when animal rights
legislation surfaces in the municipality where they live, and it’s a pretty
sure bet that someday soon it will happen to you.
You will feel powerless. You will be very scared. You will feel like a
victim of violence, and that is precisely what you are. The law is a loaded
weapon, and you know it can be pointed at you and the animals you love. You also know that animal rights extremists want to point that gun at you and your dogs, and pull the trigger.
No dog owner can feel safe from these legal attacks. Within the past year,
animal rights ordinances have arisen in communities as diverse as affluent
Santa Barbara, rural Greene County, TN, small towns and farm country in
Ohio, and inner city Chicago. It is fair to say that proposed ordinances that will harm you and your dogs will come to your community in the very near future. There is no escaping it.
This report is meant to be a clear and concise guide to defending yourself.
Protecting your rights won’t be easy, but it can be done. I speak as a dog
owner, professional dog trainer, and as an experienced activist working to
protect dog owners’ rights.
However, I am speaking mostly from the background of 20 years as a reporter and editor on daily newspapers. During that time, I watched hundreds of local political issues rise and fall. I learned what works, and what doesn’t. I have seen how small special interest groups can impose their will on an entire community, and I have seen what people can do to stop them. I also have learned the kinds of political mistakes people have made that have allowed special interest groups, such as animal rights groups, to win. I have seen what it takes to beat them.
The first thing you must understand fully is that you will have two strikes
against you by the time you even learn about impending animal rights
legislation.
Animal rights groups are pros. They know exactly what they are doing. They have the backing of powerful, wealthy, skilled and experienced national organizations, such as the radical Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), which has nothing to do with local humane societies and exists only as a political weapon to push for the elimination of animal ownership in America. These groups are very well organized, have money to burn and have been working behind the scenes for several years in your community.
By the time you realize that something is happening, the animal rights
groups will be close to the goal line. They will have the ordinance drafted,
with guidance from HSUS. They will have formed a “citizen’s committee” that has had the ear of local officials for months, if not years. They will have
controlled relevant data that officials need to make an informed decision,
and carefully hidden any inconvenient facts. They also will have made alliances with local news reporters, and the press is likely to be against you.
While there may be only 50 or fewer animal rights activists involved in most communities, they are truly dedicated to their beliefs. They write letters. They show up at meetings. They contact elected officials. They have money set aside. They have contacts with many other groups in your state and nearby communities, and can turn out 100 people at a meeting masquerading as locals to create the illusion of public support.
In contrast, you and other dog owners are alone. Only a few of you know
about what’s happening, and many of you will be afraid to step forward. You
are not organized. You have no effective means of communication. You do not have access to facts and statistics that tell the truth. You don’t know how to reach elected officials, have been iced out of the phony “citizen’s group,” and you don’t have contacts in the news media.
If that isn’t enough, you will be portrayed as pure evil. You will be lied
about, slandered and accused of things you would never even dream of doing. While you will be innocent of all of the accusations, you will find yourself on the defensive. The most difficult thing for a person to do is to prove her or his innocence, even if the allegations against them are completely absurd.
The accuser always has the upper hand.
It sounds hopeless, doesn’t it?
But it’s not.
You have one ally that the animal rights groups will never have. The truth
is on your side. Your job is to find the truth and communicate it effectively to local officials.
Six Absolute Rules
Here are six absolute rules that I have learned from 20 years of journalism,
and an equal amount of time as an activist on animal and constitutional
issues:
* You have to do it yourself. No one else will do it for you. No
national or statewide organization can win your fight, including our
organization. We can help you. We can give you information, statistics and research findings. We can help you organize and network with other local dog owners. We can tell you about the experiences of other communities. We can give you many bullets to take to the war. But only you can do it. Our job is to stand behind you and support your efforts.
* Local officials care only about one group of people: Local
residents. They care about the people they represent and serve, and they
couldn’t care less about outsiders. They care about the people who can actually vote for or against them. In local issues, only local people count. You must stand up and be counted. You need to bring together other local dog owners who also are willing to stand up and be counted.
* To bring people together, you must completely set aside your
personal insecurities and biases about race, ethnic heritage and economic
status. Every dog owner in your community is in this together. If you don’t hang together, you will hang separately. Never forget that a key part of the
animal rights strategy is to divide dog owners from each other, so that all can be conquered. There is no room for elitism of any kind when an animal rights ordinance is introduced.
* You need friends – lots of friends. That means that people who
actually live in your community must show support, even if the issue doesn’t directly affect them. You need people who have only one or two dogs, but respect your right to raise dogs. You need people who hate dogs, but respect your decision to love them. You need local veterinarians and the owners of local feed and pet stores. You need local businesses that rely on people who travel with pets. You need people who love freedom, and know that an attack on your freedom paves the way for an attack on their own.
* Some of the best friends you can have are local and statewide
organizations for sportsmen and firearms owners, even if you don’t hunt and won’t own a gun. These groups will have dozens if not hundreds of local members, and they already have set up excellent communications channels for their members and supporters. They will be on your side. Sportsmen understand the real agenda of animal rights groups, and gun owners understand the link between animal rights and gun control. In rural areas, alliances with farm organizations also are very important.
* And you should always take the high road. There is no substitute for
honesty and integrity. Always speak the truth. Never resort to dirty tricks.
If you stay on the ethical high ground, you will quickly set yourselves
apart from the animal rights groups, which rely on lies, distortions,
secrecy and innuendos. Many political battles are won by the side that displays the most credibility, and credibility is based on honesty and integrity. If you keep those six absolute rules firmly in mind, you are well on your way to protecting your rights as dog owners in your community. In every community in America where animal rights groups have won a political battle, dog owners have broken one or more of those rules.
What To Do?
Given those rules, what should you do?
The first step is to reach out to other local dog owners, both to inform
them and also to ask for their assistance. Here’s how:
* Call everyone you know who owns a dog, used to own a dog, or who
hunts, fishes or owns firearms. Specifically ask them to help, ask them what
they are willing to do, and write it down. Don’t be shy. Get on the phone
and burn leather.
* Search the Yellow Pages and Internet for local kennels, breeders and
pet services. Contact them. Local kennel clubs and field trial clubs often
provide good contact information for officers, members, breeders and judges. Write, email or phone club secretaries and ask them for help.
* When you get a few good people committed, organize a local dog
owners association. It doesn’t have to be formal or highly organized. Simply
put together a basic structure, and invite people to join. Membership should be free. If you occasionally need a little money, “passing the hat” works fine. Organize your group quickly, without delay. A local organization will be heard more easily than individual people going off in different directions. You don’t have to incorporate or become a non-profit. This is still America, and citizens have a right to form and participate in political groups. Just do it, and do it now.
* Create a website for your association with one of the free services,
such as Yahoo Geocities or Bravenet. You don’t have to know anything about building websites. They have “paint by numbers” templates. On the website, describe the organization, write about what is happening, and add a blog or message board for breaking news. Get a free email address from Yahoo, Hotmail, Gmail or other services. Use it.
* Publicize your website by posting short articles on Internet message
boards that cover your area, dogs, hunting and guns. Ask people who read
these message boards to pass the word along to their friends who live in or
near your community, and to crosspost your announcement on other boards.
* Get the word out in the community. Create simple posters with
contact information (copy paper will do) for supportive businesses to put in
their windows. Don’t be shy about asking for help or asking people to contact your organization. Hang posters in stores and veterinarians’ offices. Hang them in every part of town, and in every neighborhood. Post them on laundromat and grocery store bulletin boards, in union halls and fraternal organizations, and in churches and libraries. If you can get some help, pass out a few hundred in the local Wal-Mart parking lot or at community events.
* Pass the hat (or dig into your own wallet) and run inexpensive
classified ads in your local newspaper or swap sheet. Ads in the pets or
announcements sections are appropriate. A fifty-dollar- bill can reach
thousands of people this way. Also, see if your community has an online classifieds board, and use it. Many are free.
* Support and work with a national and/or statewide dog owners’ rights
organization. Most importantly, ask them to help you. National organizations can be invaluable sources of advice and counsel, know what has and has not worked in other communities, have access to important documents, studies and statistics that can help you, and have a large number of contacts in every state. They can help you get the word out, gain support and locate local dog owners. Consider these organizations as valuable resources to support you. Good organizations exist for the sole purpose of helping you.
* Look specifically for local veterinarians and attorneys, especially
if they own or raise dogs. Ask veterinarians to write letters opposing the
proposed ordinance (many will refuse, but probably most will not). Ask
attorneys to offer their services without charge to review the legality of
the ordinance, and put their comments in writing. If any of you are members of the local Chamber of Commerce, formally ask for their support (remember that pet owners pour a lot of money into local businesses. It is an economic issue, too.). Tourism organizations also may be appropriate, if your community hosts visiting hunters, or dog show or field trial participants. For tourists, it is important to have the image of being a “pet-friendly” community.
* An important tool is the simple fact that a large majority of
residents of your community will be on your side. Your task is to prove it.
Informal petitions are vital, because it will give you a long list of
community residents who oppose an ordinance. These should be presented to elected officials at an opportune time. The petitions do not have to meet the legal requirements for a petition for an election. They simply will show elected officials that a large number of local (repeat, local) people are on your side. People should sign, and then print out their names and addresses.
* And your most important weapon is the truth. The animal rights
groups will lie through their teeth to paint a false picture of a community
crisis. You must respond with the truth, and have the facts and figures to
back it up. Finding and assembling accurate information is a vital part of your arsenal. At this point, you will be ready to take your case to the local
news media.
If you follow those steps, you will develop a core group of activists and a
list of hundreds if not thousands of local people who are on your side.
Local residents who support you will include dog owners, their neighbors,
veterinarians, attorneys, business people and community leaders.
What You’ll Face
The animal rights groups will have laid the foundation for a destructive
ordinance long before you ever know about it. They won’t play fair. They won’t tell the truth.
Here is what to do:
· Most likely, your community’s animal rights activists will assemble around an existing organization, and may have even taken over the
leadership of that organization. This could include local humane societies,
rescue groups, and pet disaster response groups.
Many of them also will have ties to national groups, such as HSUS, People
for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and radical vegan vegetarian groups. You must learn the identities of local animal rights activists, research their ties to national groups, and then learn about the agenda of those groups. Don’t avoid these people. Meet them.
Introduce yourself. Flat out ask them their beliefs and affiliations with
animal rights groups. Many of them are proud of these affiliations. The
profile you develop will be important to present to elected officials at the right time. Rescue and sheltering organizations also have to learn a hard lesson. Dog owners are their major source of their support, and it is unwise to bite the hand that feeds you.
· Most likely, local animal rights activists will have formed some
sort of committee or task force. People who raise dogs will not be allowed
to participate. Probably they have been working for years to manufacture a
crisis in your community, have met with elected and/or appointed municipal officials several times, have painted themselves as a concerned citizens group to conceal their real agenda, have drafted an ordinance in cooperation with HSUS as a silent partner, and have found at least one sympathetic elected official to support and introduce the ordinance. Your job will be to prove that this group does not reflect the sentiments of the vast majority of residents of your community. You also will be able to prove that this group (and the participation of municipal officials) violates the spirit if not the letter of state open meetings laws or “sunshine laws.” It is an end-run around the concept of public accountability and transparency.
· You will need to be able to counter every one of their allegations
with the truth. If they say your community is full of “puppy mills,” for
example, you will need to learn exactly how many (if any) commercial kennels really exist. You will need to know how many (if any) have ever been cited for violating any kind of kennel or animal cruelty law. All violations a re matters of public record, and the information can be readily obtained. If they claim there is a problem with “pet overpopulation” in your community, you will need to obtain complete animal control statistics for several years, which also are public record. The simple facts will reduce the animal rights allegations to shambles.
· You also need to counter their outrageous allegations with a thorough knowledge of existing animal laws in your state, county and local
municipality. For example, if a lot of loose dogs are picked up in certain
neighborhoods, they may claim that the solution is a spay/neuter mandate. In reality, your community probably already has a leash law that is not being enforced. You must clearly point out a solution that fits the problem.
· You also must be able to counter the animal rights groups’ propaganda. You need to have access to documentation that similar ordinances
in other communities always have increased shelter admissions and euthanasia rates, always have led to a decrease in license law compliance and revenues to operate animal control programs, and always have led to a decline in rabies vaccinations because veterinarians are required to turn over information about each dog to local authorities. In addition, you must be able to refute the animal rights groups’ claims that pet sterilization is completely safe. The bulk of the most recent research has shown increases in serious and sometimes fatal health conditions caused by spaying or neutering, especially at a young age, and the national association for veterinary reproductive specialists has come out firmly against spay/neuter mandates for this reason. In addition, these mandates violate the doctor/patient relationship, and also the veterinary code of ethics in many states.
· The essence of all animal rights legislation is making innocent
and law-abiding animal owners pay for the sins of the tiny minority of
people who flaunt the law. That is because their goal is not to solve a problem. Their goal is to make it difficult for you to continue to raise or own dogs. You must answer with the facts, showing how existing laws and appropriate enforcement of those laws actually will solve whatever problems your community may be experiencing.
· A very common animal rights tactic is to take an isolated bad
situation, and then try to convince elected officials that it is the norm
and all dog owners need to be intensively regulated. For example, if someone in your community has been arrested for horrible violations of animal cruelty laws, the animal rights groups will claim that this is justification for more and stricter laws for all dog owners. The truth is that the arrest and conviction prove that existing laws are working very well. This is a point you must make repeatedly, until the truth sinks in.
· They will not fight fair. Animal rights groups tend to focus on
several communities in a state at the same time. If you start seeing a lot
of news stories about alleged abuses of dogs in your state, you will know that this is a coordinated effort to “spin” reality that was probably
orchestrated by HSUS. They are trying to paint an illusory picture to cause people to think dogs are in crisis, and new laws are needed. The truth once again is that these sensationalized stories prove that existing laws are working. Arrests are made, convictions are obtained, and the animals have been rescued. The laws work. The incidents are not a justification for laws that harm law-abiding and conscientious people.
· They will lie. For example, they will claim that a large number of
dogs entering the local animal shelter are “purebreds,” and that this
justifies laws restricting the ability to raise purebred dogs. But they lie
by not telling you the full story. The full story is that most actual purebreds
enter a shelter because their owners are seeking euthanasia services for
dogs that are very ill, seriously injured or in advanced old age. They also won’t tell you that the few purebred dogs that are picked up escaped confinement and were immediately reclaimed by their owners. They won’t tell you that the few purebreds that are surrendered to the shelter are immediately taken by
rescue
groups, because of the high demand for these dogs. And they won’t tell you
that they call a dog purebred if it looks “more or less” like a recognized
breed. Many of these are labeled “pit bulls,” which is not even a recognized
breed. See for yourself. Simply walk through your local animal shelter a few
times. I can guarantee you that you will see few if any dogs that appear to
be purebreds.
· They also will talk about shelter statistics as proof of the need
for restrictions on purebred dog breeding. They are lying. Walk through your local shelter and you will find few (if any) puppies. There actually is a
serious shortage of puppies in animal shelters, because these are the most
easily adopted dogs. Sheltering organizations must expend considerable
effort trying to talk people into adopting older dogs because of the scarcity of puppies.
· Another way that they will lie is to try to hide the successes of
animal control and sheltering programs, in order to “spin” a false picture
of a crisis. They won’t tell you that national shelter admissions have fallen
almost 60% over the past 15 years, while euthanasia rates have been cut by
75-percent. They won’t tell you that 70-percent of the dogs in America
already are spayed or neutered voluntarily by their owners. They won’t tell you that most shelters in the northeast, upper Midwest and on the West Coast already are close to “no-kill” for healthy and adoptable dogs. You need to learn the truth and make the truth the centerpiece of your rebuttals. To counter these claims, make use of your local and statewide open records laws and “sunshine laws” to get the full facts. Sometimes all you have to do is walk into your local animal control office and ask for them. Other times, these reports are filed with a state agency, and you can obtain them there. We can help you find this documentation.
· They will say awful things about you. They will tar you by creating imaginary links between dog owners and dog fighters. They will link you to
the drug culture and to people who abuse animals. They will accuse serious
and conscientious dog breeders of being “puppy mills” or “backyard
breeders.” Someone who raises animals because he or she loves them will be accused of being a “hoarder.” People who sell puppies will be accused of being greedy, or exploiting animals for profit. People who buy a purebred puppy will be accused of causing the death of a shelter dog. These claims are both absurd and outrageous. We can help you learn how to answer them with the truth.
· Never forget the real agenda of the animal rights groups, which is
to eventually eliminate all animal ownership. They are trying to make people into the guardians of their animals, rather than their owners. This makes animals into wards of the state, rather than private property. This reduces you to proving to the state that you are a fit guardian, and gives the state ultimate control of your animals. Stand up for American values, including the right to honorably seek profit. Don’t buy into the socialist belief that profit equals greed or that you are responsible to “society” for problems you didn’t create, and don’t be afraid to say that many of the leaders of major animal rights groups enjoy their six-figure incomes and multi-million- dollar facilities. They are as phony as a pile of three-dollar bills.
· And spend time studying the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights,
and your state’s constitution and bill of rights. Almost all animal rights
legislation infringes on human rights by denying due process of the law,
equal protection under the law, and protections against illegal searches and
seizures. Quite simply, almost all animal rights legislation is anti-American and reflects Marxist principles of state authority. You need to say this loudly and clearly, because it is the truth. In addition, many state constitutions define a right to own and enjoy private property, and many states have laws that clearly say that animals are private property. Learn the law and educate local elected officials.
Divide and Conquer
A favorite tactic of animal rights activists is to divide dog owners so that
we won’t stand up and fight for each other’s rights. Unfortunately, many
dog owners play right into their hands through a misguided sense of elitism.
Animal rights groups try to make certain categories of dog owners into “
untouchables,” so that other dog owners will be afraid to defend them. They
also will attempt to exploit racial, ethnic, cultural and economic differences and insecurities, which keeps us apart.
Make no mistake about it, animal rights groups are utterly unscrupulous.
Racism is one of their major tools, especially in urban areas. They exploit
fears of crime by talking about dog fighters, links to the drug culture and
“gangbangers” who own “pitbulls.” What they are really doing is exploiting
racial fears and prejudices, sometimes by fanning the flames of naked hatred. The divide and conquer strategy was a major part of what happened last year in Dallas, which passed a tough spay/neuter mandate, and it is happening now in Chicago, which is considering one.
When animal rights groups say “gangbanger,” they actually mean “Black” and “Hispanic.” They say “dogfighting,” but they mean “Black” and “Hispanic.” They say “pitbulls.” They mean “Black” and “Hispanic.” The animal rights activists are using racist implications to manipulate and exploit fear of high crime urban areas, thus dividing dog owners by race and neighborhood. They reduce anyone who is not like them to “those people.”
When it comes to regulating the breeding of dogs, the animal rights groups
usually link “puppy mills” to Amish people, thus encouraging and exploiting
ethnic differences. Conservative Christians who live according to the old
ways are no longer politically correct, and their religious beliefs forbid them from fighting back or filing a defamation of character suit. Some of the
inaccurate and bigoted comments I have heard from animal rights supporters about Amish people sound exactly like what the Ku Klux Klan says about racial minorities. It is hate speech at its worst.
With tethering issues or restrictions on hunting with hounds, they paint a
picture of “redneck” white people who fit every possible stereotype of
hillbilly degenerates. “Crazy old ladies” are fair game, too, under the
label of “hoarder.”
All are reduced to “those people.” They are objectified and dehumanized,
which to the animal rights fanatic is a justification to destroy them and
their way of life.
They try to divide the world between “people like us” and “people like them.
” They know that most people won’t support people that they can’t identify
with. It’s also a dirty trick. It causes too many of us to take our eyes off the
ball, which is how the regulations or laws will affect us and everybody
else.
The animal rights groups say they are targeting dogfighting, puppy mills or
hoarders, but read the fine print. It always will come down to targeting
you. A major goal of dividing us is to make some of us show a willingness to “compromise.” By “compromise,” I mean they are encouraging us to sell out certain kinds of dog owners who fail the political correctness test.
There is no such thing as compromise with animal rights groups, because
everything they stand for requires us to make all of the sacrifices, in order to give them what they want. They have nothing to exchange.
A true compromise is when both sides give up something in order to gain more important things. Animal rights groups have nothing to trade except the gun pointed at your head. They can shoot you in the heart, shoot you in the leg or simply shoot off one of your toes.
Some compromise!
It is like an armed robber who demands your wallet, takes the cash and
offers you a “compromise” of letting you keep your credit cards.
Playing on our fears also means we are not likely to seek support from all
racial, ethnic and economic groups. This was a huge reason why Dallas dog
owners lost their fight to stop a spay/neuter mandate.
Although a majority of Dallas residents are Black or Hispanic, their
assistance was not sought in defeating this ordinance. To put it bluntly,
most of the people who fought against the ordinance were white and of well above average means. They simply were afraid to go into poor neighborhoods, or seek support from Black and Hispanic people.
A majority of the members of Dallas City Council are Black or Hispanic, and
represent districts that are predominantly Black or Hispanic.
To put it even more bluntly, the dog owners they saw at City Council
meetings were upper middle class or wealthy white people. Most of them
raised show dogs, which were portrayed by the animal rights activists as toys for the rich. In contrast, animal rights groups succeeded in portraying themselves as nice people who love animals, when exactly the opposite is true. Thus, dog owners were immediately branded as selfish elitists.
That kind of label is suicide in big city politics, and Chicago dog owners
are close to falling into this trap today.
The irony is that the label is not true. The truth is that dog owners,
including people who raise, show and compete with dogs, extend across all
racial, ethnic, cultural and economic lines. We really are all in it together. If we unite, we can defeat the animal rights extremists. If we fail to unite, we
will lose.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance recognizes that dog owners have failed to bridge ethnic and economic differences. Thus, we are taking immediate and forceful steps to reach out to and support many other groups of dog owners, and have recently added inner city, Black and Hispanic dog ownership advocates to our leadership team.
We have made a formal alliance with a newly forming group called the
National Association of Canine Experts (NICE), which is working to break
down many of the barriers that separate dog owners. NICE founder Ami Moore now is a member of our advisory board, and I am a member of the NICE board.
Ms. Moore is a professional dog trainer from inner city Chicago who has
superb credentials as an obedience and behavioral trainer. She is
articulate, exceptionally intelligent and insightful, and passionately dedicated to preserving the rights of dog owners. Moreover, she is streetwise and as a Black person fully understands how subliminal racism is being used by animal rights groups to divide dog owners, as it has been used to divide Black people from their community in many other ways.
Dog owners everywhere also owe Ms. Moore a debt of gratitude. Animal rights groups went after her personally because she uses electric collars in dog training, as do most professional and amateur trainers everywhere. The
animal rights groups took her to court, alleging that the use of electric collars is animal cruelty. She didn’t back down, fought back through the legal system and won. All charges against her were dismissed and the use of electric collars as a humane training tool was fully exonerated in Illinois.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also has dedicated funds to advertise in
Chicago newspapers to gain support from urban dog owners to fight against
the proposed ordinance. An important part of the strategy that dog owners must learn to use is to be able to state clearly and categorically that we are the mainstream of America.
A reported 37-percent of American households own at least one dog. National polls from mainstream publications, such as Parade Magazine and MSN/NBC news, show that the vast majority of the American people oppose spay/neuter mandates. Opposition was at 91-percent in the recent Parade poll, for example.
Animal rights groups are the real minority, representing less than five
percent of any community, and probably less than one percent in most places. But they are organized and vocal, and they turn out in droves for meetings before elected officials. This has given them the appearance of being a large segment of the community, when that is purely an illusion.
That’s why local dog owners must organized and get a large turnout of their
supporters at municipal meetings.
We are the mainstream. Animal rights groups are the radical fringe.
Elected officials need to know this. So do news reporters.
Dealing With The News Media
Sooner or later (and probably sooner), every local dog owners’ organization
will have to deal with the news media. In many cases, it will not be a
pleasant experience. Animal rights groups have a well-developed strategy of identifying and cultivating friendly contacts in the news media long before an ordinance arises.
All news reporters are under intense and continual pressure on their jobs to
come up with a steady stream of news stories, and also to come up with
stories that will have high sensationalistic appeal to attract readers.
Animal rights groups have learned how to exploit this.
News reporters who are sympathetic to the animal rights groups know that
they will be given leads to many stories every year, as long as they don’t
work too hard to be fair and objective.
In addition, stories about controversial animal issues tend to cause a
strong emotional response with readers, which assures them prominent
placement in newspapers or on TV news shows. Both are important to a reporter’s job security.
The animal rights groups are pros at plucking emotional heartstrings by
their portrayals of animal abuse or euthanasia at the local animal shelter,
and then in using those horrible examples to further their own agenda against every dog owner.
The finger always gets pointed at us, and news reports often are hatchet
jobs on dog owners. Fair and balanced news coverage takes a backseat to
sensationalism and emotional response.
Our problem is that good news is inherently boring. A story about someone
who takes good care of her or his dogs usually is as dull as lukewarm milk.
It lacks drama. It lacks impact. But the news story about the one dog owner in a thousand who is abusive has plenty of drama, impact and reader appeal.
Dog owners’ first recourse should be to appeal to the sense of journalistic
professionalism in some reporters and editors. A worthy news story must be accurate, fair and balanced between opposing points of view. Any story that fails this test is poor journalism.
I strongly believe that dog owners always should take the high road, by
advocating what is right and fair. I don’t think we should use the animal
rights group strategy of trying to manipulate the news through “tame” or personally biased reporters.
Instead, we should formally object to poor reporting to the publisher,
station manager, editors and the parent company of local news outlets.
We also should state our objections in pointed letters to the editor, and
try to convince editors to give us space for an “op ed” column or an equal
time rebuttal to poor news coverage.
In dealing with reporters, it is essential for us to be armed with the
facts. We need to have the correct information, and state our case clearly
and effectively. We also have to be prepared to answer some downright nasty questions, such as: “How can you breed dogs when many dogs are euthanized by animal control.”
We have truthful and honest answers to those kinds of questions, and dog
owners have to be prepared for them. We can help.
The “news value” of a story depends on drama and conflict, which creates
high reader response.
Thus, we must learn to use drama and conflict in an effective and ethical
manner to answer the allegations of animal rights groups.
We must learn to set aside “good manners” and “call a spade a spade.”
That means confronting the lies and distortions of the animal rights groups
with the facts, and sometimes at public meetings we have to be prepared to speak bluntly.
It means objecting to the secrecy of the so-called task force
meeting, talking publicly about the real agenda of the animal rights groups
and their assault on American values, and defending freedom in a clear voice.
Dog owners definitely face a tough fight and a stacked deck when animal
rights ordinances are proposed on a local level. But we believe we have shown how these bad ordinances can be defeated by truth, honesty and integrity.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and
professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We
also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative issues affect all of us.
We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can
continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership,
participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission.
We are funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web at _http://www.american sportingdogalliace.org_
(http://www.american sportingdogallia nce.org/) . Our email is_asda@csonline. net_
(mailto:asda@csonline. net) .
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS
The American Sporting Dog Alliance
_http://www.american sportingdogallia nce.org_
(http://www.american sportingdogallia nce.org/)
Please Join Us
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)