HB 1451 passed the House on 4/27/11 and has been assigned to the Senate
Committee on Criminal Justice chaired by Sen. John Whitmire (D-15). It is
anticipated that Whitmire will be the bill's advocate in the Senate.
HB 1451 requires licensure and inspection of kennels for simply owning more than 10 intact female dogs even if breeding is occasional. The bill classifies these
owners as commercial if even a single litter a year is bred to be used as
hunting, working, security, herding and livestock guardian dogs, service dogs,
or family pets. Sara Chisnell-Voigt, Legal Counsel United Kennel Club, writes, "UKC believes
that the health and well-being of dogs are of the utmost importance, and are
significant concerns. However, this bill will do more harm to the responsible
breeders than they will to protect the welfare of dogs. Defining a commercial
kennel by 11 or more intact adult female dogs is an unacceptable threshold."
Bill author, Rep. Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston) and supporting animal rights
groups continually mislead the media claiming the bill is only designed to
ensure that breeders meet health and safety standards and that animals have food
and clean water. However, the Federal engineering standards required by HB 1451
are not compatible with home-based breeding programs. Compliance with Federal regulations would require small and mid-size sporting dog and hobby breeders to construct temperature, humidity, and diurnal lighting controlled kennel buildings costing tens of thousands of dollars. Labeling and registering
breeders as commercial businesses simply because of the number of intact dogs
owned will end many hunting and hobby kennels throughout the state.
Mary Beth Duerler, RPOA Texas Outreach and Responsible Pet Owners Alliance,
explained, "HB 1451 is not written to regulate dog and cat breeders in Texas. It
is written to eliminate them. The Standards for Care; Confinement and
Transportation adopted must meet federal USDA regulations at a minimum. Bill
sponsors and proponents know they cannot be met in a home environment."
Following the House vote to pass HB 1451, Rep. David Simpson (R-Longview) posted
the following commentary on his blog, "It establishes a new licensing and
regulatory bureaucracy for breeders. I spoke and voted against the bill because
it increased state government by $2.6 million for the biennium and increased
state bureaucrats by 14. Moreover, I believe it will be ineffective. I doubt
that criminal and cruel breeders, who are already operating outside the law,
will submit themselves to be licensed and regulated and pay a $1300-$4300 fee
per year. It will certainly hinder responsible breeders though and probably
cause some to go out of business. The bill also violates the 4th Amendment by
authorizing inspectors to come unannounced and without the owner or licensee
onto a breeder's property and even into a breeder's home to access animals or
documents without a warrant."
HB 1451 is supported by a number of animal rights organizations, including Texas
Humane Legislation Network (THLN), HSUS, ALDF, and ASPCA. These groups
highlight kennels where hundreds of dogs are kept in poor conditions and, in
true activist style, vilify dog breeders across the board to promote the need
for restrictive legislation.
Texans pour hundreds of millions of dollars into the State's economy every year
hunting, exhibiting, training, and breeding dogs. Their dogs could not hunt,
track, herd, search, or compete in shows and trials if they were not well taken
care of.
ACTION REQUIRED
Call, fax, and email your Senator and the Senate Committee on Criminal Justice
and request they oppose HB 1451.
Committee Contacts:
CHAIR
Sen. John Whitmire (D-15)
(512) 463-0115 / Fax: (512) 475-3737
John.whitmire@senate.state.tx.us
VICE CHAIR
Sen. Joan Huffman (R-17)
(512) 463-0117 / Fax: (512) 463-0639
Joan.huffman@senate.state.tx.us
MEMBERS
Sen. John Carona (R-16)
(512) 463-0116 / Fax: (512) 463-3135
John.carona@senate.state.tx.us
Sen. Rodney Ellis (D-13)
(512) 463-0113 / Fax: (512) 463-0006
Rodney.ellis@senate.state.tx.us
Sen. Glenn Hegar (R-18)
(512) 463-0118 / Fax: (512) 475-3736
Glenn.hegar@senate.state.tx.us
Sen. Juan Hinojosa (D-20)
(512) 463-0120 / Fax: (512) 463-0229
Juan.hinojosa@senate.state.tx.us
Sen. Dan Patrick (R-7)
(512) 463-0107 / Fax: (512) 463-8810
Dan.patrick@senate.state.tx.us
HB 1451 is opposed by: American Dog Breeders Association; American Kennel Club;
Animal Owners Association of Texas; Endangered Breeds Association; National
Animal Interest Alliance; RPOA Texas Outreach and Responsible Pet Owners
Alliance; Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance; United Kennel Club;
U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance; and many more local and national organizations.
Additional information can be found at the SAOVA website:
http://http://www.saova.org/TexasHB1451.htmlAnd at U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance:
http://www.ussportsmen.org/page.aspx?pid=2727Susan Wolf
Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
Issue lobbying and working to identify and elect supportive legislators
Visit SAOVA News http://saovanews.blogspot.com/
Showing posts with label Texas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Texas. Show all posts
Monday, May 9, 2011
Thursday, May 5, 2011
TX: HB 1451 calll 11 female dogs a "commercial Kennel"
HB 1451 is gets through the House of Representatives with little opportunity for public input. House Bill 1451 does the following:
SYNOPSISHSUS Funded Representative Senfronia Thompson (D, 141) filed HB 1451 a bill to regulate Texas dog and cat breeders. HB 1451 is supported by a coalition of animal rights groups including HSUS, PETA, ASPCA, and Texas Humane Legislation Network (THLN). Commercial breeder is defined as a person who possesses 11 or more intact female dogs or cats over 6 months of age. Criminal background checks for both kennel owners and staff would be required for kennel license approval. A kennel license can be denied, suspended, or revoked for any infraction of the regulations or record-keeping rules or failure to complete a corrective action in the time allotted in an inspection report. Breeding females must have adequate rest between breeding cycles and a yearly veterinary exam. HB 1451 is only an outline of intended future regulations. The Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation would be required to adopt the rules, standards, procedures, and fees necessary to implement the Act by March 31, 2012. Future rules and regulations established must meet or exceed current federal regulations for the handling, care, treatment, and transportation of dogs and cats.
•Classifies sporting dog kennels or hobby breeders who have 11 female dogs that have not been spayed to be classified the same as a huge commercial dealer if they sell just two dogs.
•Charges kennel license fees likely to be at least $1,300 per kennel even for hobby breeders who hardly ever sell dogs.
•Creates an unelected commission to create kennel construction requirements, record keeping requirements and other expensive red tape that hobby breeders cannot afford because their primary purpose is not to sell dogs.
•Allows for unannounced inspections of kennels and the homes of their owners if they keep their kennel records on a computer inside their house.
•Allows for the inspection of records within a home without any suspicion of wrong doing or even a search warrant.
•Threatens to drive sporting dog kennels and hobby breeders out of business because they do not have the commercial revenue to offset high fees, and expensive regulations.
•Discloses personal information about dog breeders to the public by creating a public directory containing information on all registered breeders
SYNOPSISHSUS Funded Representative Senfronia Thompson (D, 141) filed HB 1451 a bill to regulate Texas dog and cat breeders. HB 1451 is supported by a coalition of animal rights groups including HSUS, PETA, ASPCA, and Texas Humane Legislation Network (THLN). Commercial breeder is defined as a person who possesses 11 or more intact female dogs or cats over 6 months of age. Criminal background checks for both kennel owners and staff would be required for kennel license approval. A kennel license can be denied, suspended, or revoked for any infraction of the regulations or record-keeping rules or failure to complete a corrective action in the time allotted in an inspection report. Breeding females must have adequate rest between breeding cycles and a yearly veterinary exam. HB 1451 is only an outline of intended future regulations. The Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation would be required to adopt the rules, standards, procedures, and fees necessary to implement the Act by March 31, 2012. Future rules and regulations established must meet or exceed current federal regulations for the handling, care, treatment, and transportation of dogs and cats.
•Classifies sporting dog kennels or hobby breeders who have 11 female dogs that have not been spayed to be classified the same as a huge commercial dealer if they sell just two dogs.
•Charges kennel license fees likely to be at least $1,300 per kennel even for hobby breeders who hardly ever sell dogs.
•Creates an unelected commission to create kennel construction requirements, record keeping requirements and other expensive red tape that hobby breeders cannot afford because their primary purpose is not to sell dogs.
•Allows for unannounced inspections of kennels and the homes of their owners if they keep their kennel records on a computer inside their house.
•Allows for the inspection of records within a home without any suspicion of wrong doing or even a search warrant.
•Threatens to drive sporting dog kennels and hobby breeders out of business because they do not have the commercial revenue to offset high fees, and expensive regulations.
•Discloses personal information about dog breeders to the public by creating a public directory containing information on all registered breeders
Thursday, July 16, 2009
TX- City of Ferris to discuss mandatory euthanasia on July 20th at 7:00pm
Mandatory Euthanasia This is a link to the article in The Ellis County Prss
Also view: Fight In Ferris Over Animal Euthanasia Rules
Animal control officer is to hold the animals for the minimum of 3 days required by law, and then immediately euthanize them.
The next City Council meeting is July 20th at 7:00pm. Although it is too late to submitt a request to speak at this meeting, it is not too late to attend.
Also view: Fight In Ferris Over Animal Euthanasia Rules
Animal control officer is to hold the animals for the minimum of 3 days required by law, and then immediately euthanize them.
The next City Council meeting is July 20th at 7:00pm. Although it is too late to submitt a request to speak at this meeting, it is not too late to attend.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
TX- Couple working for a national ban on pit bulls
UPDATE: Leash Law Approved for Portions of Rusk County
By BETTY WATERS
Staff Waters
HENDERSON — Rusk County Commissioners this morning adopted a leash law for portions of the county.
The meeting was packed with people calling for the county to take a tougher stance against pit bull dogs.
Last month a 10-year-old Justin Clinton was mauled to death by pit bull dogs near Leverett’s Chapel School.
Before the meeting, 60 to 70 people gathered on the steps of the Rusk County Courthouse calling for the banning of pit bull dogs.
They hope what would be called “Justin’s Law” would outlaw ownership of pit bull dogs across the nation.
Among those attending the protest was Cynthia Kent, a Tyler attorney who served for several years as a district judge in Tyler.
Serena Clinton and Kevin Clinton, parents of Justin Clinton, speak during an interview this morning in front of the Rusk County Courthouse.
Mrs. Kent called the death a “senseless and preventable tragedy.”
She and others vowed to take the fight to ban pit bull dogs to the national level. Mrs. Kent said she would speak with U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert of Tyler about the prospect of national legislation.
Commissioner adopted the leash law for the Elderville and Airport Garden areas. A public hearing on enacting restrictions had previously been held for those communities. The court agreed to look at expanding the leash law to other areas.
The court also adopted a resolution calling for the banning of pit bulls throughout the nation.
Michael Jimerson, county and district attorney, said the county is limited to what it can do to prevent pit bull dog attacks.
In another action, the court accepted $15.78 million as the maximum cost for expansion of the county jail.
Updated Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 12:20 p.m. CDT
By BETTY WATERS
Staff Waters
HENDERSON — Rusk County Commissioners this morning adopted a leash law for portions of the county.
The meeting was packed with people calling for the county to take a tougher stance against pit bull dogs.
Last month a 10-year-old Justin Clinton was mauled to death by pit bull dogs near Leverett’s Chapel School.
Before the meeting, 60 to 70 people gathered on the steps of the Rusk County Courthouse calling for the banning of pit bull dogs.
They hope what would be called “Justin’s Law” would outlaw ownership of pit bull dogs across the nation.
Among those attending the protest was Cynthia Kent, a Tyler attorney who served for several years as a district judge in Tyler.
Serena Clinton and Kevin Clinton, parents of Justin Clinton, speak during an interview this morning in front of the Rusk County Courthouse.
Mrs. Kent called the death a “senseless and preventable tragedy.”
She and others vowed to take the fight to ban pit bull dogs to the national level. Mrs. Kent said she would speak with U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert of Tyler about the prospect of national legislation.
Commissioner adopted the leash law for the Elderville and Airport Garden areas. A public hearing on enacting restrictions had previously been held for those communities. The court agreed to look at expanding the leash law to other areas.
The court also adopted a resolution calling for the banning of pit bulls throughout the nation.
Michael Jimerson, county and district attorney, said the county is limited to what it can do to prevent pit bull dog attacks.
In another action, the court accepted $15.78 million as the maximum cost for expansion of the county jail.
Updated Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 12:20 p.m. CDT
Thursday, May 14, 2009
TX- HB 3180 "Puppymill Bill"
May 13, 2009
There's a lot of confusion regarding what's happening at the Texas State Legislature. RPOA can't broadcast all we're doing but will send alerts when we need your help with clear instructions. FORGET ABOUT HB 2310.
Call and tell your senator you are passionate about your animals and will not vote for him if he votes for HB 3180 nor will you financially support him/her in the future!
The bill that has been received in the Senate is HB 3180 and that is the bill we MUST DEFEAT. The Engrossed Version of HB 3180 that passed on the House Floor is on the state's website:
www.capitol.state.tx.us
As you know from past experience, all rules can be suspended and this bill could be passed in record time. So get on the horn! We can still kill this bill if each of you contact your senator and explain that this bill is not about "puppymills" at all.
It takes 21 Senate votes to get it to a Floor Vote. That is out of 31 senators. So let's get busy. We can do this! Just a couple more weeks to go.
Ask your senator how he or she is going to vote and let us know. It's a good idea to start contacting Governor Rick Perry -- just in case.
Find out who represents you: http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/
Some talking points are below:
HB 3180, the misnamed "Puppymill Bill," by Thompson
* Will our senators stand up to the political powers in Austin to do what is right or will they let pet owners down as the House did? Do they own pets now and hope to own pets in the future?
* If every dog and cat in Texas is sterilized (as mandated in Senator Van de Putte's bill) and breeders face overly restrictive regulations (as in Representative Thompson's bill), where will pets come from in the future?
* Animal owners all over the country have their eyes on Texas to see how our legislators vote this session on anti-pet bills.
* HB 3180 is being sold as a "Puppymill" Bill and it is not. It regulates anyone that sells a dog or cat in the state whether they bred it or not, even rescuers. This is a big misconception.
* This is a radical national legislative agenda from Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) who have no connection to local humane societies. HSUS is an "animal rights" organization opposed to all use of animals for food, clothing, medical research, entertainment, including pet "ownership," preferring to call us pet "guardians.
* This bill will not stop anything as there are already strict animal cruelty laws in Texas and USDA regulates brokers and commercial breeders who sell to pet shops. Raids are made and animals seized on a regular basis in substandard facilities.
* HSUS uses sad pictures to sell all their legislation which is never written as publicized. The general public has no idea what is in this bill. They will find out eventually.
* Chapter 803. Dog and Cat Dealers; Subchapter A. General Provisions; Sec. 803.002. Definitions. In this chapter: (6) "Dealer means a person who is required to collect sales tax for the sale of animals to a retail purchaser. The term does not include a humane society or local animal control authority."
If this were a public health and safety issue as claimed, humane societies and animal controls should have to be classified as "dealers" also.
* "Commercial Breeder is defined as a person who possesses adult intact female animals that produce 20 or more litters in one calendar year and is engaged in the business of breeding animals for sale."
This will be a bureaucratic nightmare to enforce.
* The bill sets up a whole new expensive state bureaucracy for regulations and enforcement in a time of economic downturn all across the country.
* "Registered Breeder Inspector means an individual employed and certified by the department to conduct investigations and inspections under this chapter."
This can be "animal rights" zealots like those who dressed as Klansmen and demonstrated at the Westminster Dog Show or the PETA members who demonstrate at every zoo, rodeo and circus protesting the use of animals.
Do we want these radical extremists coming into our homes for inspections and investigations?
I don't think so!
RPOA Texas Outreach (501C4 Nonprofit)
www.rpoatexasoutreach.org
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (501C3 Nonprofit)
www.responsiblepetowners.org
There's a lot of confusion regarding what's happening at the Texas State Legislature. RPOA can't broadcast all we're doing but will send alerts when we need your help with clear instructions. FORGET ABOUT HB 2310.
Call and tell your senator you are passionate about your animals and will not vote for him if he votes for HB 3180 nor will you financially support him/her in the future!
The bill that has been received in the Senate is HB 3180 and that is the bill we MUST DEFEAT. The Engrossed Version of HB 3180 that passed on the House Floor is on the state's website:
www.capitol.state.tx.us
As you know from past experience, all rules can be suspended and this bill could be passed in record time. So get on the horn! We can still kill this bill if each of you contact your senator and explain that this bill is not about "puppymills" at all.
It takes 21 Senate votes to get it to a Floor Vote. That is out of 31 senators. So let's get busy. We can do this! Just a couple more weeks to go.
Ask your senator how he or she is going to vote and let us know. It's a good idea to start contacting Governor Rick Perry -- just in case.
Find out who represents you: http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/
Some talking points are below:
HB 3180, the misnamed "Puppymill Bill," by Thompson
* Will our senators stand up to the political powers in Austin to do what is right or will they let pet owners down as the House did? Do they own pets now and hope to own pets in the future?
* If every dog and cat in Texas is sterilized (as mandated in Senator Van de Putte's bill) and breeders face overly restrictive regulations (as in Representative Thompson's bill), where will pets come from in the future?
* Animal owners all over the country have their eyes on Texas to see how our legislators vote this session on anti-pet bills.
* HB 3180 is being sold as a "Puppymill" Bill and it is not. It regulates anyone that sells a dog or cat in the state whether they bred it or not, even rescuers. This is a big misconception.
* This is a radical national legislative agenda from Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) who have no connection to local humane societies. HSUS is an "animal rights" organization opposed to all use of animals for food, clothing, medical research, entertainment, including pet "ownership," preferring to call us pet "guardians.
* This bill will not stop anything as there are already strict animal cruelty laws in Texas and USDA regulates brokers and commercial breeders who sell to pet shops. Raids are made and animals seized on a regular basis in substandard facilities.
* HSUS uses sad pictures to sell all their legislation which is never written as publicized. The general public has no idea what is in this bill. They will find out eventually.
* Chapter 803. Dog and Cat Dealers; Subchapter A. General Provisions; Sec. 803.002. Definitions. In this chapter: (6) "Dealer means a person who is required to collect sales tax for the sale of animals to a retail purchaser. The term does not include a humane society or local animal control authority."
If this were a public health and safety issue as claimed, humane societies and animal controls should have to be classified as "dealers" also.
* "Commercial Breeder is defined as a person who possesses adult intact female animals that produce 20 or more litters in one calendar year and is engaged in the business of breeding animals for sale."
This will be a bureaucratic nightmare to enforce.
* The bill sets up a whole new expensive state bureaucracy for regulations and enforcement in a time of economic downturn all across the country.
* "Registered Breeder Inspector means an individual employed and certified by the department to conduct investigations and inspections under this chapter."
This can be "animal rights" zealots like those who dressed as Klansmen and demonstrated at the Westminster Dog Show or the PETA members who demonstrate at every zoo, rodeo and circus protesting the use of animals.
Do we want these radical extremists coming into our homes for inspections and investigations?
I don't think so!
RPOA Texas Outreach (501C4 Nonprofit)
www.rpoatexasoutreach.org
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (501C3 Nonprofit)
www.responsiblepetowners.org
Monday, May 11, 2009
TX- Breeder Regulatory Legislation is now very close to becoming LawBecause of procedural maneuvering in the Texas Legislature, harsh
Because of procedural maneuvering in the Texas Legislature, harsh
breeder regulatory legislation is now very close to becoming law in the
Lone Star State. It is vital that all concerned responsible dog
breeders and owners in Texas take immediate action in opposition to this
bill.
On Wednesday, May 6, Senator Tommy Williams of The Woodlands had House
Bill 2310 considered, which originally concerned the powers and duties
of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. HB 2310 already
passed the House of Representatives, and was being considered by the
full Senate. Then, while the bill was being considered, Senator John
Whitmire of Houston, the chief sponsor of Senate Bill 1910, which seeks
to impose harsh regulations and limits on responsible dog breeders but
had until now received little attention from the Texas Senate, moved to
amend CSHB 2310, adding the same harsh breeder regulatory language to
this bill. The amendment was accepted. In short order, the Senate's
rules were suspended, allowing the full Senate to put the newly-amended
HB 2310 up for a final vote. The Senate voted unanimously in favor of HB
2310. (Click here for the Texas Senate Journal's entry detailing the
actions taken on HB 2310.)
These procedural moves effectively prevented concerned Texans from
exercising their right to speak out about this legislation. Now, the
bill will be sent back to the Texas House of Representatives for final
approval, also known as concurrence. AT THIS CRITICAL JUNCTURE, IT IS
VITAL THAT ALL RESPONSIBLE DOG BREEDERS AND OWNERS IN TEXAS FLOOD THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WITH LETTERS, CALLS, AND E-MAILS OF OPPOSITION.
URGE THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE TO NOT CONCUR WITH THE SENATE'S AMENDMENTS
TO HB 2310. ADDITIONALLY, ALL CONCERNED TEXANS SHOULD CONTACT GOVERNOR
PERRY AND EXPRESS THEIR RESPECTFUL YET STRONG OPPOSITION TO HB 2310 AND
THE PROCEDURAL MANEUVERING THAT DENIED TEXANS THEIR RIGHT TO BE HEARD.
If enacted, the amended HB 2310 will negatively affect many responsible
breeders in Texas. The AKC opposes these changes including the following
provisions:
* Defining "commercial breeder" as a person who possesses 11 or
more adult intact female animals and is engaged in the business of
breeding animals for direct or indirect sale or for exchange in return
for consideration.
* Requiring licensure of anyone considered a commercial breeder.
* Limiting commercial breeders from possessing more than 50 adult
intact female animals in a facility at any time.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
It is imperative that all concerned Texans immediately contact their
member of the House of Representatives. Urge them to not concur with
the Senate's amendments to HB 2310. To find your Representative, go to
http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/ and enter your information.
Contact Governor Rick Perry in opposition to this bill now.
Respectfully yet strongly let him know that you oppose HB 2310, and
insist that he veto this bill.
> Office of the Governor Rick Perry
> Mailing Address:
> P.O. Box 12428
> Austin, Texas 78711-2428
>
> Delivery Address:
> State Insurance Building
> 1100 San Jacinto
> Austin, Texas 78701
>
> Citizen's Opinion Hotline [for Texas callers]: (800) 252-9600
>
> Fax: (512) 463-1849
>
> To e-mail Governor Perry's office, go to
> http://governor.state.tx.us/contact/, click "I am registering my
> opinion", click "Submit", complete the information on the following
> page, and click "Submit".
breeder regulatory legislation is now very close to becoming law in the
Lone Star State. It is vital that all concerned responsible dog
breeders and owners in Texas take immediate action in opposition to this
bill.
On Wednesday, May 6, Senator Tommy Williams of The Woodlands had House
Bill 2310 considered, which originally concerned the powers and duties
of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. HB 2310 already
passed the House of Representatives, and was being considered by the
full Senate. Then, while the bill was being considered, Senator John
Whitmire of Houston, the chief sponsor of Senate Bill 1910, which seeks
to impose harsh regulations and limits on responsible dog breeders but
had until now received little attention from the Texas Senate, moved to
amend CSHB 2310, adding the same harsh breeder regulatory language to
this bill. The amendment was accepted. In short order, the Senate's
rules were suspended, allowing the full Senate to put the newly-amended
HB 2310 up for a final vote. The Senate voted unanimously in favor of HB
2310. (Click here for the Texas Senate Journal's entry detailing the
actions taken on HB 2310.)
These procedural moves effectively prevented concerned Texans from
exercising their right to speak out about this legislation. Now, the
bill will be sent back to the Texas House of Representatives for final
approval, also known as concurrence. AT THIS CRITICAL JUNCTURE, IT IS
VITAL THAT ALL RESPONSIBLE DOG BREEDERS AND OWNERS IN TEXAS FLOOD THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WITH LETTERS, CALLS, AND E-MAILS OF OPPOSITION.
URGE THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE TO NOT CONCUR WITH THE SENATE'S AMENDMENTS
TO HB 2310. ADDITIONALLY, ALL CONCERNED TEXANS SHOULD CONTACT GOVERNOR
PERRY AND EXPRESS THEIR RESPECTFUL YET STRONG OPPOSITION TO HB 2310 AND
THE PROCEDURAL MANEUVERING THAT DENIED TEXANS THEIR RIGHT TO BE HEARD.
If enacted, the amended HB 2310 will negatively affect many responsible
breeders in Texas. The AKC opposes these changes including the following
provisions:
* Defining "commercial breeder" as a person who possesses 11 or
more adult intact female animals and is engaged in the business of
breeding animals for direct or indirect sale or for exchange in return
for consideration.
* Requiring licensure of anyone considered a commercial breeder.
* Limiting commercial breeders from possessing more than 50 adult
intact female animals in a facility at any time.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
It is imperative that all concerned Texans immediately contact their
member of the House of Representatives. Urge them to not concur with
the Senate's amendments to HB 2310. To find your Representative, go to
http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/ and enter your information.
Contact Governor Rick Perry in opposition to this bill now.
Respectfully yet strongly let him know that you oppose HB 2310, and
insist that he veto this bill.
> Office of the Governor Rick Perry
> Mailing Address:
> P.O. Box 12428
> Austin, Texas 78711-2428
>
> Delivery Address:
> State Insurance Building
> 1100 San Jacinto
> Austin, Texas 78701
>
> Citizen's Opinion Hotline [for Texas callers]: (800) 252-9600
>
> Fax: (512) 463-1849
>
> To e-mail Governor Perry's office, go to
> http://governor.state.tx.us/contact/, click "I am registering my
> opinion", click "Submit", complete the information on the following
> page, and click "Submit".
Sunday, March 29, 2009
TX- Monday, March 30th- 8:00am- hearing of HB 1147
From Responsible Pet Owners Alliance, Inc.
HB1147 is scheduled for a hearing at 8:00 AM, Monday, March 30, 2009 -
please call of fax NOW.
Companion bill is SB 554 which was approved by the Senate committee 7 to 0.
COMMITTEE: House Criminal Jurisprudence (see schedule here) 8:00 AM,
Monday, March 30, 2009 PLACE: JHR 120 State Capitol, Austin
Attorney Zandra Anderson has provided the following legal analysis and
talking points.
What these bills mean:
HB 1147 & SB 554 (Possession of alleged dog fighting equipment criminalized)
Frost (Criminal Jurisprudence); Whitmire (Criminal Justice)
1. Under this bill it would become a crime to possess dog fighting equipment
with the intent that the equipment be used to train a dog for fighting or is
used in the furtherance of dog fighting. This would become a Class A
misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and up to a $4000 fine.
2. Dog fighting equipment is defined to include a harness, treadmill, cage,
decoy, pen, house for keeping a fighting dog, feeding apparatus, or training
pen.
Sample Letter / Talking Points:
House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee
EXT E2.112
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768-2910
RE: OPPOSE HB1147
Dear Chairperson Gallego, Vice Chair Christian and Committee on Criminal
Jurisprudence:
SB 554 criminalizes the ownership of items that are common to many dog
owners, but especially to those who engage in activities such as hunting,
dog sports and dog shows. While I support the prosecution of the crime of
dogfighting, the language is vague and will result in people being falsely
accused. In the vast majority of dogfighting cases, the dogs are destroyed
prior to a trial or even a conviction. Owners who are falsely accused suffer
devastating financial and emotional losses and can never get their dogs
back.
a.. All dog owners possess at least some of the equipment in this bill,
and many dog owners possess most of the equipment such as a harness,
treadmill, cage for a dog, a pen for a dog, feeding apparatus (a dog bowl)
and training pens.
b.. While possession of these items to be a crime is linked to intent to
train dogs to fight or in the furtherance of dog fighting, that is very
vague. There is no definition of what constitutes intent. How do you prove
intent?
c.. Merely possessing this equipment does not mean that someone has the
intent to train a dog to fight or that the equipment is used in the
furtherance of dog fighting.
d.. Because someone has a dog bowl, does this mean they have the intent to
fight a dog? This bill would open the door for unfairly prosecuting a person
who legitimately owns American Pit Bull Terriers or other similar dogs.
e.. Legitimate dog trainers of all breeds use treadmills to exercise their
dogs particularly when the weather is bad, and in no way indicates training
of fighting dogs.
f.. If a dog fighter is convicted, then the equipment described above can
already be seized and forfeited.
Respectfully,
====CONTACT INFO======
Clerk: Andrew Cates
Phone: (512) 463-0768
EXT E2.112
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768-2910
Please phone and/or fax ALL of the members especially if you live in their
district. If you live in a member's district, please let him or her know.
Find out who represents YOUR district: http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/
Rep. Pete Gallego, Chair
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist74/welcome.htm
District: Alpine
Capitol Address
Room 4N.9, Capitol Building
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 463-0566
(512) 236-9408 Fax
Rep. Wayne Christian, Vice Chair
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist9/welcome.htm
District: Center
Capitol Office
Room CAP GN.12
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
(512) 463-0556
(512) 463-5896 Fax
(877) 839-2709 Toll Free
Rep. Allen Fletcher
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist130/fletcher.php
District: Harris County (Part)
Capitol Office
E2.804, Capitol Extension
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
(512) 463-0661
(512) 463-4130 Fax
Rep. Terri Hodge
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist100/hodge.php
District: Dallas
Capitol Address
Room E2.818, Capitol Extension
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 463-0586
(512) 463-8147 Fax
Rep. Carol Kent
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist102/kent.php
District: Dallas
Capitol Office
Room E2.814, Capitol Extension
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
(512) 463-0454
(512) 463-1121 Fax
Rep. Robert Miklos
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist101/miklos.php
District: Mesquite
Capitol Office
Room E2.816, Capitol Extension
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 463-0464
(512) 463-9295 Fax
Rep. Joseph E. Moody
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist78/moody.php
District: El Paso
Capitol Office
Room EXT E1.208
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
(512) 463-0728
(512) 463-0397 Fax
Rep. Paula Pierson
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist93/pierson.php
District: Arlington
Capitol Office
Room EXT E2.210
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
(512) 463-0562
(512) 463-2053 Fax
Rep. Debbie Riddle
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist150/riddle.php
District: Houston
Capitol Address
Room E2.306, Capitol Extension
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 463-0572
(512) 463-1908 Fax
Rep. Allen Vaught
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist107/vaught.php
District: Dallas
Capitol Address
Room E2.414, Capitol Extension
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 463-0244
(512) 463-9967 Fax
Rep. Hubert Vo
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist149/vo.php
District: Houston
Capitol Address
Room E2.208, Capitol Extension
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 463-0568
(512) 463-0548 Fax
RPOA Texas Outreach (501C4 Nonprofit)
www.rpoatexasoutreach.org
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (501C3 Nonprofit)
www.responsiblepetowners.org
900 NE Loop 410 #311-D
San Antonio, TX 78209
HB1147 is scheduled for a hearing at 8:00 AM, Monday, March 30, 2009 -
please call of fax NOW.
Companion bill is SB 554 which was approved by the Senate committee 7 to 0.
COMMITTEE: House Criminal Jurisprudence (see schedule here) 8:00 AM,
Monday, March 30, 2009 PLACE: JHR 120 State Capitol, Austin
Attorney Zandra Anderson has provided the following legal analysis and
talking points.
What these bills mean:
HB 1147 & SB 554 (Possession of alleged dog fighting equipment criminalized)
Frost (Criminal Jurisprudence); Whitmire (Criminal Justice)
1. Under this bill it would become a crime to possess dog fighting equipment
with the intent that the equipment be used to train a dog for fighting or is
used in the furtherance of dog fighting. This would become a Class A
misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and up to a $4000 fine.
2. Dog fighting equipment is defined to include a harness, treadmill, cage,
decoy, pen, house for keeping a fighting dog, feeding apparatus, or training
pen.
Sample Letter / Talking Points:
House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee
EXT E2.112
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768-2910
RE: OPPOSE HB1147
Dear Chairperson Gallego, Vice Chair Christian and Committee on Criminal
Jurisprudence:
SB 554 criminalizes the ownership of items that are common to many dog
owners, but especially to those who engage in activities such as hunting,
dog sports and dog shows. While I support the prosecution of the crime of
dogfighting, the language is vague and will result in people being falsely
accused. In the vast majority of dogfighting cases, the dogs are destroyed
prior to a trial or even a conviction. Owners who are falsely accused suffer
devastating financial and emotional losses and can never get their dogs
back.
a.. All dog owners possess at least some of the equipment in this bill,
and many dog owners possess most of the equipment such as a harness,
treadmill, cage for a dog, a pen for a dog, feeding apparatus (a dog bowl)
and training pens.
b.. While possession of these items to be a crime is linked to intent to
train dogs to fight or in the furtherance of dog fighting, that is very
vague. There is no definition of what constitutes intent. How do you prove
intent?
c.. Merely possessing this equipment does not mean that someone has the
intent to train a dog to fight or that the equipment is used in the
furtherance of dog fighting.
d.. Because someone has a dog bowl, does this mean they have the intent to
fight a dog? This bill would open the door for unfairly prosecuting a person
who legitimately owns American Pit Bull Terriers or other similar dogs.
e.. Legitimate dog trainers of all breeds use treadmills to exercise their
dogs particularly when the weather is bad, and in no way indicates training
of fighting dogs.
f.. If a dog fighter is convicted, then the equipment described above can
already be seized and forfeited.
Respectfully,
====CONTACT INFO======
Clerk: Andrew Cates
Phone: (512) 463-0768
EXT E2.112
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768-2910
Please phone and/or fax ALL of the members especially if you live in their
district. If you live in a member's district, please let him or her know.
Find out who represents YOUR district: http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/
Rep. Pete Gallego, Chair
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist74/welcome.htm
District: Alpine
Capitol Address
Room 4N.9, Capitol Building
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 463-0566
(512) 236-9408 Fax
Rep. Wayne Christian, Vice Chair
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist9/welcome.htm
District: Center
Capitol Office
Room CAP GN.12
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
(512) 463-0556
(512) 463-5896 Fax
(877) 839-2709 Toll Free
Rep. Allen Fletcher
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist130/fletcher.php
District: Harris County (Part)
Capitol Office
E2.804, Capitol Extension
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
(512) 463-0661
(512) 463-4130 Fax
Rep. Terri Hodge
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist100/hodge.php
District: Dallas
Capitol Address
Room E2.818, Capitol Extension
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 463-0586
(512) 463-8147 Fax
Rep. Carol Kent
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist102/kent.php
District: Dallas
Capitol Office
Room E2.814, Capitol Extension
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
(512) 463-0454
(512) 463-1121 Fax
Rep. Robert Miklos
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist101/miklos.php
District: Mesquite
Capitol Office
Room E2.816, Capitol Extension
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 463-0464
(512) 463-9295 Fax
Rep. Joseph E. Moody
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist78/moody.php
District: El Paso
Capitol Office
Room EXT E1.208
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
(512) 463-0728
(512) 463-0397 Fax
Rep. Paula Pierson
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist93/pierson.php
District: Arlington
Capitol Office
Room EXT E2.210
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
(512) 463-0562
(512) 463-2053 Fax
Rep. Debbie Riddle
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist150/riddle.php
District: Houston
Capitol Address
Room E2.306, Capitol Extension
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 463-0572
(512) 463-1908 Fax
Rep. Allen Vaught
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist107/vaught.php
District: Dallas
Capitol Address
Room E2.414, Capitol Extension
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 463-0244
(512) 463-9967 Fax
Rep. Hubert Vo
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist149/vo.php
District: Houston
Capitol Address
Room E2.208, Capitol Extension
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 463-0568
(512) 463-0548 Fax
RPOA Texas Outreach (501C4 Nonprofit)
www.rpoatexasoutreach.org
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (501C3 Nonprofit)
www.responsiblepetowners.org
900 NE Loop 410 #311-D
San Antonio, TX 78209
Monday, March 23, 2009
TX- SUPPORT HB 1046
Texas House Bill 1046 is short- but very important. If passed, this bill would RESTORE the rights of owners "divested of ownership of an animal". This bill restores the rights of animal owners to appeal a court ruling to give the animal to a non-profit shelter, or humanely destory the animal. The current wording of the law means that once a virdict is given against an owner, they will never get that animal back and they can not appeal the decision.
Act now to SUPPORT this bill to RESTORE your rights.
Act now to SUPPORT this bill to RESTORE your rights.
20/20 Documetary "Cruelty to Owners"
Thank you ABC for doing the work to show EVERYONE that YES!!! Some SPCAs DO Steal Dogs. It is a conflict of interest that any SPCA be able to confiscate animals and then SELL them.
In TX the SPCA worker makes $80,000!!!!!!!!!!!!
ABC News 20/20 Documentary "Cruelty to Owners", Part 1
ABC News 20/20 Documentary "Cruelty to Owners", Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWP_wXfkO78&feature=related
In TX the SPCA worker makes $80,000!!!!!!!!!!!!
ABC News 20/20 Documentary "Cruelty to Owners", Part 1
ABC News 20/20 Documentary "Cruelty to Owners", Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWP_wXfkO78&feature=related
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
TX- Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bills Introduced
Texas Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bills Introduced
From the AKC
[Monday, March 16, 2009]
Two mandatory spay/neuter bills have been filed in the Texas Legislature. House Bill 4277, sponsored by Representative Jose Menendez of San Antonio, and Senate Bill 1845, sponsored by Senator Leticia Van de Putte also of San Antonio, will require that all dogs over six months of age be sterilized. The American Kennel Club (AKC) and its Texas federation of owners, the Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (RPOA), believe that any attempt at restricting the rights and liberties of responsible breeders–especially via mandatory spay/neuter laws–must be defeated. If adopted, these bills will have a profound negative impact not only on responsible dog breeders in Texas, but also on all current and prospective dog owners. Therefore, it is vital that all responsible dog breeders and all concerned dog owners in Texas, as well as anyone worried about such radical policy, contact their elected state legislatives as well as the bills’ sponsors and respectfully let them know that these draconian measures are unreasonable, unenforceable, and unacceptable.
The American Kennel Club opposes the concepts of breeding permits, breeding bans, or the mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, AKC supports reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously. Additionally, we strongly support and actively promote a wide range of programs to educate the public about responsible breeding practices and the responsibilities of dog ownership.
As currently written, HB 4277 and SB 1845 would:
Require every person who owns a dog or cat at least six months of age to have the animal spayed or neutered.
Provide few exceptions, including one for owners of a dog or cat who purchase an intact animal permit at a cost of $300 per intact animal.
Make each violation of this law a class C misdemeanor, liable for fines up to $500 per violation.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
All concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in Texas, as well as all other concerned Texas residents, are strongly encouraged to write their elected state legislators as well as the bills’ sponsors. Let them know that mandatory spay/neuter bills are radical and unacceptable and will have a profound negative impact upon the state of Texas.
To find out who represents you in the Texas House of Representatives, click here. For a customizable sample letter to send to your representative, click here.
To find out who represents you in the Texas State Senate, click here. For a customizable sample letter to send to your senator, click here.
House Bill 4277 Sponsor Representative Jose Menendez
Capitol Office: EXT E2.204
Capitol Address:
P.O. Box 2910
Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78768
PHONE: (512) 463-0634
FAX: (512) 463-7668
To write Representative Menendez via e-mail, click here for an e-mail form.
District Address:
7121 US Hwy. 90 West, Suite 240
San Antonio, TX 78227
PHONE: (210) 673-3579
FAX: (210) 673-3816
Senate Bill 1845 Sponsor Leticia Van De Putte
Capitol Office: EXT E1.704
Capitol Address:
P.O. Box 12068
Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78711
PHONE: (512) 463-0126
TOLL FREE: 1 (888) 279-0648
FAX: (512) 463-2114
To write Senator Van De Putte via e-mail, click here for an e-mail form.
District Address:
700 N. St. Mary’s Street, Suite 1725
San Antonio, TX 78205
PHONE: (210) 733-6604
FAX: (210) 733-6605
For a copy of the AKC’s Disagree Diplomatically brochure, please click here.
The AKC Government Relations Department will continue to monitor the consideration of HB 4277 and SB 1845 and will notify the purebred dog community when these bills are assigned to a committee. Contact information for committee members will be provided and purebred dog owners should express their strong opposition to these bills to their respective committee members at that time.
For more information, please contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org; or contact the Responsible Pet Owners Alliance at (210) 822-6763, at www.responsiblepetowners.org, or at rpoa@texas.net.
From the AKC
[Monday, March 16, 2009]
Two mandatory spay/neuter bills have been filed in the Texas Legislature. House Bill 4277, sponsored by Representative Jose Menendez of San Antonio, and Senate Bill 1845, sponsored by Senator Leticia Van de Putte also of San Antonio, will require that all dogs over six months of age be sterilized. The American Kennel Club (AKC) and its Texas federation of owners, the Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (RPOA), believe that any attempt at restricting the rights and liberties of responsible breeders–especially via mandatory spay/neuter laws–must be defeated. If adopted, these bills will have a profound negative impact not only on responsible dog breeders in Texas, but also on all current and prospective dog owners. Therefore, it is vital that all responsible dog breeders and all concerned dog owners in Texas, as well as anyone worried about such radical policy, contact their elected state legislatives as well as the bills’ sponsors and respectfully let them know that these draconian measures are unreasonable, unenforceable, and unacceptable.
The American Kennel Club opposes the concepts of breeding permits, breeding bans, or the mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, AKC supports reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously. Additionally, we strongly support and actively promote a wide range of programs to educate the public about responsible breeding practices and the responsibilities of dog ownership.
As currently written, HB 4277 and SB 1845 would:
Require every person who owns a dog or cat at least six months of age to have the animal spayed or neutered.
Provide few exceptions, including one for owners of a dog or cat who purchase an intact animal permit at a cost of $300 per intact animal.
Make each violation of this law a class C misdemeanor, liable for fines up to $500 per violation.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
All concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in Texas, as well as all other concerned Texas residents, are strongly encouraged to write their elected state legislators as well as the bills’ sponsors. Let them know that mandatory spay/neuter bills are radical and unacceptable and will have a profound negative impact upon the state of Texas.
To find out who represents you in the Texas House of Representatives, click here. For a customizable sample letter to send to your representative, click here.
To find out who represents you in the Texas State Senate, click here. For a customizable sample letter to send to your senator, click here.
House Bill 4277 Sponsor Representative Jose Menendez
Capitol Office: EXT E2.204
Capitol Address:
P.O. Box 2910
Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78768
PHONE: (512) 463-0634
FAX: (512) 463-7668
To write Representative Menendez via e-mail, click here for an e-mail form.
District Address:
7121 US Hwy. 90 West, Suite 240
San Antonio, TX 78227
PHONE: (210) 673-3579
FAX: (210) 673-3816
Senate Bill 1845 Sponsor Leticia Van De Putte
Capitol Office: EXT E1.704
Capitol Address:
P.O. Box 12068
Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78711
PHONE: (512) 463-0126
TOLL FREE: 1 (888) 279-0648
FAX: (512) 463-2114
To write Senator Van De Putte via e-mail, click here for an e-mail form.
District Address:
700 N. St. Mary’s Street, Suite 1725
San Antonio, TX 78205
PHONE: (210) 733-6604
FAX: (210) 733-6605
For a copy of the AKC’s Disagree Diplomatically brochure, please click here.
The AKC Government Relations Department will continue to monitor the consideration of HB 4277 and SB 1845 and will notify the purebred dog community when these bills are assigned to a committee. Contact information for committee members will be provided and purebred dog owners should express their strong opposition to these bills to their respective committee members at that time.
For more information, please contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org; or contact the Responsible Pet Owners Alliance at (210) 822-6763, at www.responsiblepetowners.org, or at rpoa@texas.net.
Monday, March 16, 2009
TX- SB 3180
Among all the issues presented by SB 3180 - potentially granting HSUS the right to enter your property without a warrant, defining hobby breeders as being in the business of selling dogs, requiring criminal background checks for "commercial" breeders, setting requirements for which there is no scientific standard for establishing the standard, lack of differentiation of inspection and investigation activities and responsibilities, interfering with the veterinarian-client-patient relationship - two really stand out.
First, demonstrating that this is not about animal care is the fact that there is limit on the number of intact dogs a person may have but no limit on spayed or neutered dogs a person may have. If a person can adequately care for 50+ spayed/neutered animals, there is no reason a person couldn't adequately care for the same number of intact dogs.
Second, the law exempts itself from the requirements of Chapter 2110 of the Government Code which sets rules for Advisory Committees. One of those requirements is that a committee provide “a balanced representation between (a) the industry or occupation; and (b) consumers of services provided by the agency, industry or occupation.” Not only does the advisory committee contain no representatives of the regulated community, but there are only two consumer representatives. Some of the members, not consumers of the services provided, may actually represent interests antithetical to the interests of the regulated community and the consumers, however much "expertise" they may have.
Without getting into the politics if it, someone should ask the Republicans supporting this bill what happened to the strict construction and limited government they are always espousing, And the Democrats should be asked what happened to the democratic principles of inviting everyone to the table and ensuring the widest possible participation that they are always espousing.
Julian Prager
Pennsylvania Federation of Dog Clubs, Legislative Chair
Governor's Dog Law Advisory Board Member
National Animal Interest Alliance Legal Analyst & Legislative Coordinator
First, demonstrating that this is not about animal care is the fact that there is limit on the number of intact dogs a person may have but no limit on spayed or neutered dogs a person may have. If a person can adequately care for 50+ spayed/neutered animals, there is no reason a person couldn't adequately care for the same number of intact dogs.
Second, the law exempts itself from the requirements of Chapter 2110 of the Government Code which sets rules for Advisory Committees. One of those requirements is that a committee provide “a balanced representation between (a) the industry or occupation; and (b) consumers of services provided by the agency, industry or occupation.” Not only does the advisory committee contain no representatives of the regulated community, but there are only two consumer representatives. Some of the members, not consumers of the services provided, may actually represent interests antithetical to the interests of the regulated community and the consumers, however much "expertise" they may have.
Without getting into the politics if it, someone should ask the Republicans supporting this bill what happened to the strict construction and limited government they are always espousing, And the Democrats should be asked what happened to the democratic principles of inviting everyone to the table and ensuring the widest possible participation that they are always espousing.
Julian Prager
Pennsylvania Federation of Dog Clubs, Legislative Chair
Governor's Dog Law Advisory Board Member
National Animal Interest Alliance Legal Analyst & Legislative Coordinator
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Do you agree with this person?
Dallas-Fort Worth (TX) dog breeders' bark grow louder on ordinances
This comment was left by cpeterjon:
" Breeders only care about MAKING MONEY breeding and selling dogs, and their narrow little world.
Breeders do NOT care for public safety nor the welfare of dogs.
Breeders like Judy Cerney are NOT "hobbyists," as they like to claim.
They make significant amounts of money BREEDING AND SELLING DOGS, taking advantage of an almost complete lack of regulation.
And being unlicensed and off the record means there is no accounting for their income, taxes paid (or rather NOT paid!), etc
It's lucrative, no matter what Judy and others like her mouth about the "fancy."
So "hobbyist" breeders sure don't want to have to get licensed, and oh! oh! they HAVE been running a business and not paying taxes.
That's why they want no regulation.
Also, AKC makes most of its money REGISTERING PUPPY MILL dogs. Do a google search for "akc puppy mills."
like http://www.bogartsdaddy.com/Bouvier/Bouv_Pages/article-inquire-puppymills-AKC.htm
The AKC wants to protect its puppy mill business partners, because regulation means that AKC may not make as much money from those puppy mills.
And that money pays for DOG SHOWS and events that the so-called "fanciers" or "hobbyists" take advantage of and help sell & promote their dogs.
This is all about the selfish, greedy world of breeder money-making, and breeders who want to max that money-making by being unregulated.
They want to try to maintain the illusion that they are just innocent "hobbyists."
Well, this is all about the MONEY, pure and simple.
And an example is the sheer number of breeders posting here with the usual nonsense opposing regulation.
These people belong to organized BUSINESS LOBBIES. AKC spends millions hiring professional lobbyists precisely to do things like deceive reporters and legislators."
Strenthening Pet Ordinances In Texas:
Cities throughout North Texas and the country are examining stricter pet laws. The city of Plano recently considered certain restrictions, including:
Requiring cleanup. Pet owners must visibly have pooper-scoopers or other cleanup materials when walking their animals. Passed.
Limiting number of pets. Single-family homes can have a maximum of 10 adult animals unless a permit is obtained. Residents of multifamily dwellings can keep a maximum of five animals. Passed.
Limiting tethering. Owners are prohibited from tethering their pets to a stationary object, except in certain circumstances. Passed .
Lowering spay/neuter age. Dogs, cats and ferrets must be spayed or neutered and implanted with microchips at 4 months old. Under consideration.
This comment was left by cpeterjon:
" Breeders only care about MAKING MONEY breeding and selling dogs, and their narrow little world.
Breeders do NOT care for public safety nor the welfare of dogs.
Breeders like Judy Cerney are NOT "hobbyists," as they like to claim.
They make significant amounts of money BREEDING AND SELLING DOGS, taking advantage of an almost complete lack of regulation.
And being unlicensed and off the record means there is no accounting for their income, taxes paid (or rather NOT paid!), etc
It's lucrative, no matter what Judy and others like her mouth about the "fancy."
So "hobbyist" breeders sure don't want to have to get licensed, and oh! oh! they HAVE been running a business and not paying taxes.
That's why they want no regulation.
Also, AKC makes most of its money REGISTERING PUPPY MILL dogs. Do a google search for "akc puppy mills."
like http://www.bogartsdaddy.com/Bouvier/Bouv_Pages/article-inquire-puppymills-AKC.htm
The AKC wants to protect its puppy mill business partners, because regulation means that AKC may not make as much money from those puppy mills.
And that money pays for DOG SHOWS and events that the so-called "fanciers" or "hobbyists" take advantage of and help sell & promote their dogs.
This is all about the selfish, greedy world of breeder money-making, and breeders who want to max that money-making by being unregulated.
They want to try to maintain the illusion that they are just innocent "hobbyists."
Well, this is all about the MONEY, pure and simple.
And an example is the sheer number of breeders posting here with the usual nonsense opposing regulation.
These people belong to organized BUSINESS LOBBIES. AKC spends millions hiring professional lobbyists precisely to do things like deceive reporters and legislators."
Strenthening Pet Ordinances In Texas:
Cities throughout North Texas and the country are examining stricter pet laws. The city of Plano recently considered certain restrictions, including:
Requiring cleanup. Pet owners must visibly have pooper-scoopers or other cleanup materials when walking their animals. Passed.
Limiting number of pets. Single-family homes can have a maximum of 10 adult animals unless a permit is obtained. Residents of multifamily dwellings can keep a maximum of five animals. Passed.
Limiting tethering. Owners are prohibited from tethering their pets to a stationary object, except in certain circumstances. Passed .
Lowering spay/neuter age. Dogs, cats and ferrets must be spayed or neutered and implanted with microchips at 4 months old. Under consideration.
Friday, February 20, 2009
TX- New Plano animal ordinance passes, mandatory spay/neuter provisions tabled
Plano's new 56-page animal ordinance passed with a unanimous city council vote Tuesday, with the exception of the animal sales portion. It was the first major revision to the ordinance in ten years.
Several Plano residents who are dog show exhibitors spoke at the city council meeting, and about 30 supporters sat in the audience. They were particularly concerned about section 4-809: Private Animal Sales. This section would have required all animals over the age of four months to be spayed/neutered, microchipped and vaccinated for rabies before being sold or given away.
The speakers, some of whom are hobby breeders of pedigreed dogs, testified that while spaying and neutering very young puppies and kittens is necessary for an animal shelter, it is not healthy for dogs who compete in sporting competitions and are still growing. Many serious genetic defects cannot be identified until an animal is two years old; therefore breeders may wait until such evaluations are completed before making a final decision to spay or neuter. Under the proposed ordinance, for example, it would be illegal to have a dog neutered at two years old and sell or give him away as a pet, which might be necessary if a potential stud dog did not pan out genetically as an adult.
City Council members posed several questions to Animal Services Director Jamey Cantrell and to the citizen speakers. Many of the councilmembers' questions hinged on letters and comments they had received regarding whether or not hobby breeders would continue to be allowed under residential zoning. Hobby breeders raise a small number of puppies and kittens primarily to compete in dog and cat shows, rather than for profit or for resale. The dialog also addressed concerns that the proposed law would place hobby breeders under the same restrictions as commercial breeders and kennels.
Finally, Mayor Pat Evans suggested that the Private Animal Sales portion of the ordinance be pulled for further review, and that the rest of the ordinance be put to a vote. The ordinance, less section 4-809 passed 7-0. City council members Pat Miner and Mabrie Jackson, who are liaisons to the Animal Shelter Advisory Committee, the Chair of the Animal Shelter Advisory Committee, the Director of Animal Services and representatives from the hobby breeding community will meet to address the concerns voiced at the meeting.
Dr. Karen Dubrow, representing the Animal Shelter Advisory Committee, said at the beginning of the meeting that the ordinance had been in work for four years, and that "...at every single meeting we asked for the public to show up." Dr. Dubrow added, "To date there has been absolutely no public comment."
This contrasted with Plano resident Verjean Lunenschloss' statement to the council that her group had been auditing the commission meetings and asking to see a draft copy of the ordinance since August, but had not been given a copy to review until it was published six days prior to the vote.
Several of the citizen speakers praised the majority of the ordinance, which also covers dangerous dogs, another hot topic in state and city government. The new ordinance specifically precludes declaring a dog dangerous "...based solely on the animal's breed, size, or physical appearance. " Dr. Dubrow stressed that avoiding breed-specific legislation was intentional.
To read the ordinance in full please go to:http://pdf.plano.gov/animal/AnimalOrdinanceDraft.pdf
Section 4-809 is the section that was put on hold.
Several Plano residents who are dog show exhibitors spoke at the city council meeting, and about 30 supporters sat in the audience. They were particularly concerned about section 4-809: Private Animal Sales. This section would have required all animals over the age of four months to be spayed/neutered, microchipped and vaccinated for rabies before being sold or given away.
The speakers, some of whom are hobby breeders of pedigreed dogs, testified that while spaying and neutering very young puppies and kittens is necessary for an animal shelter, it is not healthy for dogs who compete in sporting competitions and are still growing. Many serious genetic defects cannot be identified until an animal is two years old; therefore breeders may wait until such evaluations are completed before making a final decision to spay or neuter. Under the proposed ordinance, for example, it would be illegal to have a dog neutered at two years old and sell or give him away as a pet, which might be necessary if a potential stud dog did not pan out genetically as an adult.
City Council members posed several questions to Animal Services Director Jamey Cantrell and to the citizen speakers. Many of the councilmembers' questions hinged on letters and comments they had received regarding whether or not hobby breeders would continue to be allowed under residential zoning. Hobby breeders raise a small number of puppies and kittens primarily to compete in dog and cat shows, rather than for profit or for resale. The dialog also addressed concerns that the proposed law would place hobby breeders under the same restrictions as commercial breeders and kennels.
Finally, Mayor Pat Evans suggested that the Private Animal Sales portion of the ordinance be pulled for further review, and that the rest of the ordinance be put to a vote. The ordinance, less section 4-809 passed 7-0. City council members Pat Miner and Mabrie Jackson, who are liaisons to the Animal Shelter Advisory Committee, the Chair of the Animal Shelter Advisory Committee, the Director of Animal Services and representatives from the hobby breeding community will meet to address the concerns voiced at the meeting.
Dr. Karen Dubrow, representing the Animal Shelter Advisory Committee, said at the beginning of the meeting that the ordinance had been in work for four years, and that "...at every single meeting we asked for the public to show up." Dr. Dubrow added, "To date there has been absolutely no public comment."
This contrasted with Plano resident Verjean Lunenschloss' statement to the council that her group had been auditing the commission meetings and asking to see a draft copy of the ordinance since August, but had not been given a copy to review until it was published six days prior to the vote.
Several of the citizen speakers praised the majority of the ordinance, which also covers dangerous dogs, another hot topic in state and city government. The new ordinance specifically precludes declaring a dog dangerous "...based solely on the animal's breed, size, or physical appearance. " Dr. Dubrow stressed that avoiding breed-specific legislation was intentional.
To read the ordinance in full please go to:http://pdf.plano.gov/animal/AnimalOrdinanceDraft.pdf
Section 4-809 is the section that was put on hold.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
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
Friday, June 27, 2008
TX, CA, PA- Black Wednesday for Dog Owners
Black Wednesday For Dog Owners
Animal Rights Wins In Dallas, California, Pennsylvania
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@csonline.net
Wednesday was a black day for dog owners all across America, as animal rights extremists posted legislative victories in Dallas, California and Pennsylvania.
Dog owner advocacy groups fought hard in all three contests and had clear majority support, but animal rights groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) cashed in political chips with elected officials.
PETA and HSUS have been infiltrating local and state advisory boards for many years, backed by a war chest exceeding $150 million, hundreds of paid employees and thousands of volunteers.
Apathy remains th greatest problem faced by dog ownership advocacy groups.
Wednesday's votes also highlighted what is rapidly becoming a partisan division on animal rights legislation. In general, almost all Republicans voted against the legislation, and almost all Democrats voted for the bills. The Democratic Party appears to be lining up behind the animal rights agenda in support of its presumptive presidential candidate, Barrack Obama. Obama has
expressed strong support for animal rights.
Here is a summary of the four issues decided this week:
In Dallas, City Council voted 10-3 to pass an animal control ordinance
requiring mandatory pet sterilization, expensive permits to own intact dogs and cats, mandatory microchipping and pet ownership limits. The ordinance also bans tethering of dogs and imposes strict requirements for keeping dogs outdoors.
Home inspections also are authorized.
In California, the Senate Local Government Committee voted 3-2 to approve AB1634, which now will be sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee. If this committee approves, it will be sent to the legislature for a vote. This bill allows any person to act as a vigilante and report any dog owner for an unsubstantiated violation of any animal law. If any animal control officer agrees, the accused person will have a choice between paying a fine or sterilizing
the animal. People who are accused of anything have no right to defend themselves or to appeal. An accusation is automatic guilt.
In Pennsylvania, the House Rules Committee voted Tuesday to approve HB2532, which is a de facto ban on tail docking, dewclaw removal and ear cropping. In the absence of proof that the procedure was performed by a veterinarian, the mere possession of a dog that has had one of those three procedures subjects an owner to a criminal citation for animal cruelty. This bill would destroy many rescue operations, dog shows, competitive events and field trials in
Pennsylvania and result in the deaths of thousands of dogs. This bill now goes to the full House for a vote, and then to the Senate.
Also in Pennsylvania, the House Agriculture Committee approved amendments to the state dog and kennel law that fall short of changes that were promised to dog owner advocacy groups. The actual text of this legislation was not available at this writing, and a follow-up report will be issued when the revised legislation is available. This bill now goes to the full House for a vote, and then to the Senate.
Please see below for more detailed descriptions of all four issues.
Dog ownership advocates clearly outnumbered animal rights sympathizers in public hearings on all four pieces of legislation, as well as in written comments, emails and phone calls received by elected officials. However, many of those officials chose to ignore our voices, and that is doubly true of the Democrats. We are not saying this to be partisan, as many of our officers and members are loyal Democrats. We simply are stating a fact. Democrats voted
against animal owners this week by a shocking margin, and we urge dog owners who are registered with this party to work to reverse this policy.
Advocates of dog owners rights also were hurt by the apathy of many people who support us, but who did little or nothing to voice that support to elected officials. At the Senate hearing in California, for example, only about 10 people showed up. In Dallas, about 200 dog ownership advocates attended the hearing, but that is a tiny percentage of the estimated 300,000 pet owners in the city. Attendance at the two Pennsylvania hearings was described as
moderate.
Apathy by the large but silent majority of dog owners is a major component of the animal rights strategy. While we outnumber them 100-to-one, most of us don't get involved. In contrast, animal rights groups rely on an almost religious fanaticism by their supporters to gain a high percentage of participation.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges every dog owner in America to join one or more of the several fine organizations that are fighting for your rights. Each of these organizations has its own niche, but all are excellent and deserve your support.
We welcome your membership and hope you will participate fully in our programs. Please visit us online at http://www.americansportingsdogalliance.org.
Please stand up and be counted now!
We also ask all dog owners who belong to field trial clubs, sportsmen's organizations, show specialty clubs, breed clubs and event clubs to urge those organizations to take an active political role to defeat animal rights legislation.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also is urging dog owners to boycott all dog events in the City of Dallas for their own safety. Under the terms of the ordinance, even a visitor to the city is subject to citations, fines and dog confiscations. It is known that PETA plans a protest at a July dog show in Dallas, and we expect them to report show dog owners for alleged violations of the ordinance. Because the Dallas animal commission is dominated by PETA members, we expect that there will be a move to raid this dog show. All
professional handlers would be in violation of the possession limit of six dogs, and none of the dogs are expected to have a required Dallas breeding or intact permit.
If the Pennsylvania and California legislation becomes law, it will not be safe for anyone to attend a field trial, dog show or performance event in those states, or even to visit, pass through or take a hunting trip there.
We urge all clubs to cancel or move planned events in Dallas now, and also in Pennsylvania and California if their legislation is signed into law. We believe that clubs have an ethical obligation to protect the safety of participants and their dogs.
Continued apathy and non-involvement will doom dog ownership in America, as well as hunting, field trials and other dog events. We can't do it without you.
Here are the highlights of the four pieces of legislation that were voted on this week.
California
We support the first part of AB1634, which calls for fines for dogs that are allowed to roam and mandates sterilization after the third offense.
However, the second part of the legislation violates basic constitutional rights and human decency.
Here are the provisions of the second part of the legislation (Italics are
direct quotes, and words that are not italicized are our comments):
“The owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog that is the subject of a complaint may be cited and pay a civil penalty as provided in this section. This civil penalty shall be in addition to any fine, fee, or penalty imposed under any other provision of law or local ordinance." In the first sentence, the committee substituted “may" for “shall", which appears to leave the
issuance of a citation up to the discretion of an animal control officer.
However, the basis for this decision is not defined.
“The owner of the dog shall pay the civil penalty to the local
animal control agency within 30 business days of the citation. The local animal control agency shall waive the civil penalty if, within 14 business days of the citation, the owner of the dog presents written proof from a licensed veterinarian that the dog was spayed or neutered." There is no provision for a dog owner to defend him/herself in court or at a hearing, and no appeal is
allowed. If you are accused, you are guilty. Period. This is a violation of constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law.
“Complaint" means an oral or written complaint to a local animal control agency that alleges that the dog or the owner of the dog has violated this division, any other provision of state law that relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance. "Complaint also means the observation by an employee or officer of a local animal control agency of behavior by a dog or the owner of a dog that violates this division, any other provision of state law that relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance."An example of what this means is that a hunting or field trial dog that is in excellent health and conditioned for performance could result in a complaint of animal
cruelty if anyone believes the dog looks thin.
"Local animal control agency" means any city or county animal control agency or other entity responsible for enforcing animal-related laws or local animal control ordinances." This includes Humane Societies and other animal welfare organizations empowered to enforce animal cruelty or other dog laws. Many members of these groups support a radical animal rights agenda.
The Senate Local Government Committee approved this legislation by a party-line 3-2 vote Wednesday, with Democrats in the majority. It now goes to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, and then to the Senate floor for a final vote.
Please contact members of the Appropriations Committee immediately to voice opposition to the second half of this bill, and also individual senators.
This link gives contact information for committee members:
http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/sen/committee/STANDING/APPROP/_home1/PROFILE.HTM. The committee meets on Monday.
This link gives contact information for all senators:
http://www.senate.ca.gov/~newsen/senators/senators.htp. While Sen. Michael Machado voted for this bill on Wednesday, he expressed many concerns and might be convinced to change
his vote.
Dallas
Here is a summary of the dog ordinance passed Wednesday by the Dallas City Council by a 10-3 vote. The ordinance:
Creates a permit for a dog or cat used for breeding or competition.
The cost of the permit is $70 annually for each animal, plus the regular license fee of $30. There is no grace period or exclusion provided for new residents or people who are visiting Dallas, including participants in dog shows or other events. Visitors can be cited, and we expect that they will be cited.
It Requires all other dogs or cats to be spayed or neutered.
Limits a single household to a total of six cats and/or dogs. People owning more than a half-acre of land would be allowed eight. People who currently own a greater number of animals could apply to the city to be allowed to keep their animals without penalty, but they would not be allowed to buy a dog or breed a litter of puppies until their number of dogs drops below the limit. The ordinance applies to anyone who “harbors" more than six dogs, which includes many visitors and participants in dog shows and other events.
Almost all professional handlers would be in this category, as well as many owner/handlers.
Subjects anyone who harbors a group of dogs that exceeds the limits to unannounced inspections. This would include participants in dog shows or other events.
Mandates microchipping of all dogs and cats, including those of
visitors.
Prohibits tethering of unsupervised dogs to trees or poles except
"for a period no longer than necessary for the owner to complete a temporary
task."
Forces owners to provide at least 150 square feet of space and a building or
designed doghouse for a dog confined outdoors.
And provides for confiscation of allegedly dangerous dogs, and other
penalties.
Please contact us at asda@csonline.net if you would like to participate in legal action or boycotts related to the Dallas ordinance.
Pennsylvania
Dog owners in Pennsylvania were beset by two pieces of bad legislation this week.
HB 2525 regulates a million dog owners and owners of 2,700 licensed kennels in the state. It passed the House Agriculture Committee by a 17-12 vote Wednesday. All but one Republican (Rep. K. Boback) voted against the bill, and all Democrats (the majority party) voted in favor of it.
It appears that the final bill reflects some of the promises made to dog ownership advocacy groups during the past several months of negotiations, but that the Democrats have reneged on other promises.
Some dog owners groups have withdrawn their opposition to this legislation, but the American Sporting Dog Alliance continues to oppose it in its present form. While we support changes that affect commercial breeders, these represent only a small part of HB 2525. The rest of the bill has serious impacts on all dog and kennel owners. The text of several amendments has not been published thus far We will issue a full report on this legislation in the next couple of days.
The other legislation is HB 2532, which provides what amounts to be a de facto partial or complete ban on tail docking, ear cropping and dewclaw removal by anyone except a licensed veterinarian. Although most other dog owners' organizations have not taken a clear public stance on this bill, the American Sporting Dog Alliance categorically opposes it.
HB 2532 passed the House Judiciary Committee by a 28-1 vote Tuesday, with only Republican Rep. T. Creighton voting “no."
The bill allows owners to dock the tails of puppies until they pass three days of age, and to remove dewclaws during the first five days. However, the burden of proof is placed on a dog's owner to prove that this work was done legally before the age limits, or by a veterinarian. It would be difficult for most dog owners to prove this, and a large majority would not be able to prove it. The simple possession of a dog with a docked tail or a lack of dewclaws would be considered evidence of an animal cruelty violation, if the owner cannot prove his/her innocence.
The bill continues a total ban against ear cropping, except by a
veterinarian, and anyone who is found in possession of a dog with cropped ears is automatically guilty of criminal animal cruelty in the absence of proof.
For all of these procedures, HB 2532 struck out a provision that would have exempted dogs if their owners filed an affidavit with a county treasurer that the work was done before the bill is passed.
That means a large majority of owners of many of the most popular breeds will have no way of proving that they have complied with the law. These procedures were done legally in the past on many dogs, or legally by breeders in other states. In many cases, a dog owner has no idea who performed these procedures. Thus, they would be guilty of criminal animal cruelty for noncompliance.
This legislation will destroy rescue work for many breeds if it is signed into law. Most dogs that are assisted by rescue groups, animal shelters and private individuals either come from unknown sources, or do not come with medical records. There will be no choice except to euthanize these dogs, since it will be impossible to establish their legality.
This legislation also will have a severe impact on people who live in other states. On one level, Pennsylvanians will no longer be able to buy puppies from dozens of breeds from nonresident breeders who perform these procedures legally in their home states.
On another level, Pennsylvania professional trainers and handlers will not be able to accept many dogs from out-of-state customers, because proof will not be available.
But a larger impact will be on thousands of people who own dogs and come to Pennsylvania for a vacation, to hunt, or to compete in field trials, dog shows and other events. Anyone who brings a dog with a docked tail, missing dewclaws or cropped ears into Pennsylvania is subject to arrest for criminal animal cruelty charges.
This will affect many very popular breeds of dogs, such as almost all
Continental breeds of pointing dogs, flushing dogs, terriers and many working dogs, such as rottweilers and doberman pinchers.
The bill now moves to the full House for a vote. Please contact your own legislator and as many others as possible to express opposition to this legislation. Contact information can be found at:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/representatives_alpha.cfm.
Here is a link to the text of the legislation:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2007&sessInd=0&billBody=H
&billTyp=B&billNbr=2532&pn=4030
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, hobby breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. 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. Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. Our email is ASDA@csonline.net.
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO
Animal Rights Wins In Dallas, California, Pennsylvania
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@csonline.net
Wednesday was a black day for dog owners all across America, as animal rights extremists posted legislative victories in Dallas, California and Pennsylvania.
Dog owner advocacy groups fought hard in all three contests and had clear majority support, but animal rights groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) cashed in political chips with elected officials.
PETA and HSUS have been infiltrating local and state advisory boards for many years, backed by a war chest exceeding $150 million, hundreds of paid employees and thousands of volunteers.
Apathy remains th greatest problem faced by dog ownership advocacy groups.
Wednesday's votes also highlighted what is rapidly becoming a partisan division on animal rights legislation. In general, almost all Republicans voted against the legislation, and almost all Democrats voted for the bills. The Democratic Party appears to be lining up behind the animal rights agenda in support of its presumptive presidential candidate, Barrack Obama. Obama has
expressed strong support for animal rights.
Here is a summary of the four issues decided this week:
In Dallas, City Council voted 10-3 to pass an animal control ordinance
requiring mandatory pet sterilization, expensive permits to own intact dogs and cats, mandatory microchipping and pet ownership limits. The ordinance also bans tethering of dogs and imposes strict requirements for keeping dogs outdoors.
Home inspections also are authorized.
In California, the Senate Local Government Committee voted 3-2 to approve AB1634, which now will be sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee. If this committee approves, it will be sent to the legislature for a vote. This bill allows any person to act as a vigilante and report any dog owner for an unsubstantiated violation of any animal law. If any animal control officer agrees, the accused person will have a choice between paying a fine or sterilizing
the animal. People who are accused of anything have no right to defend themselves or to appeal. An accusation is automatic guilt.
In Pennsylvania, the House Rules Committee voted Tuesday to approve HB2532, which is a de facto ban on tail docking, dewclaw removal and ear cropping. In the absence of proof that the procedure was performed by a veterinarian, the mere possession of a dog that has had one of those three procedures subjects an owner to a criminal citation for animal cruelty. This bill would destroy many rescue operations, dog shows, competitive events and field trials in
Pennsylvania and result in the deaths of thousands of dogs. This bill now goes to the full House for a vote, and then to the Senate.
Also in Pennsylvania, the House Agriculture Committee approved amendments to the state dog and kennel law that fall short of changes that were promised to dog owner advocacy groups. The actual text of this legislation was not available at this writing, and a follow-up report will be issued when the revised legislation is available. This bill now goes to the full House for a vote, and then to the Senate.
Please see below for more detailed descriptions of all four issues.
Dog ownership advocates clearly outnumbered animal rights sympathizers in public hearings on all four pieces of legislation, as well as in written comments, emails and phone calls received by elected officials. However, many of those officials chose to ignore our voices, and that is doubly true of the Democrats. We are not saying this to be partisan, as many of our officers and members are loyal Democrats. We simply are stating a fact. Democrats voted
against animal owners this week by a shocking margin, and we urge dog owners who are registered with this party to work to reverse this policy.
Advocates of dog owners rights also were hurt by the apathy of many people who support us, but who did little or nothing to voice that support to elected officials. At the Senate hearing in California, for example, only about 10 people showed up. In Dallas, about 200 dog ownership advocates attended the hearing, but that is a tiny percentage of the estimated 300,000 pet owners in the city. Attendance at the two Pennsylvania hearings was described as
moderate.
Apathy by the large but silent majority of dog owners is a major component of the animal rights strategy. While we outnumber them 100-to-one, most of us don't get involved. In contrast, animal rights groups rely on an almost religious fanaticism by their supporters to gain a high percentage of participation.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges every dog owner in America to join one or more of the several fine organizations that are fighting for your rights. Each of these organizations has its own niche, but all are excellent and deserve your support.
We welcome your membership and hope you will participate fully in our programs. Please visit us online at http://www.americansportingsdogalliance.org.
Please stand up and be counted now!
We also ask all dog owners who belong to field trial clubs, sportsmen's organizations, show specialty clubs, breed clubs and event clubs to urge those organizations to take an active political role to defeat animal rights legislation.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also is urging dog owners to boycott all dog events in the City of Dallas for their own safety. Under the terms of the ordinance, even a visitor to the city is subject to citations, fines and dog confiscations. It is known that PETA plans a protest at a July dog show in Dallas, and we expect them to report show dog owners for alleged violations of the ordinance. Because the Dallas animal commission is dominated by PETA members, we expect that there will be a move to raid this dog show. All
professional handlers would be in violation of the possession limit of six dogs, and none of the dogs are expected to have a required Dallas breeding or intact permit.
If the Pennsylvania and California legislation becomes law, it will not be safe for anyone to attend a field trial, dog show or performance event in those states, or even to visit, pass through or take a hunting trip there.
We urge all clubs to cancel or move planned events in Dallas now, and also in Pennsylvania and California if their legislation is signed into law. We believe that clubs have an ethical obligation to protect the safety of participants and their dogs.
Continued apathy and non-involvement will doom dog ownership in America, as well as hunting, field trials and other dog events. We can't do it without you.
Here are the highlights of the four pieces of legislation that were voted on this week.
California
We support the first part of AB1634, which calls for fines for dogs that are allowed to roam and mandates sterilization after the third offense.
However, the second part of the legislation violates basic constitutional rights and human decency.
Here are the provisions of the second part of the legislation (Italics are
direct quotes, and words that are not italicized are our comments):
“The owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog that is the subject of a complaint may be cited and pay a civil penalty as provided in this section. This civil penalty shall be in addition to any fine, fee, or penalty imposed under any other provision of law or local ordinance." In the first sentence, the committee substituted “may" for “shall", which appears to leave the
issuance of a citation up to the discretion of an animal control officer.
However, the basis for this decision is not defined.
“The owner of the dog shall pay the civil penalty to the local
animal control agency within 30 business days of the citation. The local animal control agency shall waive the civil penalty if, within 14 business days of the citation, the owner of the dog presents written proof from a licensed veterinarian that the dog was spayed or neutered." There is no provision for a dog owner to defend him/herself in court or at a hearing, and no appeal is
allowed. If you are accused, you are guilty. Period. This is a violation of constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law.
“Complaint" means an oral or written complaint to a local animal control agency that alleges that the dog or the owner of the dog has violated this division, any other provision of state law that relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance. "Complaint also means the observation by an employee or officer of a local animal control agency of behavior by a dog or the owner of a dog that violates this division, any other provision of state law that relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance."An example of what this means is that a hunting or field trial dog that is in excellent health and conditioned for performance could result in a complaint of animal
cruelty if anyone believes the dog looks thin.
"Local animal control agency" means any city or county animal control agency or other entity responsible for enforcing animal-related laws or local animal control ordinances." This includes Humane Societies and other animal welfare organizations empowered to enforce animal cruelty or other dog laws. Many members of these groups support a radical animal rights agenda.
The Senate Local Government Committee approved this legislation by a party-line 3-2 vote Wednesday, with Democrats in the majority. It now goes to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, and then to the Senate floor for a final vote.
Please contact members of the Appropriations Committee immediately to voice opposition to the second half of this bill, and also individual senators.
This link gives contact information for committee members:
http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/sen/committee/STANDING/APPROP/_home1/PROFILE.HTM. The committee meets on Monday.
This link gives contact information for all senators:
http://www.senate.ca.gov/~newsen/senators/senators.htp. While Sen. Michael Machado voted for this bill on Wednesday, he expressed many concerns and might be convinced to change
his vote.
Dallas
Here is a summary of the dog ordinance passed Wednesday by the Dallas City Council by a 10-3 vote. The ordinance:
Creates a permit for a dog or cat used for breeding or competition.
The cost of the permit is $70 annually for each animal, plus the regular license fee of $30. There is no grace period or exclusion provided for new residents or people who are visiting Dallas, including participants in dog shows or other events. Visitors can be cited, and we expect that they will be cited.
It Requires all other dogs or cats to be spayed or neutered.
Limits a single household to a total of six cats and/or dogs. People owning more than a half-acre of land would be allowed eight. People who currently own a greater number of animals could apply to the city to be allowed to keep their animals without penalty, but they would not be allowed to buy a dog or breed a litter of puppies until their number of dogs drops below the limit. The ordinance applies to anyone who “harbors" more than six dogs, which includes many visitors and participants in dog shows and other events.
Almost all professional handlers would be in this category, as well as many owner/handlers.
Subjects anyone who harbors a group of dogs that exceeds the limits to unannounced inspections. This would include participants in dog shows or other events.
Mandates microchipping of all dogs and cats, including those of
visitors.
Prohibits tethering of unsupervised dogs to trees or poles except
"for a period no longer than necessary for the owner to complete a temporary
task."
Forces owners to provide at least 150 square feet of space and a building or
designed doghouse for a dog confined outdoors.
And provides for confiscation of allegedly dangerous dogs, and other
penalties.
Please contact us at asda@csonline.net if you would like to participate in legal action or boycotts related to the Dallas ordinance.
Pennsylvania
Dog owners in Pennsylvania were beset by two pieces of bad legislation this week.
HB 2525 regulates a million dog owners and owners of 2,700 licensed kennels in the state. It passed the House Agriculture Committee by a 17-12 vote Wednesday. All but one Republican (Rep. K. Boback) voted against the bill, and all Democrats (the majority party) voted in favor of it.
It appears that the final bill reflects some of the promises made to dog ownership advocacy groups during the past several months of negotiations, but that the Democrats have reneged on other promises.
Some dog owners groups have withdrawn their opposition to this legislation, but the American Sporting Dog Alliance continues to oppose it in its present form. While we support changes that affect commercial breeders, these represent only a small part of HB 2525. The rest of the bill has serious impacts on all dog and kennel owners. The text of several amendments has not been published thus far We will issue a full report on this legislation in the next couple of days.
The other legislation is HB 2532, which provides what amounts to be a de facto partial or complete ban on tail docking, ear cropping and dewclaw removal by anyone except a licensed veterinarian. Although most other dog owners' organizations have not taken a clear public stance on this bill, the American Sporting Dog Alliance categorically opposes it.
HB 2532 passed the House Judiciary Committee by a 28-1 vote Tuesday, with only Republican Rep. T. Creighton voting “no."
The bill allows owners to dock the tails of puppies until they pass three days of age, and to remove dewclaws during the first five days. However, the burden of proof is placed on a dog's owner to prove that this work was done legally before the age limits, or by a veterinarian. It would be difficult for most dog owners to prove this, and a large majority would not be able to prove it. The simple possession of a dog with a docked tail or a lack of dewclaws would be considered evidence of an animal cruelty violation, if the owner cannot prove his/her innocence.
The bill continues a total ban against ear cropping, except by a
veterinarian, and anyone who is found in possession of a dog with cropped ears is automatically guilty of criminal animal cruelty in the absence of proof.
For all of these procedures, HB 2532 struck out a provision that would have exempted dogs if their owners filed an affidavit with a county treasurer that the work was done before the bill is passed.
That means a large majority of owners of many of the most popular breeds will have no way of proving that they have complied with the law. These procedures were done legally in the past on many dogs, or legally by breeders in other states. In many cases, a dog owner has no idea who performed these procedures. Thus, they would be guilty of criminal animal cruelty for noncompliance.
This legislation will destroy rescue work for many breeds if it is signed into law. Most dogs that are assisted by rescue groups, animal shelters and private individuals either come from unknown sources, or do not come with medical records. There will be no choice except to euthanize these dogs, since it will be impossible to establish their legality.
This legislation also will have a severe impact on people who live in other states. On one level, Pennsylvanians will no longer be able to buy puppies from dozens of breeds from nonresident breeders who perform these procedures legally in their home states.
On another level, Pennsylvania professional trainers and handlers will not be able to accept many dogs from out-of-state customers, because proof will not be available.
But a larger impact will be on thousands of people who own dogs and come to Pennsylvania for a vacation, to hunt, or to compete in field trials, dog shows and other events. Anyone who brings a dog with a docked tail, missing dewclaws or cropped ears into Pennsylvania is subject to arrest for criminal animal cruelty charges.
This will affect many very popular breeds of dogs, such as almost all
Continental breeds of pointing dogs, flushing dogs, terriers and many working dogs, such as rottweilers and doberman pinchers.
The bill now moves to the full House for a vote. Please contact your own legislator and as many others as possible to express opposition to this legislation. Contact information can be found at:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/representatives_alpha.cfm.
Here is a link to the text of the legislation:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2007&sessInd=0&billBody=H
&billTyp=B&billNbr=2532&pn=4030
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, hobby breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. 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. Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. Our email is ASDA@csonline.net.
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)