Illinois Dog Owners Divided
By HSUS Bag Of Dirty Tricks
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@conline.net
This article is archived at: http://eaglerock814.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=39
SPRINGFIELD, IL
There is very little good that we can say about the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the political arm of the radical animal rights movement. However, we must credit HSUS with being very politically astute, as their leaders, lobbyists and supporters have demonstrated dramatically in Illinois over the past two months.
Illinois dog owners had successfully stopped two pieces of onerous animal rights legislation, which would have repressively regulated all kennels including very small-scale hobby breeders, destroyed constitutional protections of due process under the law, fair and equal treatment under the law and the right to own and enjoy private property, and criminalized docking tails based on emotion and myth and in ignorance of the facts.
A strong outpouring of dog owners'opposition caused these bad bills to be bottled up in committee, and they didn't have enough votes to be passed.
At that point, HSUS was beaten. Dog owners had successfully fought for and protected their rights by stating the facts and telling the truth.
In Illinois, the truth is that existent laws are very stringent and have completely addressed every kennel problem that has been found for many years, and that tail docking is a safe and almost painless procedure that benefits many dogs.
Then, HSUS pulled out its favorite bag of political dirty tricks in order to divide dog owners and send a mixed message to the Legislature. A few organizations representing dog owners fell for these tricks, and the HSUS plot against our rights was given new life.
It was a classic sucker play. The treachery of some dog owners' groups accomplished what HSUS wanted to accomplish, but had failed to do.
The turncoat dog owners agreed to negotiate and support (or not oppose, which amounts to the same thing) the creation of a task force to study the need for new laws. The task force is based on wholly fictitious premises (please see our report from last week at http://eaglerock814.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=38) and is stacked to give animal rights fanatics as much as a 10-5 voting edge that dooms dog owners to a loss of their rights through bad legislation in the future. HSUS succeeded in convincing some dog owners groups to sign their own death warrants.
In last week's report , we urged dog owners to take action to assure that the resolution creating the task force was under the jurisdiction of the House Agriculture and Conservation Committee, which understands animal issues. Through your help, we succeeded, and the resolution was assigned to the Agriculture and Conservation Committee, where it will get the most knowledgeable and unbiased consideration.
Now, we have to restore unity and undo the divisiveness created by HSUS.
HSUS targets six groups of dog owners in their tactics to divide and conquer:
1. Dog owners who are fearful and timid, and think that "compromise" is the only way to preserve even a pathetic vestige of their rights. It is a current example of the "better red than dead" mindset during the Cold War. These people lack the courage to fight for their rights and are willing to deal them away in exchange for some diluted form of survival
2. Dog owners who want to be seen as "part of the process," and seek out "leadership" roles in order to stroke their egos with illusions of self-importance.
3. Dog owner who have an inherent faith in "the system," but who fail to realize that animal rights groups and Illinois "machine" politicians like Rep. John A. Fritchey and Sen. Dan Kotowski (the sponsors of the legislation who are HSUS tools) are experts at unfairly manipulating the system to get what they want.
4. Dog owners who are elitists in some sense, such as show people who think people who raise companion animals are inferior, or field trialers who think people who raise hunting dogs are second-class citizens.
5. Selfish dog owners who care only about protecting their own interests, and would sell out anyone else in order to save their own hides.
6. And dog owners who accept parts of the animal rights agenda, such as opposition to "puppy mills," and are not able to see the true goals of HSUS, which are to gradually eliminate all ownership of animals in America. These peop le have bought into the HSUS propaganda, even though it completely contradicts the facts.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly believes that the vast majority of dog and kennel owners are the good guys. We are the people who love dogs, breed dogs that are healthy, genetically sound and have great temperaments, and who have done 99% of the hard work to make the lives of dogs in America better than at any time in history.
We will never agree to any legislation that takes away or compromises our rights to continue to do what's best for the welfare of our dogs.
Thus, we are urging all Illinois dog owners to help us to restore unity in the face of the HSUS onslaught that has divided dog owners. Our unity was damaged when some groups decided to negotiate with HSUS, and the sham task force Senate resolution (SJR 56) was the result.
We are asking all Illinois dog owners to do four things now:
1. Do not support or contribute money to any organization that will participate on the task force, hires lobbyists to negotiate with HSUS or which supports the concept of a task force. It is absurd to have a task force based on the fraud of solving nonexistent problems. The only result will be to steal the rights of dog owners through a Devil's compromise in some form.
2. If you belong to a club or organization representing dog owners on the local, state or national level, please contact its officers immediately and ask them to withdraw all support for the task force or negotiations with HSUS. Instead, ask them to have their lobbyists concentrate only on informing the senators and representatives of the facts and encouraging them to vote against HSUS-anointed legislation.
3. Immediately contact members of the House Agriculture and Conservation Committee and ask them to oppose SJR 56. Please clearly state your reasons why. Here is a link for contact information for all members of the House Agriculture and Conservation Committee: http://www.ilga.gov/house/committees/members.asp?CommitteeID=626&GA=96 4. Please contact your own state representative and ask him or her to refuse to concur with SJR 56, and state your reasons. Here is a link to contact information: http://www.ilga.gov/house/default.asp.
5. And please join at least one organization that is fighting for your rights.
If enough Illinois dog owners take these actions, we can restore unity and defeat HSUS-inspired legislation. If you fail to act now, your rights to own and enjoy your dogs are doomed.
Our unity was broken when four dog owners'groups in Illinois hired or supported lobbyists to negotiate with HSUS and agents of Rep. John A. Fritchey and Sen. Dan Kotowski. Negotiations were held every Thursday for more than a month, and are ongoing on a more informal "hidden backroom" level. The result was the creation of the task force, which was the HSUS "Plan B"strategy.
We want to emphasize that most of the groups supporting lobbyists who negotiated with HSUS are among the good guys, who believe in and defend the rights of dog owners. These are good people who are on our side, but we simply think they were manipulated by HSUS into agreeing to the task force. In particular, we admire lobbyist George Fleischli of the Illinois Association of Outdoor Resources, who is helping Illinois Brittany owners and field trial clubs.
Please do not attack good people simply because they make an occasional mistake. They deserve our continued support and loyalty.
Instead, please ask them to join our efforts to restore unity and stop SJR 56 in its tracks. We need their help.
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.americansportingdogalliance.org . Our email is asda@csonline.net .
Showing posts with label Illinois. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Illinois. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
IL- Proposed 5 dog limit in City
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/05/chicago-alderman-lets-have-a-five-dog-limit-in-city.html
Originally posted: May 13, 2009
Chicago alderman: Let's have a five dog limit in city
Posted by Dan Mihalopoulos at 6:50 p.m.
Chicago pet owners would not be allowed to have more than five dogs in their homes under a new City Council proposal.
Ald. Ray Suarez (31st) introduced the ordinance to cap pooch occupancy at today's council meeting. He said a majority of aldermen---27 out of 50---quickly indicated their support.
"There are a lot of people who can't enjoy their backyards because of irresponsible dog owners," he said.
The proposal was prompted, Suarez said, by a recent case of 11 dogs at one house in his Northwest Side ward. The alderman alleged that the stench of doggie doo-doo made neighbors barking mad.
"It smells really bad, especially in the summer," Suarez said.
He quickly added that he didn't want to be labeled anti-canine for his latest legislative effort. "We have a dog who is like a member of the family," he explained.
The ordinance will be debated by the council's License Committee. A date for that public hearing has not yet been set.
Originally posted: May 13, 2009
Chicago alderman: Let's have a five dog limit in city
Posted by Dan Mihalopoulos at 6:50 p.m.
Chicago pet owners would not be allowed to have more than five dogs in their homes under a new City Council proposal.
Ald. Ray Suarez (31st) introduced the ordinance to cap pooch occupancy at today's council meeting. He said a majority of aldermen---27 out of 50---quickly indicated their support.
"There are a lot of people who can't enjoy their backyards because of irresponsible dog owners," he said.
The proposal was prompted, Suarez said, by a recent case of 11 dogs at one house in his Northwest Side ward. The alderman alleged that the stench of doggie doo-doo made neighbors barking mad.
"It smells really bad, especially in the summer," Suarez said.
He quickly added that he didn't want to be labeled anti-canine for his latest legislative effort. "We have a dog who is like a member of the family," he explained.
The ordinance will be debated by the council's License Committee. A date for that public hearing has not yet been set.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
IL- Pet sterilization ordinance back before aldermen
March 10, 2009
By Fran Spielman, Sun-Times News Group
After adding tamer language to appease opponents, the Chicago City Council's most powerful alderman said Monday he has the votes to require dog and cat owners to spay or neuter their pets.
Virtually all dogs and cats older than six months would have to be sterilized under the proposal.
But Ald. Edward Burke (14th) has agreed to drop mandatory impoundment of pets as a penalty against three-time violators and cut the fine against those owners from $500 to $100 per month.
The burden on breeders also would be reduced. No longer would they be required to turn over to the city's Commission on Animal Care and Control the name, address and telephone number of new owners of animals within five days of the sale or transfer.
Language prohibiting animals from being sold or adopted until they've been immunized against common disease also has been stricken. The new version simply requires "accompanying documentation providing the dates of any inoculations and medical treatments."
With the changes, Burke said he now has the 26 council votes he needs to win approval of the controversial ordinance, which aims to reduce animal aggression and Chicago's stray population.
The watered-down version is expected to be approved by the council's license committee Thursday and considered by the full council as early as next week. Dogs and cats exempted from sterilization would include animals used in shows, as service animals, in professional guard services, for breeding or for law enforcement.
Burke introduced the ordinance in response to a savage attack by a pack of pit bulls that seriously injured a Southwest Side woman.
But he acknowledged that the passions on display at a July 2008 hearing that starred legendary game show host Bob Barker would be reignited.
"I was actually surprised by the vehement objections raised by so many people. I thought it would be a simple, easy proposal. But that's not the case. People are very passionate about their pets and about animals," Burke said.
The changes made by Burke did nothing to appease the Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association, which remains adamantly opposed to the ordinance, calling it "bad legislation" that would usher in "a new era of unprecedented oversight of pet health care."
http://www.southtownstar.com/news/1468500,031009neuter.article
__._,_.___
By Fran Spielman, Sun-Times News Group
After adding tamer language to appease opponents, the Chicago City Council's most powerful alderman said Monday he has the votes to require dog and cat owners to spay or neuter their pets.
Virtually all dogs and cats older than six months would have to be sterilized under the proposal.
But Ald. Edward Burke (14th) has agreed to drop mandatory impoundment of pets as a penalty against three-time violators and cut the fine against those owners from $500 to $100 per month.
The burden on breeders also would be reduced. No longer would they be required to turn over to the city's Commission on Animal Care and Control the name, address and telephone number of new owners of animals within five days of the sale or transfer.
Language prohibiting animals from being sold or adopted until they've been immunized against common disease also has been stricken. The new version simply requires "accompanying documentation providing the dates of any inoculations and medical treatments."
With the changes, Burke said he now has the 26 council votes he needs to win approval of the controversial ordinance, which aims to reduce animal aggression and Chicago's stray population.
The watered-down version is expected to be approved by the council's license committee Thursday and considered by the full council as early as next week. Dogs and cats exempted from sterilization would include animals used in shows, as service animals, in professional guard services, for breeding or for law enforcement.
Burke introduced the ordinance in response to a savage attack by a pack of pit bulls that seriously injured a Southwest Side woman.
But he acknowledged that the passions on display at a July 2008 hearing that starred legendary game show host Bob Barker would be reignited.
"I was actually surprised by the vehement objections raised by so many people. I thought it would be a simple, easy proposal. But that's not the case. People are very passionate about their pets and about animals," Burke said.
The changes made by Burke did nothing to appease the Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association, which remains adamantly opposed to the ordinance, calling it "bad legislation" that would usher in "a new era of unprecedented oversight of pet health care."
http://www.southtownstar.com/news/1468500,031009neuter.article
__._,_.___
Monday, March 9, 2009
IL- Plan to Attend on March 12th- Chicago City Council to Vote on Mandatory Spay/Neuter Ordinance
[Monday, March 9, 2009]
Chicago City Council Committee to Vote on Mandatory Spay/Neuter Ordinance March 12th!
The Chicago City Council Joint Committee on Finance and License & Consumer Protection will hear a proposed mandatory spay/neuter ordinance at their meeting this Thursday, March 12th, 2009. It is vital that responsible dog owners and breeders attend the hearing to oppose this measure.
The ordinance will require that all dogs or cats over the age of six months be spayed or neutered unless they qualify for one of the following exemptions:
A licensed veterinarian certifies that the animal’s health would best be served by spaying/neutering after a specified date, or that due to age or poor health it is unsafe to sterilize the animal at this time.
The dog or cat is of a breed approved by and registered with a registry or association recognized by the commission on animal care and control whose programs and practices are consistent with the humane treatment of animals, and the dogs or cats are kept for the purposes of showing or competing in legitimate shows or competitions hosted by or under the approval of the recognized registry or association (It is unclear how this would affect animals that are older than 6 months who are not yet ready to compete or be shown.).
The dog has earned, or is actively being trained for and is in the process of earning an agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, hunting, working or other title from an approved registry or association (It is unclear how an owner would prove that an animal is “being trained”).
Dogs or cats having a valid breeding permit.
Dogs or cats whose owners hold a valid animal care facility license.
The dog is trained or is in the process of being trained as a service dog.
The dog is trained or in the process of being trained and is actively used by law enforcement agencies or the military.
The dog is owned by a guard dog service.
The proposal will also establish a $100 breeding permit, require breeders to submit to a criminal background check and establish the following restrictions:
Prohibits the breeding of female dogs and cats more than once a year unless they receive special permission.
Prohibits the sale of puppies and kittens before eight weeks of age.
Requires breeders to provide veterinary and vaccination records to all puppy and kitten purchasers.
Requires that the breeding permit number be displayed in any advertisement offering puppies or kittens for sale.
What You Can Do
Attend the meeting City Council Joint Committee on Finance and License & Consumer Protection. The details are as follows:
Date: Thursday, March 12, 2009
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Location: Chicago City Hall, 2nd Floor
121 North La Salle Street
Chicago, IL
Chicago residents, send a letter to the Alderman who represents your district. Please click here for a sample letter. Remember that this letter must be personalized and you need to include your full name and mailing address so you will be recognized as a constituent. To find out who represents you, please click here.
Fanciers who have traveled to Chicago to attend dog events, please personalize this sample letter and send it to the authors, Aldermen Burke and Rugai as well as to Alderman Schulter, Chair of the Committee on Licensing and Consumer Protection.
Club Officers, please have your club author a letter opposing this ordinance and send it to the Aldermen listed below. A sample letter to personalize can be found here.
Contact Information for the Aldermen Burke, Rugai and Schulter
Alderman Edward Burke
Chair, Committee on Finance
121 N. LaSalle St., Room 302
Chicago, IL 60602
eburke@cityofchicago.org
FAX: (312) 744-1955
Alderman Virginia Rugai
121 N. LaSalle St., Room 300
Chicago, IL 60602
vrugai@cityofchicago.org
FAX: 773- 238-9049
Alderman Eugene Schulter
121 N. LaSalle St., Room 300
Chicago, IL 60602
ward47@cityofchicago.org
FAX: 312-744-1509
For more information, contact AKC’s Government Relations
Chicago City Council Committee to Vote on Mandatory Spay/Neuter Ordinance March 12th!
The Chicago City Council Joint Committee on Finance and License & Consumer Protection will hear a proposed mandatory spay/neuter ordinance at their meeting this Thursday, March 12th, 2009. It is vital that responsible dog owners and breeders attend the hearing to oppose this measure.
The ordinance will require that all dogs or cats over the age of six months be spayed or neutered unless they qualify for one of the following exemptions:
A licensed veterinarian certifies that the animal’s health would best be served by spaying/neutering after a specified date, or that due to age or poor health it is unsafe to sterilize the animal at this time.
The dog or cat is of a breed approved by and registered with a registry or association recognized by the commission on animal care and control whose programs and practices are consistent with the humane treatment of animals, and the dogs or cats are kept for the purposes of showing or competing in legitimate shows or competitions hosted by or under the approval of the recognized registry or association (It is unclear how this would affect animals that are older than 6 months who are not yet ready to compete or be shown.).
The dog has earned, or is actively being trained for and is in the process of earning an agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, hunting, working or other title from an approved registry or association (It is unclear how an owner would prove that an animal is “being trained”).
Dogs or cats having a valid breeding permit.
Dogs or cats whose owners hold a valid animal care facility license.
The dog is trained or is in the process of being trained as a service dog.
The dog is trained or in the process of being trained and is actively used by law enforcement agencies or the military.
The dog is owned by a guard dog service.
The proposal will also establish a $100 breeding permit, require breeders to submit to a criminal background check and establish the following restrictions:
Prohibits the breeding of female dogs and cats more than once a year unless they receive special permission.
Prohibits the sale of puppies and kittens before eight weeks of age.
Requires breeders to provide veterinary and vaccination records to all puppy and kitten purchasers.
Requires that the breeding permit number be displayed in any advertisement offering puppies or kittens for sale.
What You Can Do
Attend the meeting City Council Joint Committee on Finance and License & Consumer Protection. The details are as follows:
Date: Thursday, March 12, 2009
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Location: Chicago City Hall, 2nd Floor
121 North La Salle Street
Chicago, IL
Chicago residents, send a letter to the Alderman who represents your district. Please click here for a sample letter. Remember that this letter must be personalized and you need to include your full name and mailing address so you will be recognized as a constituent. To find out who represents you, please click here.
Fanciers who have traveled to Chicago to attend dog events, please personalize this sample letter and send it to the authors, Aldermen Burke and Rugai as well as to Alderman Schulter, Chair of the Committee on Licensing and Consumer Protection.
Club Officers, please have your club author a letter opposing this ordinance and send it to the Aldermen listed below. A sample letter to personalize can be found here.
Contact Information for the Aldermen Burke, Rugai and Schulter
Alderman Edward Burke
Chair, Committee on Finance
121 N. LaSalle St., Room 302
Chicago, IL 60602
eburke@cityofchicago.org
FAX: (312) 744-1955
Alderman Virginia Rugai
121 N. LaSalle St., Room 300
Chicago, IL 60602
vrugai@cityofchicago.org
FAX: 773- 238-9049
Alderman Eugene Schulter
121 N. LaSalle St., Room 300
Chicago, IL 60602
ward47@cityofchicago.org
FAX: 312-744-1509
For more information, contact AKC’s Government Relations
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Puppy Mill Bills Across The Nation
Puppy Mill Bills Across the Nation
Contributed by Tammy Miller - Posted: February 27, 2009 4:58:24 PM
Thanks to Columbus Top Dogs.com out of Ohio, I'm getting regular legislative updates from its home state and from across the country.
There is a surprising level of activity on the issue of puppy mills. Here's the latest roundup on legislation that might affect mass breeders ...
Colorado - Bill introduced January 21 to limit the number of dogs breeders could maintain has been tabled.
If it comes back up, it could also mandate regular veterinary exams and prohibit those convicted of animal cruelty from gaining a breeder license.
Connecticut - The state could pass new regulations that allow double-the-money-back from stores that sell pets found to have chronic diseases or disabilities.
Illinois - Bill introduced January 19 know as Chloe's Bill. If passed it would create a Dog Breeder License Act, which would limit the number of breeding dogs to 20 for each breeder.
And -
- Prevent those convicted of felony animal abuse from obtaining a breeding license.
- Require dog breeders to house dogs in areas heated, cooled and vented - without wire flooring.
- Require stores and breeders to provide buyers with full medical histories and spay/neuter information.
Indiana - House Bill 1468 defines a commercial breeder those whelping more than 10 litters in any 12-month period. It might also ...
- Limit breeding dogs to 30 per location.
- Require registration with the state.
- Exercise once per day.
- Maintenance of sanitary conditions and proper ventilation and natural light.
- Require commercial breeder to offer a guarantee.
- Set veterinary care standards and limits on litters a breeding female can whelp each year.
This bill passed easily in the Indiana House and is set to go a Senate committee.
Montana - Columbus Top Dogs reports 189 dogs were seized from a mill in December, which prompted the introduction of an anti-hoarding bill.
Breeders with 20 or more adult dogs could be required to register with the state and submit to annual, surprise inspections.
Nebraska - Bill introduced on February 2 could by April, 2010 limit commercial breeders to 75 dogs over the age of four months. It could also set standards for breeding ages and establish standards for living conditions.
Ohio - A new bill is in the works similar to the one introduced in Indiana.
Folks in the animal welfare movement are hoping to introduce a ballot initiative in 2009 to ban dog auctions.
Oklahoma - The Oklahoma Pet Quality Assurance and Protection Act (HB 1332) has made it out of a committee vote and next goes to the full House.
This act mandates USDA standards for kennels sending out over 25 dogs, cats, kittens or puppies each year. Cage minimum standards are included.
Pennsylvania - A house bill has pass with a 192-0 vote. This one impose criminal penalties for medical procedures not performed by a licensed vet - including c-sections, tail docking and surgeries to stop barking.
It now goes to the Senate.
Tennessee - HB 386 would require any breeder with more than 20 animals to pay a $500 licensing fee to the state. More than 40 animals increases the fee to $1,000. A mandatory inspection program is also established with minimum standards for care and housing.
Another bill might prohibit public animal sales such as those in parking lots and along the roadside. It would also prohibit the use of live animals as prizes for contests, raffles or promotion and restrict sales at flea markets.
Washington - Bills are being considered to regulate large breeders and to set humane standards such as limits to the number of dogs and standards for care and housing.
Tom Grad
Contributed by Tammy Miller - Posted: February 27, 2009 4:58:24 PM
Thanks to Columbus Top Dogs.com out of Ohio, I'm getting regular legislative updates from its home state and from across the country.
There is a surprising level of activity on the issue of puppy mills. Here's the latest roundup on legislation that might affect mass breeders ...
Colorado - Bill introduced January 21 to limit the number of dogs breeders could maintain has been tabled.
If it comes back up, it could also mandate regular veterinary exams and prohibit those convicted of animal cruelty from gaining a breeder license.
Connecticut - The state could pass new regulations that allow double-the-money-back from stores that sell pets found to have chronic diseases or disabilities.
Illinois - Bill introduced January 19 know as Chloe's Bill. If passed it would create a Dog Breeder License Act, which would limit the number of breeding dogs to 20 for each breeder.
And -
- Prevent those convicted of felony animal abuse from obtaining a breeding license.
- Require dog breeders to house dogs in areas heated, cooled and vented - without wire flooring.
- Require stores and breeders to provide buyers with full medical histories and spay/neuter information.
Indiana - House Bill 1468 defines a commercial breeder those whelping more than 10 litters in any 12-month period. It might also ...
- Limit breeding dogs to 30 per location.
- Require registration with the state.
- Exercise once per day.
- Maintenance of sanitary conditions and proper ventilation and natural light.
- Require commercial breeder to offer a guarantee.
- Set veterinary care standards and limits on litters a breeding female can whelp each year.
This bill passed easily in the Indiana House and is set to go a Senate committee.
Montana - Columbus Top Dogs reports 189 dogs were seized from a mill in December, which prompted the introduction of an anti-hoarding bill.
Breeders with 20 or more adult dogs could be required to register with the state and submit to annual, surprise inspections.
Nebraska - Bill introduced on February 2 could by April, 2010 limit commercial breeders to 75 dogs over the age of four months. It could also set standards for breeding ages and establish standards for living conditions.
Ohio - A new bill is in the works similar to the one introduced in Indiana.
Folks in the animal welfare movement are hoping to introduce a ballot initiative in 2009 to ban dog auctions.
Oklahoma - The Oklahoma Pet Quality Assurance and Protection Act (HB 1332) has made it out of a committee vote and next goes to the full House.
This act mandates USDA standards for kennels sending out over 25 dogs, cats, kittens or puppies each year. Cage minimum standards are included.
Pennsylvania - A house bill has pass with a 192-0 vote. This one impose criminal penalties for medical procedures not performed by a licensed vet - including c-sections, tail docking and surgeries to stop barking.
It now goes to the Senate.
Tennessee - HB 386 would require any breeder with more than 20 animals to pay a $500 licensing fee to the state. More than 40 animals increases the fee to $1,000. A mandatory inspection program is also established with minimum standards for care and housing.
Another bill might prohibit public animal sales such as those in parking lots and along the roadside. It would also prohibit the use of live animals as prizes for contests, raffles or promotion and restrict sales at flea markets.
Washington - Bills are being considered to regulate large breeders and to set humane standards such as limits to the number of dogs and standards for care and housing.
Tom Grad
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
IL- AKC Deeply Concerned by Illinois Anti Crop/Dock bill
Tuesday, February 03, 2009]
The American Kennel Club is deeply concerned by Illinois Senate Bill 139. The bill, introduced by Senator Terry Link, the majority caucus whip, seeks to severely limit the practices of tail docking and ear cropping in the state. It is imperative that all concerned Illinois dog owners contact their elected representatives and the bill’s sponsor and express their strong opposition to this attempt to fundamentally change breed standards by limiting acceptable practices of animal husbandry that are accompanied by appropriate veterinary care.
Current Illinois statute allows ear cropping and tail docking done for any legitimate purpose. If SB 139 becomes law, ear cropping and tail docking would be considered "animal torture" under Illinois criminal law and would be allowed only for medical purposes. In effect, SB 139 seeks to fundamentally change many breeds’ characteristics by severely limiting the valid practices of cropping and docking.
The AKC’s policy on the issues of ear cropping, tail docking, and dewclaw removal states:
The American Kennel Club recognizes that ear cropping, tail docking, and dewclaw removal, as described in certain breed standards, are acceptable practices integral to defining and preserving breed character and/or enhancing good health. Appropriate veterinary care should be provided.
The AKC recognizes that ear cropping and tail docking, as prescribed in certain breed standards, are acceptable practices integral to defining and preserving breed character, enhancing good health, and preventing injuries. These breed characteristics ensure the safety of dogs that on a daily basis perform heroic roles with Homeland Security, serve in the U.S. Military, and with Police Departments. These dogs protect tens of thousands of communities throughout our nation and work in the field. Any inference that these procedures are "cosmetic" and unnecessary is a severe mischaracterization that connotes a lack of respect and knowledge of history and the function of purebred dogs.
Breed standards are established and maintained by AKC parent clubs (each of the 158 AKC registered breeds is stewarded by a breed-specific parent club) whose primary purpose is to protect the welfare of their breed and the function it was bred to perform. The American Kennel Club strongly opposes any attempt by lawmakers to fundamentally change breed standards by way of limiting acceptable practices of animal husbandry that are provided with appropriate veterinary care, as SB 139 seeks to do.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Concerned Illinois dog owners are encouraged to contact the bill’s sponsor, Senator Terry Link, and their elected representatives in Springfield, and respectfully yet strongly urge them to oppose this attempted infringement on individual liberties.
Concerned Illinois dog owners, find your state representative and senator’s contact information by clicking here.
Bill sponsor Senator Terry Link
Springfield Office:
321 Capitol Building
Springfield, IL 62706
Phone: (217) 782-8181
District Office:
906 Muir Avenue
Lake Bluff, IL 60044
Phone: (847) 735-8181
FAX: (847) 735-8184
RESOURCES:
To customize a letter of opposition, please http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation/IL_Sample_Letter_crop_dock_2009.doc.
For a copy of the full legislation, please click here.
For tips on how to effectively communicate with legislators, please click here.
For a copy of our Disagree Diplomatically brochure, please click here.
For more information, contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.
The American Kennel Club is deeply concerned by Illinois Senate Bill 139. The bill, introduced by Senator Terry Link, the majority caucus whip, seeks to severely limit the practices of tail docking and ear cropping in the state. It is imperative that all concerned Illinois dog owners contact their elected representatives and the bill’s sponsor and express their strong opposition to this attempt to fundamentally change breed standards by limiting acceptable practices of animal husbandry that are accompanied by appropriate veterinary care.
Current Illinois statute allows ear cropping and tail docking done for any legitimate purpose. If SB 139 becomes law, ear cropping and tail docking would be considered "animal torture" under Illinois criminal law and would be allowed only for medical purposes. In effect, SB 139 seeks to fundamentally change many breeds’ characteristics by severely limiting the valid practices of cropping and docking.
The AKC’s policy on the issues of ear cropping, tail docking, and dewclaw removal states:
The American Kennel Club recognizes that ear cropping, tail docking, and dewclaw removal, as described in certain breed standards, are acceptable practices integral to defining and preserving breed character and/or enhancing good health. Appropriate veterinary care should be provided.
The AKC recognizes that ear cropping and tail docking, as prescribed in certain breed standards, are acceptable practices integral to defining and preserving breed character, enhancing good health, and preventing injuries. These breed characteristics ensure the safety of dogs that on a daily basis perform heroic roles with Homeland Security, serve in the U.S. Military, and with Police Departments. These dogs protect tens of thousands of communities throughout our nation and work in the field. Any inference that these procedures are "cosmetic" and unnecessary is a severe mischaracterization that connotes a lack of respect and knowledge of history and the function of purebred dogs.
Breed standards are established and maintained by AKC parent clubs (each of the 158 AKC registered breeds is stewarded by a breed-specific parent club) whose primary purpose is to protect the welfare of their breed and the function it was bred to perform. The American Kennel Club strongly opposes any attempt by lawmakers to fundamentally change breed standards by way of limiting acceptable practices of animal husbandry that are provided with appropriate veterinary care, as SB 139 seeks to do.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Concerned Illinois dog owners are encouraged to contact the bill’s sponsor, Senator Terry Link, and their elected representatives in Springfield, and respectfully yet strongly urge them to oppose this attempted infringement on individual liberties.
Concerned Illinois dog owners, find your state representative and senator’s contact information by clicking here.
Bill sponsor Senator Terry Link
Springfield Office:
321 Capitol Building
Springfield, IL 62706
Phone: (217) 782-8181
District Office:
906 Muir Avenue
Lake Bluff, IL 60044
Phone: (847) 735-8181
FAX: (847) 735-8184
RESOURCES:
To customize a letter of opposition, please http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation/IL_Sample_Letter_crop_dock_2009.doc.
For a copy of the full legislation, please click here.
For tips on how to effectively communicate with legislators, please click here.
For a copy of our Disagree Diplomatically brochure, please click here.
For more information, contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.
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
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 21, 2009
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.
Monday, August 4, 2008
IL- Chicago City Council- mandatory spay/neuter & criminal background checks for those who want to breed dogs
The Chicago City Council is meeting to consider a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance requiring all dogs and cats to be spayed or neutered unless the animal qualifies for a specific exemption.
Passage of this ordinance will negatively impact responsible dog breeders and owners. It will make it almost impossible for Chicago residents to purchase a healthy, well-bred pet from a local breeder.
The ordinance will require that all dogs cats and over the age of six months be spayed or neutered unless they qualify for one of the following exemptions:
* A licensed veterinarian certifies that the animal’s health would best be served by spaying/neutering after a specified date, or that due to age or poor health it is unsafe to sterilize the animal at this time.
* The owner of the dog or cat has a valid $100 breeding permit.
Applicants are required to undergo a criminal background check.
Residents are permitted to whelp only 1 litter per year unless they receive a special exemption from the commission. A separate permit is still required for each animal, even if it is not being bred that year.
This permit is in addition to the $50 intact license fee.
The breeding permit number must be displayed in any advertisement for sale.
Breeders are required to provide contact information for new owners to the city and to present the new owner with an application for a pet license.
* The dog or cat is registered with a registry approved by the commission and is kept for the purposes of competing in legitimate shows or competitions. (It is unclear how an owner would demonstrate this.)
* The dog has earned, or is actively being trained and is in the process of earning an agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, hunting, working or other title from an approved registry or association. (It is unclear how a resident would prove an animal is being “trained.”)
* The dog is trained or in the process of being trained as a guide, signal or service dog or is enrolled in a licensed breeding program for these activities.
* The dog is trained or in the process of being trained and is actively used by law enforcement agencies or the military.
The ordinance makes a variety of findings, many of which are related to dangerous dogs and dog fighting. It is not reasonable to believe that individuals who are engaging in dog fighting, which is a felony under Illinois state law, would comply with animal control regulations, the violation of which generates only the issuance of a citation. Enactment of this ordinance would only serve to punish responsible dog owners and breeders for a problem they did not create.
The proposal allows animals to be impounded simply because they are not sterilized, a situation that is likely to increase the number of animals in shelters, not decrease it. To reclaim an animal it must be sterilized and microchipped and the owner must pay the full costs of those procedures in addition to penalties. Again, this is likely to force more abandonments and increase shelter populations.
What You Can Do
IT'S NOT TOO LATE TO CONTACT ALDERMAN ED BURKE- WRITE OR CALL HIM NOW.
a vote by the Chicago City Council's Finance Committee, in consideration of a proposed mandatory spay/neuter ordinance, was put off by committee chairman Alderman Ed Burke. After several hours of testimony, Alderman Burke delayed a vote to allow more testimony to be heard. No new hearing date has been set.
Chicago residents, send a letter to the Alderman who represents your district. Remember that this letter must be personalized and you need to include your full name and mailing address so you will be recognized as a constituent. To find out who represents you, please click here.
Fanciers who have traveled to Chicago to attend dog events, please personalize this sample letter and send it to the authors, Aldermen Burke and Rugai as well as Alderman Schulter, Chair of the Committee on Licensing and Consumer Protection.
Club Officers please have your club author a letter opposing this ordinance and send it to the Aldermen listed below. A sample letter to personalize can be found here.
Contact Information for the Aldermen Burke, Rugai and Schulter
Alderman Edward Burke
Chair, Committee on Finance
121 N. LaSalle St., Room 302
Chicago, IL 60602
eburke@cityofchicago.org
FAX: (312) 744-1955
Alderman Virginia Rugai
121 N. LaSalle St., Room 300
Chicago, IL 60602
vrugai@cityofchicago.org
FAX: 773- 238-9049
Alderman Eugene Schulter
Chair, Committee on License and Consumer Protection
121 N. LaSalle St., Room 300
Chicago, IL 60602
ward47@cityofchicago.org
FAX: 312-744-1509
Passage of this ordinance will negatively impact responsible dog breeders and owners. It will make it almost impossible for Chicago residents to purchase a healthy, well-bred pet from a local breeder.
The ordinance will require that all dogs cats and over the age of six months be spayed or neutered unless they qualify for one of the following exemptions:
* A licensed veterinarian certifies that the animal’s health would best be served by spaying/neutering after a specified date, or that due to age or poor health it is unsafe to sterilize the animal at this time.
* The owner of the dog or cat has a valid $100 breeding permit.
Applicants are required to undergo a criminal background check.
Residents are permitted to whelp only 1 litter per year unless they receive a special exemption from the commission. A separate permit is still required for each animal, even if it is not being bred that year.
This permit is in addition to the $50 intact license fee.
The breeding permit number must be displayed in any advertisement for sale.
Breeders are required to provide contact information for new owners to the city and to present the new owner with an application for a pet license.
* The dog or cat is registered with a registry approved by the commission and is kept for the purposes of competing in legitimate shows or competitions. (It is unclear how an owner would demonstrate this.)
* The dog has earned, or is actively being trained and is in the process of earning an agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, hunting, working or other title from an approved registry or association. (It is unclear how a resident would prove an animal is being “trained.”)
* The dog is trained or in the process of being trained as a guide, signal or service dog or is enrolled in a licensed breeding program for these activities.
* The dog is trained or in the process of being trained and is actively used by law enforcement agencies or the military.
The ordinance makes a variety of findings, many of which are related to dangerous dogs and dog fighting. It is not reasonable to believe that individuals who are engaging in dog fighting, which is a felony under Illinois state law, would comply with animal control regulations, the violation of which generates only the issuance of a citation. Enactment of this ordinance would only serve to punish responsible dog owners and breeders for a problem they did not create.
The proposal allows animals to be impounded simply because they are not sterilized, a situation that is likely to increase the number of animals in shelters, not decrease it. To reclaim an animal it must be sterilized and microchipped and the owner must pay the full costs of those procedures in addition to penalties. Again, this is likely to force more abandonments and increase shelter populations.
What You Can Do
IT'S NOT TOO LATE TO CONTACT ALDERMAN ED BURKE- WRITE OR CALL HIM NOW.
a vote by the Chicago City Council's Finance Committee, in consideration of a proposed mandatory spay/neuter ordinance, was put off by committee chairman Alderman Ed Burke. After several hours of testimony, Alderman Burke delayed a vote to allow more testimony to be heard. No new hearing date has been set.
Chicago residents, send a letter to the Alderman who represents your district. Remember that this letter must be personalized and you need to include your full name and mailing address so you will be recognized as a constituent. To find out who represents you, please click here.
Fanciers who have traveled to Chicago to attend dog events, please personalize this sample letter and send it to the authors, Aldermen Burke and Rugai as well as Alderman Schulter, Chair of the Committee on Licensing and Consumer Protection.
Club Officers please have your club author a letter opposing this ordinance and send it to the Aldermen listed below. A sample letter to personalize can be found here.
Contact Information for the Aldermen Burke, Rugai and Schulter
Alderman Edward Burke
Chair, Committee on Finance
121 N. LaSalle St., Room 302
Chicago, IL 60602
eburke@cityofchicago.org
FAX: (312) 744-1955
Alderman Virginia Rugai
121 N. LaSalle St., Room 300
Chicago, IL 60602
vrugai@cityofchicago.org
FAX: 773- 238-9049
Alderman Eugene Schulter
Chair, Committee on License and Consumer Protection
121 N. LaSalle St., Room 300
Chicago, IL 60602
ward47@cityofchicago.org
FAX: 312-744-1509
Friday, May 16, 2008
Il- Chicago considers mandatory Spay/Neuter and Crimimal Backgroud Checks for Dog Breeders
Chicago Considers Mandatory Spay/Neuter and Criminal Background Checks for Dog Breeders
[Thursday, May 15, 2008]
Two Chicago Aldermen are sponsoring a new ordinance that would require all dogs to be spayed/neutered by the age of six months unless they qualify for an unneutered animal license. Chicago residents are asked to contact their representative on the Board of Aldermen to oppose this measure.
To qualify for an unneutered animal license the animal must meet one of the following qualifications:
*Certified by a veterinarian as having a valid medical reason for not being sterilized.
*Owners with a valid breeding permit.
*Dogs and cats of breeds approved by and registered with a registry or association recognized by the commission whose programs and practices are consistent with the humane treatment of animals, and the dogs or cats are kept for the purposes of showing or competing in legitimate shows or competitions hosted by or under the approval of recognized registry or association.
*Dogs that have earned or are actively being trained and are in the process of earning an agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, hunting, working or other title from a registry or association recognized by the commission whose programs and practices are consistent with the humane treatment of animals.
*Service dogs as defined by Illinois state law.
*Dogs owned by a guard dog service.
*Law enforcement and military dogs.
This new ordinance would also remove an existing exemption for residents who occasionally sell animals they bred and raised, meaning that anyone who breeds a litter would be deemed an "animal care facility" and must purchase a $330.00 license. In addition, to qualify for a breeding license a resident would need to submit to both a criminal background check and an inspection of their home. This is an unreasonable violation of the privacy and rights of responsible owners who are respected members of the Chicago community.
This unreasonable and unenforceable ordinance will have a profound negative impact not only upon responsible dog breeders in Chicago, but also upon all current and prospective dog owners.
The American Kennel Club opposes the concept of breeding permits, breeding bans, and the mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of responsible breeders and owners. Additionally, we strongly support and actively promote a wide range of programs to educate the public about responsible breeding practices and the responsible dog ownership.
The proposed ordinance will now be referred to a subcommittee of the Board of Aldermen. The AKC Government Relations staff will continue to provide updates as the legislation progresses.
[Thursday, May 15, 2008]
Two Chicago Aldermen are sponsoring a new ordinance that would require all dogs to be spayed/neutered by the age of six months unless they qualify for an unneutered animal license. Chicago residents are asked to contact their representative on the Board of Aldermen to oppose this measure.
To qualify for an unneutered animal license the animal must meet one of the following qualifications:
*Certified by a veterinarian as having a valid medical reason for not being sterilized.
*Owners with a valid breeding permit.
*Dogs and cats of breeds approved by and registered with a registry or association recognized by the commission whose programs and practices are consistent with the humane treatment of animals, and the dogs or cats are kept for the purposes of showing or competing in legitimate shows or competitions hosted by or under the approval of recognized registry or association.
*Dogs that have earned or are actively being trained and are in the process of earning an agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, hunting, working or other title from a registry or association recognized by the commission whose programs and practices are consistent with the humane treatment of animals.
*Service dogs as defined by Illinois state law.
*Dogs owned by a guard dog service.
*Law enforcement and military dogs.
This new ordinance would also remove an existing exemption for residents who occasionally sell animals they bred and raised, meaning that anyone who breeds a litter would be deemed an "animal care facility" and must purchase a $330.00 license. In addition, to qualify for a breeding license a resident would need to submit to both a criminal background check and an inspection of their home. This is an unreasonable violation of the privacy and rights of responsible owners who are respected members of the Chicago community.
This unreasonable and unenforceable ordinance will have a profound negative impact not only upon responsible dog breeders in Chicago, but also upon all current and prospective dog owners.
The American Kennel Club opposes the concept of breeding permits, breeding bans, and the mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of responsible breeders and owners. Additionally, we strongly support and actively promote a wide range of programs to educate the public about responsible breeding practices and the responsible dog ownership.
The proposed ordinance will now be referred to a subcommittee of the Board of Aldermen. The AKC Government Relations staff will continue to provide updates as the legislation progresses.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)