Just ask Wayne Pacelle, all breeders are commercial breeders, even show/hobby breeders. From Wayne Pacelle's blog, dated April 1, 2009. The following is taken from his blog:
"This year, with all of the awareness and exposés of puppy mill abuses, there are more reform efforts than ever in the states-from Maine to California, and more than half the states in between. And again, what we get is vitriol and antagonism from zealous dog breeders, silence or opposition from the American Kennel Club on the legislation, and even resistance from a few state veterinary medical organizations." [snip]
"But there is a class of commercial dog breeders out there-apparently, a good number of them who are not even high-volume puppy mills-who raise their voices loudly against any attempt to impose reasonable standards of care for dogs and limits on how large these operations can be. Since they can hardly attack the substance of the legislation-because the provisions are so obviously rational (such as giving the animals an opportunity to exercise, or not forcing them to live on wire flooring their entire lives)-they attack The HSUS, almost unable to restrain themselves. They spew knowingly false things about The HSUS wanting to ban all pet ownership. In the past, in my blog and elsewhere, I've addressed these prevarications, where they take one quote completely out of context from 15 or 20 years ago, and treat that fragmented comment as doctrine, even though there are decades of public statements and action on my part and that of my colleagues that unmistakably celebrate the human-animal bond and The HSUS's vigorous support of pet keeping." [snip]
"The opponents of any and all reform efforts-led by Patti Strand, a board member of the American Kennel Club and a founder of an organization called the National Animal Interest Alliance (supported by the full gamut of fur retailers, trophy hunters, and other animal-abuse industries)-never propose anything positive. They are just naysayers and knee-jerk opponents, and they just want to tear down any law to help animals. They don't advance reform ideas of their own, because the fact is they want no laws to protect animals. In some cases, it's because they operate under the assumption that there's just no problem, or the ludicrous notion that passing a piecemeal reform will inevitably lead to a ban on all breeding. In other cases, it's simple self-delusion or hatred of government regulation.In the face of these desperate and malicious tactics, we will only step up our efforts. We’ll put more resources into the fight, knowing more than ever that we are on the side of right and that God’s creatures need us to stand up for them more than ever.”
-End of Wayne's comments-
If you've never been moved to get personally involved in the fight to protect our rights to own, breed and show dogs of our choosing, I suggest that the time is now!
Wayne's full blog for April 1st can be found here - read it and be afraid...be very afraid! Take action now!!!
http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2009/04/page/2/
My Personal Comments:
Take note of the red/bolded text in the above blog of Wayne Pacelle’s. According to this blog there are no more hobby breeders. We are a class of commercial dog breeders. Further, most commercial dog breeders are high-volume puppy mills. In one fell swoop of his pen, Wayne Pacelle has eliminated hobby breeders and reclassified us all.Then the scariest part of it all he accuses us of having being self-delusional and/or having a hatred of government regulation.
I don’t know about anyone else out there but I still live in the United States of America, where our forefathers spoke out against over-regulation of/from government. Where we have a Declaration of Independence that states
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
The train of abuses and usurpations are beginning and I am tired of it. This is supposed to be a country of less government not more.
Further the Founding Fathers stated that after petitioning the British government to correct these wrongs and not receiving any redress, it became necessary to Declare their Freedom from the British Government.
They consequently set up a government with Constitutional Rights to guarantee that the government would not usurp our basic freedoms and a petitioning process to redress wrongs and unnecessary laws.
But when we, the people and common citizen of the USA, follow these dictates of Our Founding Fathers in the way to petition unnecessary laws/legislation as set up by our forefathers, we have come up against a Would-Be-Dictator of unending money supply, that demands that we give into them and are wrong to oppose them. Further, we are a group of zealous dog breeders spewing forth vitriol and antagonism because we dare to confront and fight against the legislation that would be dictated on us by an organization as they attempt to lure/con/dictate to the legislators of these state and federal governments (who are elected to office to follow the will of their constituents) to pass their legislation not the legislation of the people. To me this is Dictatorship. This Would-Be-Dictator, Wayne Pacelle, of the Humane Society of the United States, demands that we are self-delusional and have a hatred of governmental regulation.
I stand up and say, “NO, I am NOT SELF-DELUSIONAL and YES, I am AGAINST unnecessary GOVERNMENT REGULATION, especially when there are federal and state laws already covering these areas.”
This country is undergoing drastic changes at this time. It is not a time to sit down at the table and try to come to a compromise. Compromises will not work. Once passed into law and the legislators that did the compromising are no longer in office to protect the law the way it was meant to be, changes come about. It is much harder to rescind a law then to stop legislation, but it is very easy for legislators and lobbyists to change existing laws to fit their design as they see fit.
The calling out of citizens following the constitutional procedures of legislation as desperate and malicious tactics is beyond ludicrous. Wayne Pacelle’s self-proclaimed “calling of God’s” to protect creatures, is a self-justification to fool the religious citizens to think that he is justified to take away the freedom and rights of private citizens. All of mankind was given jurisdiction and ownership of animals not just Wayne Pacelle. Wayne Pacelle is not God’s chosen to see that this is accomplished.
Further, his calling our tactics as desperate and malicious is a furtive attempt to call attention away from the HSUS not having the correct numbers when questioned and leading on the legislators in each state to believe that only the HSUS has the solution. HSUS is the liar in all of this. They have misled the USA citizenship into believing that they are concerned about animals while taking donations from an uninformed public. It is time to put a stop to their coffers profiting from their lies.
This is a time when all citizens that want to have animals in their lives, that they can touch and interact with, or breed and own, to stand up and join the fight. This fight is against not only an organization, but against a man that thinks he has the right to dictate to everyone else how they are to treat property. What they can have and what they cannot. How they are to treat this property and when. To me this sounds an awful lot like a Dictator. And I call him out as such. Wayne Pacelle, you are nothing more than a Would-Be-Dictator that will eventually be overthrown by a Grass-Roots Movement of People that will not lay down and take your politics, your lying, or your self-proclamation of being a savior for animals when you have no desire to even be in physical contact with animals. You dare to try and make your organization, HSUS, into the most powerful organization to dictate to state and federal governments what laws need to be made.
We will fight you to the end, for our Animals, for our Children, FOR OUR RIGHTS OF FREEDOM and OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of a LEGISLATIVE PROCESS FOR THE PEOPLE.CathyM
Catren's Shar Pei
Catren's Leather Show Accessories
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Cracking down on “puppy mills”? , or just limiting your rights?
This year bills have been proposed in no fewer than 15 states claming to crack down on puppy mills, but upon reading the proposed bills, they do little more than set a limit for the number of intact dogs an individual can keep.
Today in North Carolina, Senate Bill 460- Commercial Breeding of Dogs, will be considered. This is one such bill that could set into law the definition of commercial breeder an arbitrary number of intact female dogs (15). Earlier this year Oregon considered House Bill 2470 which identified as few as 3 litters a year as a pet dealer ,which had legal ramifications, and limited anyone from possessing more than 25 intact dogs total. West Virginia was proposing to set the commercial breeder bar at 20 intact dogs, and finally in Arkansas, the limit was set at 12 dogs, and they didn’t even have to live on your property. Many hobby breeders jointly own dogs with other hobby breeders and obviously that dog is only located at one place at a time, so the proposal in Arkansas would cover that base.
Are these laws really cracking down on puppy mills, or are they just limiting the rights of American Citizens? There is no definition of a puppy mill, but each of these laws is including a definition of a commercial breeder which, when based on an arbitrary number that some law maker sound like “a lot of dogs” creates a regulatory system on a person’s life-style choice . The term puppy mill evokes an imagine of cramped housing, untreated wounds and filth in the mind’s of most Americans. It is this image that has recently, and repeatedly, been portrayed on television by organizations such as the Human Society of the United States (HSUS). This tactic is being used to build public support for so called puppy mill bills, but rarely is the public actually reading the bills that are being proposed.
Laws that impose numerical limits do nothing to address the concerns that most Americans have in regards to the so called puppy mills. They do nothing to protect the citizens of this great nation from one another, or others wishing to do us harm; they do nothing to improve the health and saftey of the residents of this great nation; but rather, only serve to limit the choice residents of this great nation have, and criminalize activities of otherwise ordinary citizens who think they live in the land of the free where having puppies is no one else's business but theirs.
Today in North Carolina, Senate Bill 460- Commercial Breeding of Dogs, will be considered. This is one such bill that could set into law the definition of commercial breeder an arbitrary number of intact female dogs (15). Earlier this year Oregon considered House Bill 2470 which identified as few as 3 litters a year as a pet dealer ,which had legal ramifications, and limited anyone from possessing more than 25 intact dogs total. West Virginia was proposing to set the commercial breeder bar at 20 intact dogs, and finally in Arkansas, the limit was set at 12 dogs, and they didn’t even have to live on your property. Many hobby breeders jointly own dogs with other hobby breeders and obviously that dog is only located at one place at a time, so the proposal in Arkansas would cover that base.
Are these laws really cracking down on puppy mills, or are they just limiting the rights of American Citizens? There is no definition of a puppy mill, but each of these laws is including a definition of a commercial breeder which, when based on an arbitrary number that some law maker sound like “a lot of dogs” creates a regulatory system on a person’s life-style choice . The term puppy mill evokes an imagine of cramped housing, untreated wounds and filth in the mind’s of most Americans. It is this image that has recently, and repeatedly, been portrayed on television by organizations such as the Human Society of the United States (HSUS). This tactic is being used to build public support for so called puppy mill bills, but rarely is the public actually reading the bills that are being proposed.
Laws that impose numerical limits do nothing to address the concerns that most Americans have in regards to the so called puppy mills. They do nothing to protect the citizens of this great nation from one another, or others wishing to do us harm; they do nothing to improve the health and saftey of the residents of this great nation; but rather, only serve to limit the choice residents of this great nation have, and criminalize activities of otherwise ordinary citizens who think they live in the land of the free where having puppies is no one else's business but theirs.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
NC- SB 460 To Be Heard -TOMORROW
URGENT: North Carolina SB 460 Short title: Commercial Breeding of Dogs-To Be Heard Thursday, April 30, 9AM
Senate Bill 460 will be considered by the North Carolina Senate Commerce Committee on Thursday, April 30. Details are as follows:
DATE: Thursday, April 30, 2009
TIME: 9:00 AM – Please plan to be arrive no later than 8:30AM, dressed in professional attire.
LOCATION: Room 1027, Legislative Building, 16 W. Jones Street, Raleigh, NC 27601
All concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in North Carolina are encouraged to attend the hearing on Thursday in opposition to the bill. We need to show strong opposition to SB 460. While attendees will not be able to speak in opposition, NUMBERS MATTER! If you are unable to attend, please call or e-mail the members
This Act defines a commercial breeder as (5b) anyone who, during any 12-month period, maintains 15 or more adult female dogs for the primary purpose of the sale of their offspring as companion animals.
Remember- these dogs do not need to be currently having puppies- just that they are intact females and you intend to sell any offspring as a companion animal.
and defines a commercial breeding operation as (5c) the physical location or facility at which a commercial breeder breeds or maintains adult female dogs and their offspring. Yes- this implies your home if that is where you maintain your dogs. If your puppies are born in your bedroom, it is still part of a "commercial breeding operation"
Senate Bill 460 will be considered by the North Carolina Senate Commerce Committee on Thursday, April 30. Details are as follows:
DATE: Thursday, April 30, 2009
TIME: 9:00 AM – Please plan to be arrive no later than 8:30AM, dressed in professional attire.
LOCATION: Room 1027, Legislative Building, 16 W. Jones Street, Raleigh, NC 27601
All concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in North Carolina are encouraged to attend the hearing on Thursday in opposition to the bill. We need to show strong opposition to SB 460. While attendees will not be able to speak in opposition, NUMBERS MATTER! If you are unable to attend, please call or e-mail the members
This Act defines a commercial breeder as (5b) anyone who, during any 12-month period, maintains 15 or more adult female dogs for the primary purpose of the sale of their offspring as companion animals.
Remember- these dogs do not need to be currently having puppies- just that they are intact females and you intend to sell any offspring as a companion animal.
and defines a commercial breeding operation as (5c) the physical location or facility at which a commercial breeder breeds or maintains adult female dogs and their offspring. Yes- this implies your home if that is where you maintain your dogs. If your puppies are born in your bedroom, it is still part of a "commercial breeding operation"
Monday, April 13, 2009
AL- Spay/Neuter Bill Introduced
[Thursday, April 02, 2009]
From AKC-
Alabama Senator Del Marsh (R) of Anniston has introduced Senate Bill 554, which would, among other provisions, require the sterilization of all privately-owned dogs six months of age or older. The American Kennel Club opposes SB 554, and strongly urges all responsible dog breeders and owners in Alabama to contact their elected representatives, bill sponsor Senator Marsh, and the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and respectfully yet strongly let them know that you oppose SB 554, and urge them to do the same.
The American Kennel Club opposes the concept of breeding permits, breeding bans, or mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the health and welfare of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibility seriously. However, the American Kennel Club recognizes the special obligation of dog owners, not only to their pets but also to their neighbors. The AKC supports "curbing" and clean-up ordinances, leash laws, nuisance laws, and other reasonable regulations designed to ensure that dogs and their owners remain respected members of their communities.
If enacted, SB 554 will:
* Require all dogs six months of age and older to be spayed or neutered.
* Provide that an owner of an unsterilized dog six months of age or older that is the subject of a complaint may be cited and, in addition to any fine, be forced to pay a civil penalty of $50 on the first occurrence; pay a civil penalty of $100 on the second occurrence; and on the third occurrence, require sterilization of the dog.
* Define "complaint" as any oral or written complaint to a local animal control agency that alleges that the dog or the owner of the dog has violated this act, any other provision of state law that relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance. "Complaint" also means that observation by an employee or officer of a local animal control agency of behavior by a dog or the owner of a dog that violates this act, any other provision of state law that relate[s] to dogs or cats, or a local animal control ordinance. "Complaint" shall not include an allegation of excessive noise or barking.
The measure also would exempt owners of dogs from the act, if:
* Their dog is a breed approved by and is registered with a recognized registry or association, and the dog is actively used to show or compete and has competed in at least one show or sporting competition hosted by or under the approval of the recognized registry or association within the last two years;
Their dog is being trained or groomed to show or compete and is too young to have yet competed;
* Their dog has earned or is in the process of earning a special title, such as agility or herding;
* Their dog is trained or in training for use in law enforcement, military, or rescue activities; or
* By letter from a licensed veterinarian, their dog has been certified to be temporarily or permanently deferred due to age or heath or any other valid reason.
The AKC does not believe that these exemptions adequately address the underlying issue of responsible dog ownership or the right of responsible breeders to maintain an unaltered dog for the purpose of breeding.
As introduced, SB 554 is a substantive copy of a version of California Assembly Bill 1634 that responsible dog breeders and owners in California successfully opposed in 2008. As such, SB 554 is not designed as a solution for any animal control issues for Alabama. Additionally, because SB 554 provides the authority to issue a citation for an unaltered dog (or cat) that is the subject of a complaint (other than for excessive noise or barking) and which includes the consequence of owners being required to sterilize their dog, the bill does not clearly provide animal owners with due process to protect against overzealous enforcement that may result in permanent deprivation of one’s property.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
It is imperative that all responsible dog breeders and owners in Alabama contact their elected representatives, SB 554’s sponsor, and the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Respectfully yet strongly let them know that you oppose SB 554, and urge them to do the same.
To find your Alabama State Representative and State Senator, click here and enter your zip code+4 on the left side of the page.
SB 554 Sponsor - Senator Del Marsh
Alabama State House, Room 735
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7877
FAX: (334) 242-8819
E-MAIL: del.marsh@alsenate.gov
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Senator Myron C. Penn, Chairman
Alabama State House, Room 731
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7868
E-MAIL: myronpenn28@hotmail.com
Senator Roger H. Bedford, Jr.
Alabama State House, Room 730-B
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7862
E-MAIL: senbedford@aol.com
Senator Kim S. Benefield
Alabama State House, Room 729-C
State House
11 South Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7874
FAX: (334) 353-8277
E-MAIL: kbenefield@acs-isp.com
Senator Ben Brooks
Alabama State House, Room 735-A
11 South Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7882
E-MAIL: benbrooksiii@aol.com
Senator Vivian Davis Figures
Alabama State House, Room 732
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7871
E-MAIL: vivian.figures@al-legislature.gov
Senator T.D. "Ted" Little
Alabama State House, Room 740
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7865
E-MAIL: tedlittle@mindspring.com
Senator Del Marsh
Alabama State House, Room 735
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7877
FAX: (334) 242-8819
E-MAIL: del.marsh@alsenate.gov
Senator Trip Pittman
Alabama State House, Room 738-B
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7897
E-MAIL: trip.pittman@alsenate.gov
Senator Henry "Hank" Sanders
Alabama State House, Room 730
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7860
(No e-mail available)
Senator Bobby Singleton
Alabama State House, Room 732-B
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7935
FAX: (334) 242-7191
E-MAIL: BSingle164@yahoo.com
Senator Rodger Mell Smitherman (President Pro Tempore)
Alabama State House, Room 722
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7870
E-MAIL: rodger.smitherman@alsenate.gov
Senator Zeb Little (Senate Majority Leader)
Alabama State House, Room 721
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7855
E-MAIL: zeb@zeblittlelawfirm.com
Senator Arthur Orr
Alabama State House, Suite 737
11 South Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130-4600
PHONE: (334) 242-7800
FAX: (334) 242-8819
To e-mail Senator Orr, click here for an online form.
RESOURCES:
For tips on how to effectively communicate with legislators, please click here.
For a copy of our Disagree Diplomatically brochure, please click here.
For a sample letter of opposition to SB 554 that Alabama residents can customize, please click here.
For more information, contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org; or contact the Alabama Canine Coalition at president@alabamacaninecoalition.com.
From AKC-
Alabama Senator Del Marsh (R) of Anniston has introduced Senate Bill 554, which would, among other provisions, require the sterilization of all privately-owned dogs six months of age or older. The American Kennel Club opposes SB 554, and strongly urges all responsible dog breeders and owners in Alabama to contact their elected representatives, bill sponsor Senator Marsh, and the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and respectfully yet strongly let them know that you oppose SB 554, and urge them to do the same.
The American Kennel Club opposes the concept of breeding permits, breeding bans, or mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the health and welfare of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibility seriously. However, the American Kennel Club recognizes the special obligation of dog owners, not only to their pets but also to their neighbors. The AKC supports "curbing" and clean-up ordinances, leash laws, nuisance laws, and other reasonable regulations designed to ensure that dogs and their owners remain respected members of their communities.
If enacted, SB 554 will:
* Require all dogs six months of age and older to be spayed or neutered.
* Provide that an owner of an unsterilized dog six months of age or older that is the subject of a complaint may be cited and, in addition to any fine, be forced to pay a civil penalty of $50 on the first occurrence; pay a civil penalty of $100 on the second occurrence; and on the third occurrence, require sterilization of the dog.
* Define "complaint" as any oral or written complaint to a local animal control agency that alleges that the dog or the owner of the dog has violated this act, any other provision of state law that relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance. "Complaint" also means that observation by an employee or officer of a local animal control agency of behavior by a dog or the owner of a dog that violates this act, any other provision of state law that relate[s] to dogs or cats, or a local animal control ordinance. "Complaint" shall not include an allegation of excessive noise or barking.
The measure also would exempt owners of dogs from the act, if:
* Their dog is a breed approved by and is registered with a recognized registry or association, and the dog is actively used to show or compete and has competed in at least one show or sporting competition hosted by or under the approval of the recognized registry or association within the last two years;
Their dog is being trained or groomed to show or compete and is too young to have yet competed;
* Their dog has earned or is in the process of earning a special title, such as agility or herding;
* Their dog is trained or in training for use in law enforcement, military, or rescue activities; or
* By letter from a licensed veterinarian, their dog has been certified to be temporarily or permanently deferred due to age or heath or any other valid reason.
The AKC does not believe that these exemptions adequately address the underlying issue of responsible dog ownership or the right of responsible breeders to maintain an unaltered dog for the purpose of breeding.
As introduced, SB 554 is a substantive copy of a version of California Assembly Bill 1634 that responsible dog breeders and owners in California successfully opposed in 2008. As such, SB 554 is not designed as a solution for any animal control issues for Alabama. Additionally, because SB 554 provides the authority to issue a citation for an unaltered dog (or cat) that is the subject of a complaint (other than for excessive noise or barking) and which includes the consequence of owners being required to sterilize their dog, the bill does not clearly provide animal owners with due process to protect against overzealous enforcement that may result in permanent deprivation of one’s property.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
It is imperative that all responsible dog breeders and owners in Alabama contact their elected representatives, SB 554’s sponsor, and the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Respectfully yet strongly let them know that you oppose SB 554, and urge them to do the same.
To find your Alabama State Representative and State Senator, click here and enter your zip code+4 on the left side of the page.
SB 554 Sponsor - Senator Del Marsh
Alabama State House, Room 735
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7877
FAX: (334) 242-8819
E-MAIL: del.marsh@alsenate.gov
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Senator Myron C. Penn, Chairman
Alabama State House, Room 731
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7868
E-MAIL: myronpenn28@hotmail.com
Senator Roger H. Bedford, Jr.
Alabama State House, Room 730-B
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7862
E-MAIL: senbedford@aol.com
Senator Kim S. Benefield
Alabama State House, Room 729-C
State House
11 South Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7874
FAX: (334) 353-8277
E-MAIL: kbenefield@acs-isp.com
Senator Ben Brooks
Alabama State House, Room 735-A
11 South Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7882
E-MAIL: benbrooksiii@aol.com
Senator Vivian Davis Figures
Alabama State House, Room 732
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7871
E-MAIL: vivian.figures@al-legislature.gov
Senator T.D. "Ted" Little
Alabama State House, Room 740
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7865
E-MAIL: tedlittle@mindspring.com
Senator Del Marsh
Alabama State House, Room 735
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7877
FAX: (334) 242-8819
E-MAIL: del.marsh@alsenate.gov
Senator Trip Pittman
Alabama State House, Room 738-B
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7897
E-MAIL: trip.pittman@alsenate.gov
Senator Henry "Hank" Sanders
Alabama State House, Room 730
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7860
(No e-mail available)
Senator Bobby Singleton
Alabama State House, Room 732-B
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7935
FAX: (334) 242-7191
E-MAIL: BSingle164@yahoo.com
Senator Rodger Mell Smitherman (President Pro Tempore)
Alabama State House, Room 722
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7870
E-MAIL: rodger.smitherman@alsenate.gov
Senator Zeb Little (Senate Majority Leader)
Alabama State House, Room 721
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7855
E-MAIL: zeb@zeblittlelawfirm.com
Senator Arthur Orr
Alabama State House, Suite 737
11 South Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130-4600
PHONE: (334) 242-7800
FAX: (334) 242-8819
To e-mail Senator Orr, click here for an online form.
RESOURCES:
For tips on how to effectively communicate with legislators, please click here.
For a copy of our Disagree Diplomatically brochure, please click here.
For a sample letter of opposition to SB 554 that Alabama residents can customize, please click here.
For more information, contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org; or contact the Alabama Canine Coalition at president@alabamacaninecoalition.com.
CA- Assembly Bill 241 to be heard TOMORROW
CA AB 241 to Limit Ownership of Intact Animals
California Assembly Bill 241, which will prohibit businesses and individuals who buys or sells cats and dogs from owning more than a combined total of 50 intact dogs or cats, will be heard in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on April 14th. There is no age threshold included in the bill so we believe that the limit of 50 appears to include puppies and kittens.
The bill will allow a peace officer, humane society officer or animal control officer to investigate a complaint of this section or of his/her own volition inspect the records of an individual or business or to physically inspect any place where dogs or cats are bred or maintained. It provides that an officer may inspect the premises during daytime operating hours and if the premises includes a home, the officer is required to obtain consent of the owner, tenant or resident before entering the home.
The measure will NOT apply to a publicly operated animal control facility or animal shelter, a veterinary facility, a retail pet store, or a research facility.
Point to Make:
1. Newly proposed laws should NEVER exempt animal shelters- what is good breeding, housing, sanitation conditions for a breeder is also good for a shelter. If these practices are being proposed "for the dog"- then it it should apply to shelters too
2. Numerical limits do not address the underlying issues of responsible ownership and proper care.
What You Can Do:
Attend the Assembly Public Safety Committee Hearing to Oppose AB 241
April 14th, 9:00am
State Capitol, Room 126
Sacramento, CA 95814
Please contact your State Assemblymember and ask him or her to oppose AB 241. To find out who represents you in the State Assembly, please click here.
Contact the author and members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee and express your opposition to AB 241.
Assemblymember Pedro Nava (Author)
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0035
Tel: (916) 319-2035
Fax: (916) 319-2135
Assembly Public Safety Committee
Legislative Office Building
1020 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Fax (916) 319-3745
Assemblymember Jose Solorio (Chair)
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0069
Tel: (916) 319-2069
Fax: (916) 319-2169
Assemblymember Curt Hagman (Vice-Chair)
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0060
Tel: (916) 319-2060
Fax: (916) 319-2160
Assemblymember Warren Furutani
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0055
Tel: (916) 319-2055
Fax: (916) 319-2155
Assemblymember Danny Gilmore
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0030
Tel: (916) 319-2030
Fax: (916) 319-2130
Assemblymember Jerry Hill
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0019
Tel: (916) 319-2019
Fax: (916) 319-2119
Assemblymember Fiona Ma
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0012
Tel: (916) 319-2012
Fax: (916) 319-2112
Assemblymember Nancy Skinner
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0014
Tel: (916) 319-2014
Fax: (916) 319-2114
California Assembly Bill 241, which will prohibit businesses and individuals who buys or sells cats and dogs from owning more than a combined total of 50 intact dogs or cats, will be heard in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on April 14th. There is no age threshold included in the bill so we believe that the limit of 50 appears to include puppies and kittens.
The bill will allow a peace officer, humane society officer or animal control officer to investigate a complaint of this section or of his/her own volition inspect the records of an individual or business or to physically inspect any place where dogs or cats are bred or maintained. It provides that an officer may inspect the premises during daytime operating hours and if the premises includes a home, the officer is required to obtain consent of the owner, tenant or resident before entering the home.
The measure will NOT apply to a publicly operated animal control facility or animal shelter, a veterinary facility, a retail pet store, or a research facility.
Point to Make:
1. Newly proposed laws should NEVER exempt animal shelters- what is good breeding, housing, sanitation conditions for a breeder is also good for a shelter. If these practices are being proposed "for the dog"- then it it should apply to shelters too
2. Numerical limits do not address the underlying issues of responsible ownership and proper care.
What You Can Do:
Attend the Assembly Public Safety Committee Hearing to Oppose AB 241
April 14th, 9:00am
State Capitol, Room 126
Sacramento, CA 95814
Please contact your State Assemblymember and ask him or her to oppose AB 241. To find out who represents you in the State Assembly, please click here.
Contact the author and members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee and express your opposition to AB 241.
Assemblymember Pedro Nava (Author)
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0035
Tel: (916) 319-2035
Fax: (916) 319-2135
Assembly Public Safety Committee
Legislative Office Building
1020 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Fax (916) 319-3745
Assemblymember Jose Solorio (Chair)
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0069
Tel: (916) 319-2069
Fax: (916) 319-2169
Assemblymember Curt Hagman (Vice-Chair)
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0060
Tel: (916) 319-2060
Fax: (916) 319-2160
Assemblymember Warren Furutani
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0055
Tel: (916) 319-2055
Fax: (916) 319-2155
Assemblymember Danny Gilmore
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0030
Tel: (916) 319-2030
Fax: (916) 319-2130
Assemblymember Jerry Hill
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0019
Tel: (916) 319-2019
Fax: (916) 319-2119
Assemblymember Fiona Ma
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0012
Tel: (916) 319-2012
Fax: (916) 319-2112
Assemblymember Nancy Skinner
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0014
Tel: (916) 319-2014
Fax: (916) 319-2114
Obama Never Promised his dog would be from a shelter
President Obama never "promised" to get a rescued dog. He stated that he MIGHT get a mixed-breed and that he would PREFER it came from the shelter. As usual, the Human Society of the United States (HSUS) and other animal rights groups started putting pressure on the President and his family to make a COMMITMENT to this end.
In typical fashion these groups were attempting to MANIPULATE the president and even seek to REDUCE the First Families Choice for a family pet. Kudos to you President Obama for doing what was best for your family and not bending to extremest. Now we ask of you- don't let these extremest take away the same choices of the American public.
One campaign promise the President DID make was to end the strangle-hold Lobbyist have on Lawmakers. Lets hold his feet to the fire to up hold this campaign PROMISE.
In typical fashion these groups were attempting to MANIPULATE the president and even seek to REDUCE the First Families Choice for a family pet. Kudos to you President Obama for doing what was best for your family and not bending to extremest. Now we ask of you- don't let these extremest take away the same choices of the American public.
One campaign promise the President DID make was to end the strangle-hold Lobbyist have on Lawmakers. Lets hold his feet to the fire to up hold this campaign PROMISE.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Breeder of Vice President Biden's puppy received death threats from animal activists
http://www.dailylocal.com/articles/2009/04/09/news/srv0000005068031.txt
Breeder regrets dog sale to Biden
Published: Thursday, April 9, 2009
By GRETCHEN METZ, Staff Writer
EAST COVENTRY It was a proud moment for Linda Brown when then-Vice President-elect Joe Biden selected her kennel to purchase his new German shepherd puppy.
That was in mid-December.
For Brown, that proud moment was short-lived.
After the story about the puppy sale ran in the newspapers and on TV newscasts, three dog wardens from the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture showed up on Brown's doorstep for a kennel inspection.
And they showed up again and again for four visits over four months.
She said she has also received death threats from animal activists against her and Biden, which were reported to the Secret Service and the FBI.
Bob Slama, special agent in charge of the Secret Service's Philadelphia field office, said the agency "cannot comment on an ongoing investigation."
J.J. Klaver, special agent at the Philadelphia field office of the FBI, said his agency is not investigating the matter at this time.
"I thought when Joe Biden bought a puppy from me, what an honor," Brown said. "Out of millions of breeders in the country, in the world, he picked me."
The glow dimmed almost immediately.
Following a story about Brown and Biden in the Daily Local News, readers posted 131 comments, some chiding Biden for having the Secret Service with him when he went puppy shopping and others complaining he did not get the dog from a shelter.
Brown was taken to task for selling pedigree dogs.
Brown said she has read the comments, even the one that said she was sued.
"I'd like to meet that person," Brown said, adding that she has not been sued.
Some people were outraged about the photograph of Biden holding a 5-week-old puppy, Brown said. But, the breeder points out, Biden only came to select a puppy on that visit, left it with its mother and returned three weeks later to take it home.
Brown was not only vilified in posted comments to newspapers but also on the Web site of People for the Ethical Treatment Animals, or PETA.
According to a Dec. 12 press release from the animal rights group, it aired its controversial TV commercials "Buy One, Get One Killed" in Biden's home state of Delaware after he bought his dog from Brown. The commercial blames euthanization of animals in shelters on people who purchase pets from breeders.
Brown also was cited for record-keeping problems and warned about maintenance and sanitation shortfalls by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
"I was cited for a piece of kibble on the floor and five strands of dog hair. They took a picture of that, they walked around, snapped pictures and don't tell you why," said Brown, who disputes all the items where she was written up.
Brown's case was heard by District Justice James DeAngelo in South Coventry on March 31. She was found "not guilty" for each citation, the judge's office confirmed Wednesday.
Chris Ryder, press secretary for the Department of Agriculture, said Brown was inspected in December because of a complaint. He said it was department policy not to release the name of the person who complained.
Brown's kennel, Wolf Den, was inspected twice a year by the agency and routinely had satisfactory reports until December 2008 when it had seven unsatisfactory inspection results out of 26, according to the inspection records on the agency's Web site.
Ryder said the inspectors returned as a matter of follow-up to determine if the unsatisfactory matters had been taken care of. He said more than one inspector was brought in because Brown runs a large kennel.
Before going to court, Brown had to hire a lawyer. So far her legal fees are $4,000, she said.
"Never, never, never again," Brown said about selling a dog to anyone with a high profile.
Brown said she gets her breeding stock from Germany. Each dog costs between $5,000 and $10,000.
"If I paid that much for them, don't you think I'd treat them pretty good?" Brown asks.
While the First Family was shopping for a Portuguese water dog, Brown said those breeders were getting in touch with her to find out what her experience had been like.
Brown has a few words for them.
"It's been horrific since December," she said.
Breeder regrets dog sale to Biden
Published: Thursday, April 9, 2009
By GRETCHEN METZ, Staff Writer
EAST COVENTRY It was a proud moment for Linda Brown when then-Vice President-elect Joe Biden selected her kennel to purchase his new German shepherd puppy.
That was in mid-December.
For Brown, that proud moment was short-lived.
After the story about the puppy sale ran in the newspapers and on TV newscasts, three dog wardens from the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture showed up on Brown's doorstep for a kennel inspection.
And they showed up again and again for four visits over four months.
She said she has also received death threats from animal activists against her and Biden, which were reported to the Secret Service and the FBI.
Bob Slama, special agent in charge of the Secret Service's Philadelphia field office, said the agency "cannot comment on an ongoing investigation."
J.J. Klaver, special agent at the Philadelphia field office of the FBI, said his agency is not investigating the matter at this time.
"I thought when Joe Biden bought a puppy from me, what an honor," Brown said. "Out of millions of breeders in the country, in the world, he picked me."
The glow dimmed almost immediately.
Following a story about Brown and Biden in the Daily Local News, readers posted 131 comments, some chiding Biden for having the Secret Service with him when he went puppy shopping and others complaining he did not get the dog from a shelter.
Brown was taken to task for selling pedigree dogs.
Brown said she has read the comments, even the one that said she was sued.
"I'd like to meet that person," Brown said, adding that she has not been sued.
Some people were outraged about the photograph of Biden holding a 5-week-old puppy, Brown said. But, the breeder points out, Biden only came to select a puppy on that visit, left it with its mother and returned three weeks later to take it home.
Brown was not only vilified in posted comments to newspapers but also on the Web site of People for the Ethical Treatment Animals, or PETA.
According to a Dec. 12 press release from the animal rights group, it aired its controversial TV commercials "Buy One, Get One Killed" in Biden's home state of Delaware after he bought his dog from Brown. The commercial blames euthanization of animals in shelters on people who purchase pets from breeders.
Brown also was cited for record-keeping problems and warned about maintenance and sanitation shortfalls by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
"I was cited for a piece of kibble on the floor and five strands of dog hair. They took a picture of that, they walked around, snapped pictures and don't tell you why," said Brown, who disputes all the items where she was written up.
Brown's case was heard by District Justice James DeAngelo in South Coventry on March 31. She was found "not guilty" for each citation, the judge's office confirmed Wednesday.
Chris Ryder, press secretary for the Department of Agriculture, said Brown was inspected in December because of a complaint. He said it was department policy not to release the name of the person who complained.
Brown's kennel, Wolf Den, was inspected twice a year by the agency and routinely had satisfactory reports until December 2008 when it had seven unsatisfactory inspection results out of 26, according to the inspection records on the agency's Web site.
Ryder said the inspectors returned as a matter of follow-up to determine if the unsatisfactory matters had been taken care of. He said more than one inspector was brought in because Brown runs a large kennel.
Before going to court, Brown had to hire a lawyer. So far her legal fees are $4,000, she said.
"Never, never, never again," Brown said about selling a dog to anyone with a high profile.
Brown said she gets her breeding stock from Germany. Each dog costs between $5,000 and $10,000.
"If I paid that much for them, don't you think I'd treat them pretty good?" Brown asks.
While the First Family was shopping for a Portuguese water dog, Brown said those breeders were getting in touch with her to find out what her experience had been like.
Brown has a few words for them.
"It's been horrific since December," she said.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
This was left as a comment on Canada-Ontario's Animal Protection Law The strongest- but this could happen to you!
Hi, my name is Elisa Antonacci and I live in a condominium with my mother and 3 other siblings. We moved in with 2 dogs, cookie and bella. We have currenlty been sent to court to have our dogs removed because they have been deemed a "neusence". We won the first time then lost the second. The court has orderd the dogs to be permently removed; we have no money for lawyers. Bella is safe in a home but before we could find a place for cookie the ospca and a sheriff came to take her away. 5 days later I tried to see cookie but they didn't aloow it. They said that cookie was doing horrible and she wasn't eating and very very terrified. We found a temperary home for her but we are soon to be at the end of our road and dont know what to do. I am very certain that if we do give her up she will die. We are all that she has and all that she knows; we love her with all of our heart and dont know what to do! if you have any input on this situation please help' it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
elisaantonacci@hotmail.com
Thanks
elisaantonacci@hotmail.com
Friday, April 3, 2009
Letter to IRS regarding HSUS
Just one comment: My letter mentions a specific bill and hearing I attended in Maryland. If anyone wants to write a similar letter, they should be careful about straight cut/copy paste. Actually, if people can find other examples, that's even better!
The key thing with writing a letter like this is to address the TAX issue - nothing about whether the lobbying is good or bad. I wanted to make the public point that if other lobbying groups can't get contributions that are tax deductible, why should HSUS? In other words - the American taxpayer (merely as a taxpayer) shouldn't pay for any lobbying, not just HSUS, if it isn't legal!
Caroline
I have complained to the IRS about a 501(c)(3) organization
expending much of its resources in lobbying efforts. Perhaps if
others do the same, the IRS will investigate. Yes, there is a
"Humane Society Legislative Fund" that is authorized to conduct
lobbying. I don't know if tecnically that group is doing the
lobbying, but I doubt it. Here is my letter. Feel free to use
anything that might be useful, and you can cross-post if it would
help. It would probably be good if there were individual,
specific examples - such as my Maryland example - to show how
wide-spread their lobbying efforts are. Douglas Shulman is the
Commissioner of the IRS, and I copied him.
IRS EO Classification
Mail Code 4910
1100 Commerce Street
Dallas, TX 75242
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am very upset that the American taxpayers are being denied tens
of millions of dollars in taxes that should be paid. As I
understand it, IRC Section 501(c)(3) charities are not allowed to
conduct more than a minimal amount of lobbying. Yet, one of the
largest "charities" in the country is constantly lobbying and
helping to draft and pass legislation.
In 2007, the Humane Society of The United States (EIN 53-0225390)
received over $150 million, yet paid no taxes. During that time,
they vigorously lobbied to enact many laws. According to their
own annual report
(http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/annual_report_2007_p1.pdf)
they lobbied for many new laws. Some of the more blatant
examples: page 6 - "We lobbied for the successful passage
of legislation in Illinois"; page 12 "In Congress, we secured language in the Senate Interior
Appropriations bill to"; page 12 "We persuaded the New Jersey Legislature to allocate
$850,000"; page 15 "We
also won passage of two precedent-setting bills in the New
York State legislature" and "helped pass a resolution
in the U.S. House of Representatives"; and page 17
"Following our successful state ballot initiative
campaigns in Arizona and Florida" Your own web
site states, "An organization will be regarded as
attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the
public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for
the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or
if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of
legislation." It's pretty clear that the HSUS
is "attempted to influence legislation."
This is not an isolated year. In fact, their current web site
indicates that they are going to increase their lobbying efforts!
See http://www.hsus.org/legislation_laws/.
"On the heels of
these advances, the HSUS is better positioned than ever to make
new gains for animals in 2009. We intend to pass federal
legislation to crack down on abusive puppy mills."
http://www.hsus.org/about_us/accomplishments/advances_in_2008.htm
This, despite the fact that a 501(c)(3) organization can
only conduct minimal lobbying. Their web site encourages the
public to contact the members of the legislature to adopt the
laws proposed by HSUS. I was at a recent hearing of a proposed
state bill (Maryland HB 495), and representatives of HSUS were
there to advocate their position. It is my understanding that
this is occurring across the country. Their agenda clearly
includes influencing legislation.
Even if HSUS were properly approved as a non-profit lobbying
organization, the American taxpayers have lost millions of
dollars in taxes that weren't paid because money
contributed to this non-charity was deducted from taxable income.
In 2007 alone, the public donated over $85 million to HSUS. Even
using an extremely conservative tax rate of 10%, taxpayers were
cheated out of $8.5 million“ and that's only in
2007!
Not only does the HSUS engage in extensive lobbying, but they are
also involved in campaigning for the politicians who support
their agenda!!!
"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3)
organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or
indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political
campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for
elective public office.[V]oter education or registration
activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one
candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or
(c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of
candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or
intervention."
During a recent seminar, the HSUS distributed a "voting
record" of all candidates.
According to their 2007 Form 990, the HSUS paid only $6 million
out of their $150 million in receipts for services that actually
helped animals (line 22b). The rest of their "program
services" expenditures went essentially to salaries and
"educational" literature. Yet, much of this
material ($15 million in expenses) references their lobbying
efforts. In fact, one publication details their legislative
efforts! How much of the salaries, travel, and other expenses
went to lobby for legislation that they helped write? How much
did they spend in lobbying efforts in Proposition 2 in California
alone? Their 990 indicates over $1.5 million (out of the $6
million supposedly used for program causes), but this does not
include the salaries and travel of staff, publicizing their
viewpoint in an effort to convince the general public to vote for
their own law, and other "hidden" expenses.
If the HSUS wants to be a lobbying organization, they should be
upfront about it. Please do not allow them to benefit from
millions of dollars in tax exemptions that should be paid as
income tax, or allow charitable deductions for money paid to a
lobbying group.
I hope that as a government agency not directly connected with
the goals of the HSUS (other than allowing them to retain
millions of dollars that should rightly be paid as taxes), you
will take appropriate action to rescind their charitable
organization status and collect the taxes that could be, and
should be, used to pay for taxpayer services.
Caroline Sullivan
The key thing with writing a letter like this is to address the TAX issue - nothing about whether the lobbying is good or bad. I wanted to make the public point that if other lobbying groups can't get contributions that are tax deductible, why should HSUS? In other words - the American taxpayer (merely as a taxpayer) shouldn't pay for any lobbying, not just HSUS, if it isn't legal!
Caroline
I have complained to the IRS about a 501(c)(3) organization
expending much of its resources in lobbying efforts. Perhaps if
others do the same, the IRS will investigate. Yes, there is a
"Humane Society Legislative Fund" that is authorized to conduct
lobbying. I don't know if tecnically that group is doing the
lobbying, but I doubt it. Here is my letter. Feel free to use
anything that might be useful, and you can cross-post if it would
help. It would probably be good if there were individual,
specific examples - such as my Maryland example - to show how
wide-spread their lobbying efforts are. Douglas Shulman is the
Commissioner of the IRS, and I copied him.
IRS EO Classification
Mail Code 4910
1100 Commerce Street
Dallas, TX 75242
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am very upset that the American taxpayers are being denied tens
of millions of dollars in taxes that should be paid. As I
understand it, IRC Section 501(c)(3) charities are not allowed to
conduct more than a minimal amount of lobbying. Yet, one of the
largest "charities" in the country is constantly lobbying and
helping to draft and pass legislation.
In 2007, the Humane Society of The United States (EIN 53-0225390)
received over $150 million, yet paid no taxes. During that time,
they vigorously lobbied to enact many laws. According to their
own annual report
(http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/annual_report_2007_p1.pdf)
they lobbied for many new laws. Some of the more blatant
examples: page 6 - "We lobbied for the successful passage
of legislation in Illinois"; page 12 "In Congress, we secured language in the Senate Interior
Appropriations bill to"; page 12 "We persuaded the New Jersey Legislature to allocate
$850,000"; page 15 "We
also won passage of two precedent-setting bills in the New
York State legislature" and "helped pass a resolution
in the U.S. House of Representatives"; and page 17
"Following our successful state ballot initiative
campaigns in Arizona and Florida" Your own web
site states, "An organization will be regarded as
attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the
public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for
the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or
if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of
legislation." It's pretty clear that the HSUS
is "attempted to influence legislation."
This is not an isolated year. In fact, their current web site
indicates that they are going to increase their lobbying efforts!
See http://www.hsus.org/legislation_laws/.
"On the heels of
these advances, the HSUS is better positioned than ever to make
new gains for animals in 2009. We intend to pass federal
legislation to crack down on abusive puppy mills."
http://www.hsus.org/about_us/accomplishments/advances_in_2008.htm
This, despite the fact that a 501(c)(3) organization can
only conduct minimal lobbying. Their web site encourages the
public to contact the members of the legislature to adopt the
laws proposed by HSUS. I was at a recent hearing of a proposed
state bill (Maryland HB 495), and representatives of HSUS were
there to advocate their position. It is my understanding that
this is occurring across the country. Their agenda clearly
includes influencing legislation.
Even if HSUS were properly approved as a non-profit lobbying
organization, the American taxpayers have lost millions of
dollars in taxes that weren't paid because money
contributed to this non-charity was deducted from taxable income.
In 2007 alone, the public donated over $85 million to HSUS. Even
using an extremely conservative tax rate of 10%, taxpayers were
cheated out of $8.5 million“ and that's only in
2007!
Not only does the HSUS engage in extensive lobbying, but they are
also involved in campaigning for the politicians who support
their agenda!!!
"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3)
organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or
indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political
campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for
elective public office.[V]oter education or registration
activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one
candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or
(c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of
candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or
intervention."
During a recent seminar, the HSUS distributed a "voting
record" of all candidates.
According to their 2007 Form 990, the HSUS paid only $6 million
out of their $150 million in receipts for services that actually
helped animals (line 22b). The rest of their "program
services" expenditures went essentially to salaries and
"educational" literature. Yet, much of this
material ($15 million in expenses) references their lobbying
efforts. In fact, one publication details their legislative
efforts! How much of the salaries, travel, and other expenses
went to lobby for legislation that they helped write? How much
did they spend in lobbying efforts in Proposition 2 in California
alone? Their 990 indicates over $1.5 million (out of the $6
million supposedly used for program causes), but this does not
include the salaries and travel of staff, publicizing their
viewpoint in an effort to convince the general public to vote for
their own law, and other "hidden" expenses.
If the HSUS wants to be a lobbying organization, they should be
upfront about it. Please do not allow them to benefit from
millions of dollars in tax exemptions that should be paid as
income tax, or allow charitable deductions for money paid to a
lobbying group.
I hope that as a government agency not directly connected with
the goals of the HSUS (other than allowing them to retain
millions of dollars that should rightly be paid as taxes), you
will take appropriate action to rescind their charitable
organization status and collect the taxes that could be, and
should be, used to pay for taxpayer services.
Caroline Sullivan
NY- Tail docking bill
A07218
TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the agriculture and markets law, in
relation to making tail docking of dogs unlawful
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL: Prohibits the docking of dog tails for
reasons other than to protect the life or health of the dog as deemed
necessary by a duly licensed veterinarian.
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS: Section 1. The agriculture and markets
law is amended by adding a new section 365-a: Any person who cuts the
tail of a dog for reasons other than to protect the life or health of
the animal is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more
than five hundred dollars. Any person who shows or exhibits a dog whose
tail has been docked or altered, at a show or other exhibition, is guil-
ty of a misdemeanor, punishable as above. Any dog owner who is injured
or damaged by a violation of these provisions may institute a private
right of action in the supreme court of this state, to obtain redress
for such injury or violation. The provisions shall not apply to any dog
or person who is the owner of any dog whose tail has been certified as
docked, cut or altered prior to August 1, 2009.
JUSTIFICATION: The enactment of this bill would ensure that dogs are not
caused unnecessary risk and pain by cosmetic tail docking. Performed
under anesthetic, the procedure carries within it inherent risks of
blood loss and infection, as well as causing lasting chronic tension in
the back and hindquarter muscles of dogs after the procedure. While
illegal in many countries, docking procedures are so prevalent today
that dogs of some breeds are not recognizable when they are in fact
intact. This legislation would ensure that dogs are no longer subjected
to lasting pain as a result of docking, and also that shows and exhibi-
tions will no favor dogs whose tails have been docked.
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: New Bill
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None to the State
EFFECTIVE DATE: This act shall take effect August 1, 2009; provided,
however, if it shall become law after such date it shall take effect
immediately and shall be deemed to have been in full force and effect on
and after August 1, 2009.
SPONSOR Glick (MS)
COSPNSR http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/?ad=086, Colton, Dinowitz, Eddington, Kellner, Paulin, Rosenthal
MLTSPNSR Ball, Boyland, Gottfried, McDonough, McEneny
TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the agriculture and markets law, in
relation to making tail docking of dogs unlawful
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL: Prohibits the docking of dog tails for
reasons other than to protect the life or health of the dog as deemed
necessary by a duly licensed veterinarian.
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS: Section 1. The agriculture and markets
law is amended by adding a new section 365-a: Any person who cuts the
tail of a dog for reasons other than to protect the life or health of
the animal is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more
than five hundred dollars. Any person who shows or exhibits a dog whose
tail has been docked or altered, at a show or other exhibition, is guil-
ty of a misdemeanor, punishable as above. Any dog owner who is injured
or damaged by a violation of these provisions may institute a private
right of action in the supreme court of this state, to obtain redress
for such injury or violation. The provisions shall not apply to any dog
or person who is the owner of any dog whose tail has been certified as
docked, cut or altered prior to August 1, 2009.
JUSTIFICATION: The enactment of this bill would ensure that dogs are not
caused unnecessary risk and pain by cosmetic tail docking. Performed
under anesthetic, the procedure carries within it inherent risks of
blood loss and infection, as well as causing lasting chronic tension in
the back and hindquarter muscles of dogs after the procedure. While
illegal in many countries, docking procedures are so prevalent today
that dogs of some breeds are not recognizable when they are in fact
intact. This legislation would ensure that dogs are no longer subjected
to lasting pain as a result of docking, and also that shows and exhibi-
tions will no favor dogs whose tails have been docked.
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: New Bill
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None to the State
EFFECTIVE DATE: This act shall take effect August 1, 2009; provided,
however, if it shall become law after such date it shall take effect
immediately and shall be deemed to have been in full force and effect on
and after August 1, 2009.
SPONSOR Glick (MS)
COSPNSR http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/?ad=086, Colton, Dinowitz, Eddington, Kellner, Paulin, Rosenthal
MLTSPNSR Ball, Boyland, Gottfried, McDonough, McEneny
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
CA- Manteca- Dog Owners on neutering: It bites
Dog Owners on neutering: It bites
They say it is wrong response to series of dog maulings
By Jason Campbell
Reporter
jcampbell@mantecabulletin.com
209-249-3544
POSTED March 31, 2009 2:20 a.m.
It was a discussion about dogs in heat.
And it definitely got heated.
More than two dozen dog owners stridently defended their position against a possible ordinance that would make the fixing of all dogs mandatory under city law if the City Council were to approve the same piece of legislation that is already in place the similarly sized City of Santa Cruz.
The council is expected to discuss the possible ordinance – which tentatively includes exceptions for recognized show dogs, livestock dogs, police dogs, or assistance dogs in addition to city-licensed breeders – when they meet again on Tuesday, April 7, at 7 p.m. at the Civic Center, 1001 W. Center St.
While the reasons behind the opposition varied from person to person, the overwhelming consensus presented to Police Chief Dave Bricker was clear – leave man’s best friend alone.
“I think that registering your dog is the responsible thing to do, and it’s something that every owner should take care of,” resident Mike Learned said. “But making it mandatory to spay or neuter your animal makes it seem like we’re living in a dictatorship.
“It just doesn’t seem responsible for the government to be mandating something like that.”
And of all of the owners and supporters who turned out for the meeting, Learned – who has two labs of his own at home – might have been the only one in the crowd that has seen the outcome of the brutal maulings that are heavily publicized and often include certain breeds that are left unattended.
During his tenure working as a nurse in Modesto, Learned saw several instances where owners left their animal alone only to come back to find it brutally attacking either another family member or a stranger who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The end result, he says, almost always includes people talking about how if they dog had been spayed or neutered it never would have happened.
“I have two labs at home, and the female that’s fixed is the one that always makes a break for it and takes off down the street if she gets even the slightest chance, and the male that isn’t fixed could care less – he just tags along because she went,” Learned said jokingly. “Just because a dog is fixed doesn’t always mean you’re going to know how it will react.
“I have a real understanding of what happens to the victims in these maulings. There are a lot of dogs around here that are bred to fight, and when an owner irresponsibly leaves that dog with a very large bite around somebody that it’s not familiar with bad things can happen. But this seems like it’s just a mommy ordinance – where someone does something bad and everyone has to pay for it.”
At the start of the meeting Bricker told those in attendance that the entire issue was born out of a series of dog maulings last year and eventually prompted the council to look into passing an ordinance making the sterilization of certain breeds mandatory.
That initial proposal was eventually adapted to include all dogs to both control the overall population and address the concerns that people may have about large dogs or others that commonly end up the subject of horror stories that people end up reading about.
It’s an idea, Bricker said, that will definitely be shaped by what the dog owners and responsible citizens want to see – noting that it’s not those people that the city is trying to hurt by looking into this.
“Responsible pet owners that keep their animals confined and enclosed aren’t going to have a problem with the Manteca Police Department,” Bricker said. “But if you’re an irresponsible pet owner with your animal out running the streets or if we find it unattended, then that would be a violation of this ordinance and we would proceed accordingly.”
Bricker encouraged all who attended the informational meeting Monday to show up at the next council meeting to share their concerns if they feel his report doesn’t adequately represent their thoughts.
They say it is wrong response to series of dog maulings
By Jason Campbell
Reporter
jcampbell@mantecabulletin.com
209-249-3544
POSTED March 31, 2009 2:20 a.m.
It was a discussion about dogs in heat.
And it definitely got heated.
More than two dozen dog owners stridently defended their position against a possible ordinance that would make the fixing of all dogs mandatory under city law if the City Council were to approve the same piece of legislation that is already in place the similarly sized City of Santa Cruz.
The council is expected to discuss the possible ordinance – which tentatively includes exceptions for recognized show dogs, livestock dogs, police dogs, or assistance dogs in addition to city-licensed breeders – when they meet again on Tuesday, April 7, at 7 p.m. at the Civic Center, 1001 W. Center St.
While the reasons behind the opposition varied from person to person, the overwhelming consensus presented to Police Chief Dave Bricker was clear – leave man’s best friend alone.
“I think that registering your dog is the responsible thing to do, and it’s something that every owner should take care of,” resident Mike Learned said. “But making it mandatory to spay or neuter your animal makes it seem like we’re living in a dictatorship.
“It just doesn’t seem responsible for the government to be mandating something like that.”
And of all of the owners and supporters who turned out for the meeting, Learned – who has two labs of his own at home – might have been the only one in the crowd that has seen the outcome of the brutal maulings that are heavily publicized and often include certain breeds that are left unattended.
During his tenure working as a nurse in Modesto, Learned saw several instances where owners left their animal alone only to come back to find it brutally attacking either another family member or a stranger who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The end result, he says, almost always includes people talking about how if they dog had been spayed or neutered it never would have happened.
“I have two labs at home, and the female that’s fixed is the one that always makes a break for it and takes off down the street if she gets even the slightest chance, and the male that isn’t fixed could care less – he just tags along because she went,” Learned said jokingly. “Just because a dog is fixed doesn’t always mean you’re going to know how it will react.
“I have a real understanding of what happens to the victims in these maulings. There are a lot of dogs around here that are bred to fight, and when an owner irresponsibly leaves that dog with a very large bite around somebody that it’s not familiar with bad things can happen. But this seems like it’s just a mommy ordinance – where someone does something bad and everyone has to pay for it.”
At the start of the meeting Bricker told those in attendance that the entire issue was born out of a series of dog maulings last year and eventually prompted the council to look into passing an ordinance making the sterilization of certain breeds mandatory.
That initial proposal was eventually adapted to include all dogs to both control the overall population and address the concerns that people may have about large dogs or others that commonly end up the subject of horror stories that people end up reading about.
It’s an idea, Bricker said, that will definitely be shaped by what the dog owners and responsible citizens want to see – noting that it’s not those people that the city is trying to hurt by looking into this.
“Responsible pet owners that keep their animals confined and enclosed aren’t going to have a problem with the Manteca Police Department,” Bricker said. “But if you’re an irresponsible pet owner with your animal out running the streets or if we find it unattended, then that would be a violation of this ordinance and we would proceed accordingly.”
Bricker encouraged all who attended the informational meeting Monday to show up at the next council meeting to share their concerns if they feel his report doesn’t adequately represent their thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)