President Obama never "promised" to get a rescued dog. He stated that he MIGHT get a mixed-breed and that he would PREFER it came from the shelter. As usual, the Human Society of the United States (HSUS) and other animal rights groups started putting pressure on the President and his family to make a COMMITMENT to this end.
In typical fashion these groups were attempting to MANIPULATE the president and even seek to REDUCE the First Families Choice for a family pet. Kudos to you President Obama for doing what was best for your family and not bending to extremest. Now we ask of you- don't let these extremest take away the same choices of the American public.
One campaign promise the President DID make was to end the strangle-hold Lobbyist have on Lawmakers. Lets hold his feet to the fire to up hold this campaign PROMISE.
Showing posts with label US Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Congress. Show all posts
Monday, April 13, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
Letter to IRS regarding HSUS
Just one comment: My letter mentions a specific bill and hearing I attended in Maryland. If anyone wants to write a similar letter, they should be careful about straight cut/copy paste. Actually, if people can find other examples, that's even better!
The key thing with writing a letter like this is to address the TAX issue - nothing about whether the lobbying is good or bad. I wanted to make the public point that if other lobbying groups can't get contributions that are tax deductible, why should HSUS? In other words - the American taxpayer (merely as a taxpayer) shouldn't pay for any lobbying, not just HSUS, if it isn't legal!
Caroline
I have complained to the IRS about a 501(c)(3) organization
expending much of its resources in lobbying efforts. Perhaps if
others do the same, the IRS will investigate. Yes, there is a
"Humane Society Legislative Fund" that is authorized to conduct
lobbying. I don't know if tecnically that group is doing the
lobbying, but I doubt it. Here is my letter. Feel free to use
anything that might be useful, and you can cross-post if it would
help. It would probably be good if there were individual,
specific examples - such as my Maryland example - to show how
wide-spread their lobbying efforts are. Douglas Shulman is the
Commissioner of the IRS, and I copied him.
IRS EO Classification
Mail Code 4910
1100 Commerce Street
Dallas, TX 75242
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am very upset that the American taxpayers are being denied tens
of millions of dollars in taxes that should be paid. As I
understand it, IRC Section 501(c)(3) charities are not allowed to
conduct more than a minimal amount of lobbying. Yet, one of the
largest "charities" in the country is constantly lobbying and
helping to draft and pass legislation.
In 2007, the Humane Society of The United States (EIN 53-0225390)
received over $150 million, yet paid no taxes. During that time,
they vigorously lobbied to enact many laws. According to their
own annual report
(http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/annual_report_2007_p1.pdf)
they lobbied for many new laws. Some of the more blatant
examples: page 6 - "We lobbied for the successful passage
of legislation in Illinois"; page 12 "In Congress, we secured language in the Senate Interior
Appropriations bill to"; page 12 "We persuaded the New Jersey Legislature to allocate
$850,000"; page 15 "We
also won passage of two precedent-setting bills in the New
York State legislature" and "helped pass a resolution
in the U.S. House of Representatives"; and page 17
"Following our successful state ballot initiative
campaigns in Arizona and Florida" Your own web
site states, "An organization will be regarded as
attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the
public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for
the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or
if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of
legislation." It's pretty clear that the HSUS
is "attempted to influence legislation."
This is not an isolated year. In fact, their current web site
indicates that they are going to increase their lobbying efforts!
See http://www.hsus.org/legislation_laws/.
"On the heels of
these advances, the HSUS is better positioned than ever to make
new gains for animals in 2009. We intend to pass federal
legislation to crack down on abusive puppy mills."
http://www.hsus.org/about_us/accomplishments/advances_in_2008.htm
This, despite the fact that a 501(c)(3) organization can
only conduct minimal lobbying. Their web site encourages the
public to contact the members of the legislature to adopt the
laws proposed by HSUS. I was at a recent hearing of a proposed
state bill (Maryland HB 495), and representatives of HSUS were
there to advocate their position. It is my understanding that
this is occurring across the country. Their agenda clearly
includes influencing legislation.
Even if HSUS were properly approved as a non-profit lobbying
organization, the American taxpayers have lost millions of
dollars in taxes that weren't paid because money
contributed to this non-charity was deducted from taxable income.
In 2007 alone, the public donated over $85 million to HSUS. Even
using an extremely conservative tax rate of 10%, taxpayers were
cheated out of $8.5 million“ and that's only in
2007!
Not only does the HSUS engage in extensive lobbying, but they are
also involved in campaigning for the politicians who support
their agenda!!!
"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3)
organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or
indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political
campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for
elective public office.[V]oter education or registration
activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one
candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or
(c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of
candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or
intervention."
During a recent seminar, the HSUS distributed a "voting
record" of all candidates.
According to their 2007 Form 990, the HSUS paid only $6 million
out of their $150 million in receipts for services that actually
helped animals (line 22b). The rest of their "program
services" expenditures went essentially to salaries and
"educational" literature. Yet, much of this
material ($15 million in expenses) references their lobbying
efforts. In fact, one publication details their legislative
efforts! How much of the salaries, travel, and other expenses
went to lobby for legislation that they helped write? How much
did they spend in lobbying efforts in Proposition 2 in California
alone? Their 990 indicates over $1.5 million (out of the $6
million supposedly used for program causes), but this does not
include the salaries and travel of staff, publicizing their
viewpoint in an effort to convince the general public to vote for
their own law, and other "hidden" expenses.
If the HSUS wants to be a lobbying organization, they should be
upfront about it. Please do not allow them to benefit from
millions of dollars in tax exemptions that should be paid as
income tax, or allow charitable deductions for money paid to a
lobbying group.
I hope that as a government agency not directly connected with
the goals of the HSUS (other than allowing them to retain
millions of dollars that should rightly be paid as taxes), you
will take appropriate action to rescind their charitable
organization status and collect the taxes that could be, and
should be, used to pay for taxpayer services.
Caroline Sullivan
The key thing with writing a letter like this is to address the TAX issue - nothing about whether the lobbying is good or bad. I wanted to make the public point that if other lobbying groups can't get contributions that are tax deductible, why should HSUS? In other words - the American taxpayer (merely as a taxpayer) shouldn't pay for any lobbying, not just HSUS, if it isn't legal!
Caroline
I have complained to the IRS about a 501(c)(3) organization
expending much of its resources in lobbying efforts. Perhaps if
others do the same, the IRS will investigate. Yes, there is a
"Humane Society Legislative Fund" that is authorized to conduct
lobbying. I don't know if tecnically that group is doing the
lobbying, but I doubt it. Here is my letter. Feel free to use
anything that might be useful, and you can cross-post if it would
help. It would probably be good if there were individual,
specific examples - such as my Maryland example - to show how
wide-spread their lobbying efforts are. Douglas Shulman is the
Commissioner of the IRS, and I copied him.
IRS EO Classification
Mail Code 4910
1100 Commerce Street
Dallas, TX 75242
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am very upset that the American taxpayers are being denied tens
of millions of dollars in taxes that should be paid. As I
understand it, IRC Section 501(c)(3) charities are not allowed to
conduct more than a minimal amount of lobbying. Yet, one of the
largest "charities" in the country is constantly lobbying and
helping to draft and pass legislation.
In 2007, the Humane Society of The United States (EIN 53-0225390)
received over $150 million, yet paid no taxes. During that time,
they vigorously lobbied to enact many laws. According to their
own annual report
(http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/annual_report_2007_p1.pdf)
they lobbied for many new laws. Some of the more blatant
examples: page 6 - "We lobbied for the successful passage
of legislation in Illinois"; page 12 "In Congress, we secured language in the Senate Interior
Appropriations bill to"; page 12 "We persuaded the New Jersey Legislature to allocate
$850,000"; page 15 "We
also won passage of two precedent-setting bills in the New
York State legislature" and "helped pass a resolution
in the U.S. House of Representatives"; and page 17
"Following our successful state ballot initiative
campaigns in Arizona and Florida" Your own web
site states, "An organization will be regarded as
attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the
public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for
the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or
if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of
legislation." It's pretty clear that the HSUS
is "attempted to influence legislation."
This is not an isolated year. In fact, their current web site
indicates that they are going to increase their lobbying efforts!
See http://www.hsus.org/legislation_laws/.
"On the heels of
these advances, the HSUS is better positioned than ever to make
new gains for animals in 2009. We intend to pass federal
legislation to crack down on abusive puppy mills."
http://www.hsus.org/about_us/accomplishments/advances_in_2008.htm
This, despite the fact that a 501(c)(3) organization can
only conduct minimal lobbying. Their web site encourages the
public to contact the members of the legislature to adopt the
laws proposed by HSUS. I was at a recent hearing of a proposed
state bill (Maryland HB 495), and representatives of HSUS were
there to advocate their position. It is my understanding that
this is occurring across the country. Their agenda clearly
includes influencing legislation.
Even if HSUS were properly approved as a non-profit lobbying
organization, the American taxpayers have lost millions of
dollars in taxes that weren't paid because money
contributed to this non-charity was deducted from taxable income.
In 2007 alone, the public donated over $85 million to HSUS. Even
using an extremely conservative tax rate of 10%, taxpayers were
cheated out of $8.5 million“ and that's only in
2007!
Not only does the HSUS engage in extensive lobbying, but they are
also involved in campaigning for the politicians who support
their agenda!!!
"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3)
organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or
indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political
campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for
elective public office.[V]oter education or registration
activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one
candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or
(c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of
candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or
intervention."
During a recent seminar, the HSUS distributed a "voting
record" of all candidates.
According to their 2007 Form 990, the HSUS paid only $6 million
out of their $150 million in receipts for services that actually
helped animals (line 22b). The rest of their "program
services" expenditures went essentially to salaries and
"educational" literature. Yet, much of this
material ($15 million in expenses) references their lobbying
efforts. In fact, one publication details their legislative
efforts! How much of the salaries, travel, and other expenses
went to lobby for legislation that they helped write? How much
did they spend in lobbying efforts in Proposition 2 in California
alone? Their 990 indicates over $1.5 million (out of the $6
million supposedly used for program causes), but this does not
include the salaries and travel of staff, publicizing their
viewpoint in an effort to convince the general public to vote for
their own law, and other "hidden" expenses.
If the HSUS wants to be a lobbying organization, they should be
upfront about it. Please do not allow them to benefit from
millions of dollars in tax exemptions that should be paid as
income tax, or allow charitable deductions for money paid to a
lobbying group.
I hope that as a government agency not directly connected with
the goals of the HSUS (other than allowing them to retain
millions of dollars that should rightly be paid as taxes), you
will take appropriate action to rescind their charitable
organization status and collect the taxes that could be, and
should be, used to pay for taxpayer services.
Caroline Sullivan
Friday, February 20, 2009
HSUS Gushes Over New "Creature Caucus" in Congress
HSUS Gushes Over New “Creature Caucus” in Congress
Group of Congressmen to Advocate Animal Rights Agenda
2/19/09
US Sportsmen's Alliance
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) couldn’t be happier with
the formation of a new group of Congressmen that will promote its agenda.
On February 18, U.S. Representatives Jim Moran (D- VA) and Elton Gallegy
(R- CA) announced the formation of a new Congressional Animal Protection
Caucus. The goal of the group is to get like-minded members of Congress
together and promote animal rights policy in Washington, D.C. through
forums and briefings.
According to the Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF), the legislative
wing of the HSUS, the new caucus will “take lawmaking for the animals to
the next level.” HSLF went on to gush in its blog, “we could not be more
excited about their leadership of this new organization of humane
lawmakers.”
HSUS President and CEO, Wayne Pacelle was also prominently quoted in
Rep. Moran’s press release announcing the caucus’ formation.
Pacelle stated, “The newly constituted Congressional Animal Protection
Caucus will help better align our federal policies with public opinion,
and we are excited to work closely with its leaders and with the entire
Congress to combat cruelty and abuse."
As of press time, a full list of other U.S. Representatives joining the
caucus was not available. However, the USSA will let sportsmen know as
the names become available. Each member of the caucus should be
contacted by constituents in their districts.
Representatives should be made aware of HSUS’ radical anti-hunting
agenda. They also need to be aware that sportsmen expect their
representatives not to cow tow to that agenda.
Group of Congressmen to Advocate Animal Rights Agenda
2/19/09
US Sportsmen's Alliance
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) couldn’t be happier with
the formation of a new group of Congressmen that will promote its agenda.
On February 18, U.S. Representatives Jim Moran (D- VA) and Elton Gallegy
(R- CA) announced the formation of a new Congressional Animal Protection
Caucus. The goal of the group is to get like-minded members of Congress
together and promote animal rights policy in Washington, D.C. through
forums and briefings.
According to the Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF), the legislative
wing of the HSUS, the new caucus will “take lawmaking for the animals to
the next level.” HSLF went on to gush in its blog, “we could not be more
excited about their leadership of this new organization of humane
lawmakers.”
HSUS President and CEO, Wayne Pacelle was also prominently quoted in
Rep. Moran’s press release announcing the caucus’ formation.
Pacelle stated, “The newly constituted Congressional Animal Protection
Caucus will help better align our federal policies with public opinion,
and we are excited to work closely with its leaders and with the entire
Congress to combat cruelty and abuse."
As of press time, a full list of other U.S. Representatives joining the
caucus was not available. However, the USSA will let sportsmen know as
the names become available. Each member of the caucus should be
contacted by constituents in their districts.
Representatives should be made aware of HSUS’ radical anti-hunting
agenda. They also need to be aware that sportsmen expect their
representatives not to cow tow to that agenda.
New Congressional Animal Protection Caucus Formed
New Congressional Animal Protection Caucus Formed
Wednesday February 18, 2009
A press release today from congressman Jim Moran (D-VA) announced that
he and and Elton Gallegly (R-CA) will co-chair this caucus. The CAPC
replaces the Congressional Friends of Animals Causus, co-chaired by Rep.
Christopher Shays (R-CT) and the late Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA).
Rep. Moran goes on to say:
“Animals are sensate beings that deserve to be treated with respect
and dignity. I look forward to building a consensus among my colleagues
in support of sensible animal welfare laws that reflect our common
values. Protecting animals from cruel treatment is not a partisan issue.”
“Animal cruelty has no place in a civilized society,” Rep. Gallegly said. “Other crimes often go hand-in-hand with animal fighting, including illegal gambling, drug trafficking and acts of human violence. Virtually every arrest for animal cruelty has also led to additional arrests for at least one of these criminal activities.”
"The American public is united in its belief that all animals deserve humane treatment," said Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States. "The newly constituted Congressional Animal Protection Caucus will help better align our federal policies with public opinion, and we are excited to work closely with its leaders and with the entire Congress to combat cruelty and abuse."
Wednesday February 18, 2009
A press release today from congressman Jim Moran (D-VA) announced that
he and and Elton Gallegly (R-CA) will co-chair this caucus. The CAPC
replaces the Congressional Friends of Animals Causus, co-chaired by Rep.
Christopher Shays (R-CT) and the late Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA).
Rep. Moran goes on to say:
“Animals are sensate beings that deserve to be treated with respect
and dignity. I look forward to building a consensus among my colleagues
in support of sensible animal welfare laws that reflect our common
values. Protecting animals from cruel treatment is not a partisan issue.”
“Animal cruelty has no place in a civilized society,” Rep. Gallegly said. “Other crimes often go hand-in-hand with animal fighting, including illegal gambling, drug trafficking and acts of human violence. Virtually every arrest for animal cruelty has also led to additional arrests for at least one of these criminal activities.”
"The American public is united in its belief that all animals deserve humane treatment," said Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States. "The newly constituted Congressional Animal Protection Caucus will help better align our federal policies with public opinion, and we are excited to work closely with its leaders and with the entire Congress to combat cruelty and abuse."
Monday, February 2, 2009
Lobbying and the Influence Peddling in Washington
This morning on National Public Radio, Renee Montagne spoke with Bob Kaiser, the author of the book So Damn Much Money: The Triumph of Lobbying and the Corrosion of American Government. During this interview, Kaiser stated that at times it is the special interst groups that are the ones actually writing the legislation.
We have experience that ourselves - examples include
* the Mass. debarking Act that is currently being proposed
* HSUS's agenda for the Obama Administration
* And direct responses from the special interest group- after you have contacted an elected offical.
These are just three recent examples.
It is important to understand how our government is currently working if we are to make a difference.
We have experience that ourselves - examples include
* the Mass. debarking Act that is currently being proposed
* HSUS's agenda for the Obama Administration
* And direct responses from the special interest group- after you have contacted an elected offical.
These are just three recent examples.
It is important to understand how our government is currently working if we are to make a difference.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
HSUS Maps Agenda For President Obama
HSUS Maps Agenda For President
Asks President And Congress To Federally Regulate
Dog Hobbyists, Name Animal Rights Legal Advocates
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
This article is archived
WASHINGTON The Humane Society of the United
States is asking President Barack Obama and
Congress to require everyone who raises dogs and
cats to be regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, documents show.
HSUS also is asking for the creation of an animal
protection division within the U.S. Department of
Justice that is “similar to the Civil Rights
Division, to ensure strong enforcement of federal
animal protection laws,” thus granting animals
rights similar to humans. HSUS also calls for a
new position of animal protection liaison in the White House.
A fourth provision calls for a ban on hunting on new public lands.
Those are only three of the 100 recommendations
that HSUS has sent to Obama in what is called a
“change agenda for animals.” The American
Sporting Dog Alliance has obtained access to this
document, which has been sent to animal
protection organizations asking for their support.
HSUS is a radical animal rights group. Despite
its name, it does not operate a single animal
shelter, but exists only as a political
organization. The long-range goal of HSUS is to
gradually eliminate all animal ownership and use,
including their use as companion and food animals, and to ban hunting.
The 100 goals sent to Obama reflect many issues,
but this report will concentrate on the issues
that most directly affect dog owners, with added
emphasis on the sporting breeds.
However, we urge our readers to read the full
HSUS document, which includes a crackdown on
alleged farm pollution, tough animal and poultry
husbandry and slaughter rules, and many
environmental and wildlife management measure.
Here is a link the actual document:
http://www.hsus. org/web-files/ PDF/change- agenda-for- animals-1- 14-09.pdf.
Please read this document.
In a letter to a New York horse owners’
association that was made available to the
American Sporting Dog Alliance, HSUS President
Wayne Pacelle asks for support of the 100-point agenda.
“With the changing of the guard at the White
House comes the prospect of new possibilities for
moving our goals forward, and to mark this latest
transfer of power, the HSUS and the Humane
Society Legislative Fund (HSLF) are advancing a
100-point ‘Change Agenda for Animals,’” Pacelle
wrote. “ Never before has the animal protection
movement so carefully articulated a vast array of
critical animal protection reforms in the domains
of so many federal agencies—Agriculture ,
Interior, Commerce, Defense, Health and Human Services, State, and others.”
Dog Breeding Regulation
A top priority of HSUS for several years has been
to require federal regulation of everyone who
raises dogs and cats. Under current law, only
commercial breeders who sell puppies and kittens
on a wholesale basis are federally regulated.
Hobby breeders who sell puppies or kittens
directly to the public are not required to be federally licensed or inspected.
HSUS wants everyone who raises and sells puppies
to be licensed and inspected by the USDA, and
also wants to see much tougher regulations and standards for animal care.
About four years ago, the HSUS-sanctioned Pet
Animal Welfare Act (PAWS) was defeated in
Congress by a narrow margin. PAWS would have
imposed federal licensing and inspection on all hobby breeders.
Last year, U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, who
has very close personal and political ties to
President Obama, introduced a bill he called PAWS
2, which echoed many of the provisions of its
predecessor. When PAWS 2 stalled, Sen. Durbin
attempted to attach it as an amendment to the
2008 Farm Bill, but failed to get enough support.
Durbin came back with a similar bill in late
2008, dubbed “PUPS” or “Baby’s Bill,” which is
formally called the Puppy Uniform Protection Act,
but Congress adjourned without taking action.
These bills all originated from HSUS, and all of
them clearly were aimed at hobby breeders.
The 100-point agenda says HSUS wants to “require
all dog and cat breeders to comply with AWA
(federal Animal Welfare Act) requirements,
including those who sell directly to the public….”
It is PAWS all over again.
Now, however, HSUS has a much stronger hand in
Washington. In the November election, HSUS
strongly endorsed President Obama and had a
95-percent success rate in re-electing the
congressional candidates it endorsed. A
questionnaire obtained by the American Sporting
Dog Alliance showed that the President aggressively sought HSUS endorsement.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance continues to
believe that President Obama and many members of
Congress will listen to the concerns of dog
owners, but only if we stand up in large numbers
to defend ourselves and our rights, and take an
active role in the political process.
If we do not stand up and be counted in large
numbers, we expect HSUS will get its way on most
of the measures in the 100-point agenda. Dog
owners will have no one to blame but themselves
for being relegated to the legal status of
second-class citizens. The Bill of Rights and
personal freedom always are the first victims of HSUS policy.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance will be
working hard to defeat these HSUS legislative
proposals, but we need your help if we are to
succeed in turning back these challenges. We urge
all dog owners to join and support the
organization of their choice, and also to support
farmers, hunters and other allies in the fight
against the HSUS version of a “brave new world.”
The Rest Of The Story
Here are some other parts of the 100-point agenda
that pertain to dog owners in general, and also
owners of the sporting breeds in particular. HSUS
is calling on President Obama and Congress to:
Create an animal protection division in the
Justice Department to act on behalf of animals by
aggressive prosecution of people who violate laws
about animals. In essence, this gives animals
legal status, and the federal government will act
as their advocate. HSUS likened it to the Civil
Rights Division, which advocates for aggressive
protection of human rights. Animals thus would be
given the same legal status as people in the Department of Justice.
Create an animal protection liaison in the White
House, which would mean that HSUS will have
direct access to President Obama and his top
advisors to advocate for animal rights groups on
policy, regulatory and legislative issues.
Immediately strengthen enforcement of
USDA-regulated commercial kennels and other
animal owners covered by the Animal Welfare Act.
(AWA). Increase USDA budget and staffing for this
purpose, and make fines and penalties more
severe. Include all vertebrate species under the AWA.
Completely implement the ban on importing dogs
from other countries that HSUS succeeded in attaching to the 2008 Farm Bill.
Focus on non-lethal methods to control wildlife
populations, which means lessening the use of hunting as a management tool.
Mandate the use of microchips for companion
animals, and all other animals covered by the AWA.
Do not open any new public land or national wildlife refuges to hunting.
Transfer all wildlife programs away from the
USDA, and put them under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior.
Ban hunting on shooting preserves, which HSUS
labels “canned hunts” and calls “cruel.” Also ban so-called Internet hunting.
Make it a crime to show anything that HSUS calls
animal cruelty in films, on television, in books
and magazine, or on the Internet. Require the
Department of Justice to collect and analyze data
on animal cruelty cases and create a separate
crime database for this information.
Require the U.S. Census Bureau and the Center for
Disease Control to include questions about the
animals people own when surveying the public, in
order “to assess impacts on human health and
well-being, develop more effective approaches to
community animal control, and ensure appropriate disaster preparation.”
Allow foreign animal rights groups to have an
official advisory role in the United States.
Ban the mail shipment of any kind of birds or
animals through the U.S. Postal Service,
including for “agriculture and sport.” Baby
chicks were specifically mentioned, and this also
would apply to gamebird chicks, adults and eggs
that are used by sporting dog trainers and in field trials.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents
owners, breeders and professionals who work with
breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also
welcome people who work with other breeds, as
legislative issues affect all of us. We are a
grassroots movement working to protect the rights
of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional
relationships between dogs and humans maintains
its rightful place in American society and life.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs
your help so that we can continue to work to
protect the rights of dog owners. Your
membership, participation and support are truly
essential to the success of our mission. We are
funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web at
http://www.american sportingdogallia nce.org. Our email is asda@csonline. net.
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS
The American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.american sportingdogallia nce.org
Please Join Us
Asks President And Congress To Federally Regulate
Dog Hobbyists, Name Animal Rights Legal Advocates
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
This article is archived
WASHINGTON The Humane Society of the United
States is asking President Barack Obama and
Congress to require everyone who raises dogs and
cats to be regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, documents show.
HSUS also is asking for the creation of an animal
protection division within the U.S. Department of
Justice that is “similar to the Civil Rights
Division, to ensure strong enforcement of federal
animal protection laws,” thus granting animals
rights similar to humans. HSUS also calls for a
new position of animal protection liaison in the White House.
A fourth provision calls for a ban on hunting on new public lands.
Those are only three of the 100 recommendations
that HSUS has sent to Obama in what is called a
“change agenda for animals.” The American
Sporting Dog Alliance has obtained access to this
document, which has been sent to animal
protection organizations asking for their support.
HSUS is a radical animal rights group. Despite
its name, it does not operate a single animal
shelter, but exists only as a political
organization. The long-range goal of HSUS is to
gradually eliminate all animal ownership and use,
including their use as companion and food animals, and to ban hunting.
The 100 goals sent to Obama reflect many issues,
but this report will concentrate on the issues
that most directly affect dog owners, with added
emphasis on the sporting breeds.
However, we urge our readers to read the full
HSUS document, which includes a crackdown on
alleged farm pollution, tough animal and poultry
husbandry and slaughter rules, and many
environmental and wildlife management measure.
Here is a link the actual document:
http://www.hsus. org/web-files/ PDF/change- agenda-for- animals-1- 14-09.pdf.
Please read this document.
In a letter to a New York horse owners’
association that was made available to the
American Sporting Dog Alliance, HSUS President
Wayne Pacelle asks for support of the 100-point agenda.
“With the changing of the guard at the White
House comes the prospect of new possibilities for
moving our goals forward, and to mark this latest
transfer of power, the HSUS and the Humane
Society Legislative Fund (HSLF) are advancing a
100-point ‘Change Agenda for Animals,’” Pacelle
wrote. “ Never before has the animal protection
movement so carefully articulated a vast array of
critical animal protection reforms in the domains
of so many federal agencies—Agriculture ,
Interior, Commerce, Defense, Health and Human Services, State, and others.”
Dog Breeding Regulation
A top priority of HSUS for several years has been
to require federal regulation of everyone who
raises dogs and cats. Under current law, only
commercial breeders who sell puppies and kittens
on a wholesale basis are federally regulated.
Hobby breeders who sell puppies or kittens
directly to the public are not required to be federally licensed or inspected.
HSUS wants everyone who raises and sells puppies
to be licensed and inspected by the USDA, and
also wants to see much tougher regulations and standards for animal care.
About four years ago, the HSUS-sanctioned Pet
Animal Welfare Act (PAWS) was defeated in
Congress by a narrow margin. PAWS would have
imposed federal licensing and inspection on all hobby breeders.
Last year, U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, who
has very close personal and political ties to
President Obama, introduced a bill he called PAWS
2, which echoed many of the provisions of its
predecessor. When PAWS 2 stalled, Sen. Durbin
attempted to attach it as an amendment to the
2008 Farm Bill, but failed to get enough support.
Durbin came back with a similar bill in late
2008, dubbed “PUPS” or “Baby’s Bill,” which is
formally called the Puppy Uniform Protection Act,
but Congress adjourned without taking action.
These bills all originated from HSUS, and all of
them clearly were aimed at hobby breeders.
The 100-point agenda says HSUS wants to “require
all dog and cat breeders to comply with AWA
(federal Animal Welfare Act) requirements,
including those who sell directly to the public….”
It is PAWS all over again.
Now, however, HSUS has a much stronger hand in
Washington. In the November election, HSUS
strongly endorsed President Obama and had a
95-percent success rate in re-electing the
congressional candidates it endorsed. A
questionnaire obtained by the American Sporting
Dog Alliance showed that the President aggressively sought HSUS endorsement.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance continues to
believe that President Obama and many members of
Congress will listen to the concerns of dog
owners, but only if we stand up in large numbers
to defend ourselves and our rights, and take an
active role in the political process.
If we do not stand up and be counted in large
numbers, we expect HSUS will get its way on most
of the measures in the 100-point agenda. Dog
owners will have no one to blame but themselves
for being relegated to the legal status of
second-class citizens. The Bill of Rights and
personal freedom always are the first victims of HSUS policy.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance will be
working hard to defeat these HSUS legislative
proposals, but we need your help if we are to
succeed in turning back these challenges. We urge
all dog owners to join and support the
organization of their choice, and also to support
farmers, hunters and other allies in the fight
against the HSUS version of a “brave new world.”
The Rest Of The Story
Here are some other parts of the 100-point agenda
that pertain to dog owners in general, and also
owners of the sporting breeds in particular. HSUS
is calling on President Obama and Congress to:
Create an animal protection division in the
Justice Department to act on behalf of animals by
aggressive prosecution of people who violate laws
about animals. In essence, this gives animals
legal status, and the federal government will act
as their advocate. HSUS likened it to the Civil
Rights Division, which advocates for aggressive
protection of human rights. Animals thus would be
given the same legal status as people in the Department of Justice.
Create an animal protection liaison in the White
House, which would mean that HSUS will have
direct access to President Obama and his top
advisors to advocate for animal rights groups on
policy, regulatory and legislative issues.
Immediately strengthen enforcement of
USDA-regulated commercial kennels and other
animal owners covered by the Animal Welfare Act.
(AWA). Increase USDA budget and staffing for this
purpose, and make fines and penalties more
severe. Include all vertebrate species under the AWA.
Completely implement the ban on importing dogs
from other countries that HSUS succeeded in attaching to the 2008 Farm Bill.
Focus on non-lethal methods to control wildlife
populations, which means lessening the use of hunting as a management tool.
Mandate the use of microchips for companion
animals, and all other animals covered by the AWA.
Do not open any new public land or national wildlife refuges to hunting.
Transfer all wildlife programs away from the
USDA, and put them under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior.
Ban hunting on shooting preserves, which HSUS
labels “canned hunts” and calls “cruel.” Also ban so-called Internet hunting.
Make it a crime to show anything that HSUS calls
animal cruelty in films, on television, in books
and magazine, or on the Internet. Require the
Department of Justice to collect and analyze data
on animal cruelty cases and create a separate
crime database for this information.
Require the U.S. Census Bureau and the Center for
Disease Control to include questions about the
animals people own when surveying the public, in
order “to assess impacts on human health and
well-being, develop more effective approaches to
community animal control, and ensure appropriate disaster preparation.”
Allow foreign animal rights groups to have an
official advisory role in the United States.
Ban the mail shipment of any kind of birds or
animals through the U.S. Postal Service,
including for “agriculture and sport.” Baby
chicks were specifically mentioned, and this also
would apply to gamebird chicks, adults and eggs
that are used by sporting dog trainers and in field trials.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents
owners, breeders and professionals who work with
breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also
welcome people who work with other breeds, as
legislative issues affect all of us. We are a
grassroots movement working to protect the rights
of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional
relationships between dogs and humans maintains
its rightful place in American society and life.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs
your help so that we can continue to work to
protect the rights of dog owners. Your
membership, participation and support are truly
essential to the success of our mission. We are
funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web at
http://www.american sportingdogallia nce.org. Our email is asda@csonline. net.
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS
The American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.american sportingdogallia nce.org
Please Join Us
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Website to Track the US Congress
Open Congress is a website designed to show you what bills and resolutions are being introduced and voted on in Washington D.C.
This is a geat site. You can track lots of issues, Senators, Representitive, and you can leave comments.
Keep track of your Congressmen/women and let them know what you think of their voting record.
This is a geat site. You can track lots of issues, Senators, Representitive, and you can leave comments.
Keep track of your Congressmen/women and let them know what you think of their voting record.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Agriculture Committee Chair Peterson Announces Agriculture Committee Members
News from the House Agriculture Committee
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Media Contacts:
April Slayton (202) 225-6872
Scott Kuschmider (202) 225-1496
Agriculture Committee Chair Peterson Announces Agriculture Committee Members
WASHINGTON - Agriculture Committee Chair Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota
announced the Members of Congress selected to serve on the
House Agriculture Committee for the 111th Congress today.
The House Democratic Steering Committee, including 11 freshmen Members and
17 returning Members, to serve on the House Agriculture
Committee. The House Republican Conference has named 17 Republicans to serve
on the Committee and has left one seat vacant.
"The Agriculture Committee is responsible for issues as varied as farm
programs, commodity markets, nutrition, conservation,
renewable energy, and rural development, so the diverse experiences of these
Members will bring new ideas and energy to our work on
these important issues," Chair Peterson said.
The 28 Democrats who will serve on the committee are:
. Chair Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota
. Representative Tim Holden of Pennsylvania
. Representative Mike McIntyre of North Carolina
. Representative Leonard L. Boswell of Iowa
. Representative Joe Baca of California
. Representative Dennis A. Cardoza of California
. Representative David Scott of Georgia
. Representative Jim Marshall of Georgia
. Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota
. Representative Henry Cuellar of Texas
. Representative Jim Costa of California
. Representative Brad Ellsworth of Indiana
. Representative Timothy J. Walz of Minnesota
. Representative Kirsten E. Gillibrand of New York
. Representative Steve Kagen of Wisconsin
. Representative Kurt Schrader of Oregon
. Representative Deborah L. Halvorson of Illinois
. Representative Kathleen A. Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania
. Representative Eric J. J. Massa of New York
. Representative Bobby Bright of Alabama
. Representative Betsy Markey of Colorado
. Representative Frank Kratovil, Jr. of Maryland
. Representative Mark H. Schauer of Michigan
. Representative Larry Kissell of North Carolina
. Representative John A. Boccieri of Ohio
. Representative Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota
. Representative Travis W. Childers of Mississippi
. Representative Walt Minnick of Idaho
The 17 Republicans (with one additional vacant seat) who will serve on the
Committee are:
. Ranking Member Frank Lucas of Oklahoma
. Representative Bob Goodlatte of Virginia
. Representative Jerry Moran of Kansas
. Representative Timothy V. Johnson of Illinois
. Representative Sam Graves of Missouri
. Representative Mike Rogers of Alabama
. Representative Steve King of Iowa
. Representative Randy Neugebauer of Texas
. Representative Virginia Foxx of North Carolina
. Representative K. Michael Conaway of Texas
. Representative Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska
. Representative Jean Schmidt of Ohio
. Representative Adrian Smith of Nebraska
. Representative Robert E. Latta of Ohio
. Representative Phil Roe of Tennessee
. Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri
. Representative Glenn W. Thompson of Pennsylvania
. one vacancy
The House Agriculture Committee has jurisdiction over a wide range of
agriculture and rural development issues. These areas include
renewable energy, disaster assistance, nutrition, crop insurance,
conservation, international trade, futures market regulation,
animal and plant health, agricultural research, bioterrorism, forestry, and
others.
Congressman Peterson has served as chair of the Agriculture Committee since
2007.
###
The U.S. House Committee on Agriculture web site
http://agriculture.house.gov has additional information on this and
other subjects.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Media Contacts:
April Slayton (202) 225-6872
Scott Kuschmider (202) 225-1496
Agriculture Committee Chair Peterson Announces Agriculture Committee Members
WASHINGTON - Agriculture Committee Chair Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota
announced the Members of Congress selected to serve on the
House Agriculture Committee for the 111th Congress today.
The House Democratic Steering Committee, including 11 freshmen Members and
17 returning Members, to serve on the House Agriculture
Committee. The House Republican Conference has named 17 Republicans to serve
on the Committee and has left one seat vacant.
"The Agriculture Committee is responsible for issues as varied as farm
programs, commodity markets, nutrition, conservation,
renewable energy, and rural development, so the diverse experiences of these
Members will bring new ideas and energy to our work on
these important issues," Chair Peterson said.
The 28 Democrats who will serve on the committee are:
. Chair Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota
. Representative Tim Holden of Pennsylvania
. Representative Mike McIntyre of North Carolina
. Representative Leonard L. Boswell of Iowa
. Representative Joe Baca of California
. Representative Dennis A. Cardoza of California
. Representative David Scott of Georgia
. Representative Jim Marshall of Georgia
. Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota
. Representative Henry Cuellar of Texas
. Representative Jim Costa of California
. Representative Brad Ellsworth of Indiana
. Representative Timothy J. Walz of Minnesota
. Representative Kirsten E. Gillibrand of New York
. Representative Steve Kagen of Wisconsin
. Representative Kurt Schrader of Oregon
. Representative Deborah L. Halvorson of Illinois
. Representative Kathleen A. Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania
. Representative Eric J. J. Massa of New York
. Representative Bobby Bright of Alabama
. Representative Betsy Markey of Colorado
. Representative Frank Kratovil, Jr. of Maryland
. Representative Mark H. Schauer of Michigan
. Representative Larry Kissell of North Carolina
. Representative John A. Boccieri of Ohio
. Representative Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota
. Representative Travis W. Childers of Mississippi
. Representative Walt Minnick of Idaho
The 17 Republicans (with one additional vacant seat) who will serve on the
Committee are:
. Ranking Member Frank Lucas of Oklahoma
. Representative Bob Goodlatte of Virginia
. Representative Jerry Moran of Kansas
. Representative Timothy V. Johnson of Illinois
. Representative Sam Graves of Missouri
. Representative Mike Rogers of Alabama
. Representative Steve King of Iowa
. Representative Randy Neugebauer of Texas
. Representative Virginia Foxx of North Carolina
. Representative K. Michael Conaway of Texas
. Representative Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska
. Representative Jean Schmidt of Ohio
. Representative Adrian Smith of Nebraska
. Representative Robert E. Latta of Ohio
. Representative Phil Roe of Tennessee
. Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri
. Representative Glenn W. Thompson of Pennsylvania
. one vacancy
The House Agriculture Committee has jurisdiction over a wide range of
agriculture and rural development issues. These areas include
renewable energy, disaster assistance, nutrition, crop insurance,
conservation, international trade, futures market regulation,
animal and plant health, agricultural research, bioterrorism, forestry, and
others.
Congressman Peterson has served as chair of the Agriculture Committee since
2007.
###
The U.S. House Committee on Agriculture web site
http://agriculture.house.gov has additional information on this and
other subjects.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Letter to Sen. Bob Casey- D (PA)
Senator Bob Casey March 1, 2007
Dear Senator Casey,
Re. Changes to Dog Laws
I am writing to you to address my concern over the recent trend in changes to dog laws across the country, and Pennsylvania specifically. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendel has proposed changes to the dog laws in Pennsylvania that would affect far more than just the “puppy mills” that he vocally opposes. These proposed changes are currently in the comment period and I, along with countless other dog fanciers, are working to fight the changes that have been proposed.
At a time in history where the “threat of terrorism” is behind every door, it is painfully obvious that Americans can still terrorize each other as “special interest groups”- in this case the “Animal Rights” groups. Vice President Chaney stated, “Our way of life is not negotiable”- did he mean oil only? Or is my way of life, raising quality dogs in my home, protected too? I urge you to help stop domestic terrorism that threatens American’s ability to live freely without injury to others. My dogs are not a threat to anyone, but this type of legislation is a threat to my quality of life and the quality of life that my dogs currently enjoy.
Your predecessor, Senator Rick Santorum, had proposed similar legislation, SB 1139 called the Pet Animal Welfare Statute (PAWS) and before that he proposed the “The Puppy Protection Act”, both of which received nationwide opposition. Organized kennel clubs around the state (and around the country) worked to support you and vote out Senator Santorum over his proposal and support of this legislation. It has become obvious that this issue is by-partisan. I am a registered Democrat, however I can not support any Democrat that supports this type of social over regulation that has no bearing on public health and safety.
As a dog breeder and life long dog enthusiast, I do think that dogs produced in “commercial” dog kennels, i.e. kennels producing dogs for profit and the purpose of resale only, often have deplorable conditions. Our country prides itself on the “market economy”. If the public continues to support such conditions by purchasing these animals, then these “commercial” kennels will continue to exist. The buying public should demand better. Current proposed legislation intends to improve the living conditions of these poor dogs, however, they miss the mark and will not in fact accomplish that goal, but will instead, support only the commercial kennel that can jump through the hoops and will eliminate the hobby breeder who genuinely cares about the dogs. This will reduce the choices of the buying public and impede the “market economy”.
I have included a copy of the Pennsylvania proposed changes along with my concerns (found in red on the document) and letters that I have written to my local Senator, Representative, and the Dog Czar. I met with PA Senator Jake Corman and PA Representative Adam Harris in person to discuss my concerns about this issue.
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Sincerely, Cadie Pruss
Dear Senator Casey,
Re. Changes to Dog Laws
I am writing to you to address my concern over the recent trend in changes to dog laws across the country, and Pennsylvania specifically. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendel has proposed changes to the dog laws in Pennsylvania that would affect far more than just the “puppy mills” that he vocally opposes. These proposed changes are currently in the comment period and I, along with countless other dog fanciers, are working to fight the changes that have been proposed.
At a time in history where the “threat of terrorism” is behind every door, it is painfully obvious that Americans can still terrorize each other as “special interest groups”- in this case the “Animal Rights” groups. Vice President Chaney stated, “Our way of life is not negotiable”- did he mean oil only? Or is my way of life, raising quality dogs in my home, protected too? I urge you to help stop domestic terrorism that threatens American’s ability to live freely without injury to others. My dogs are not a threat to anyone, but this type of legislation is a threat to my quality of life and the quality of life that my dogs currently enjoy.
Your predecessor, Senator Rick Santorum, had proposed similar legislation, SB 1139 called the Pet Animal Welfare Statute (PAWS) and before that he proposed the “The Puppy Protection Act”, both of which received nationwide opposition. Organized kennel clubs around the state (and around the country) worked to support you and vote out Senator Santorum over his proposal and support of this legislation. It has become obvious that this issue is by-partisan. I am a registered Democrat, however I can not support any Democrat that supports this type of social over regulation that has no bearing on public health and safety.
As a dog breeder and life long dog enthusiast, I do think that dogs produced in “commercial” dog kennels, i.e. kennels producing dogs for profit and the purpose of resale only, often have deplorable conditions. Our country prides itself on the “market economy”. If the public continues to support such conditions by purchasing these animals, then these “commercial” kennels will continue to exist. The buying public should demand better. Current proposed legislation intends to improve the living conditions of these poor dogs, however, they miss the mark and will not in fact accomplish that goal, but will instead, support only the commercial kennel that can jump through the hoops and will eliminate the hobby breeder who genuinely cares about the dogs. This will reduce the choices of the buying public and impede the “market economy”.
I have included a copy of the Pennsylvania proposed changes along with my concerns (found in red on the document) and letters that I have written to my local Senator, Representative, and the Dog Czar. I met with PA Senator Jake Corman and PA Representative Adam Harris in person to discuss my concerns about this issue.
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Sincerely, Cadie Pruss
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
National: "Animal Rights" groups Loby to end all dog breeding
TX-RPOA E-News
From Responsible Pet Owners Alliance,
the reasonable voice regarding animal issues in Texas.
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance is an animal welfare organization,
not "animal rights" and, yes, there is a difference.
Permission granted to crosspost.
June 23, 2008
The San Antonio and Dallas animal ordinances were not proposed to actually
address animal problems but are a national "animal rights" legislative
agenda to end all use, breeding and ownership of animals for any reason
including pet ownership. The extremists consider animals and humans to be
equals. Therefore they consider pet ownership to be slavery.
HSUS recently launched their new campaign targeting "puppymills" on the
Oprah Winfrey Show. However the show ignored the fact that there were
already unenforced laws on the books to address the problems shown. HSUS
and other "animal rights" groups consider anyone who breeds a dog to be a
"puppymill." To them there is no such thing as a responsible breeder and
their goal is for purebred dogs and cats to become extinct and eventually
all species of pets. What has sounded incredulous to some over the years
has been proven to be fact today with ordinances similar to CA's original AB
1634 popping up everywhere. RPOA can only say, "We told you so."
For 17 years Responsible Pet Owners Alliance has warned everyone that this
was coming but few believed us -- until now. Texas Humane Legislation
Network (THLN) is a coalition of Texas "animal rights" activists and groups
who do nothing but lobby each year at the state level for their national
legislative agenda. This has been extended to city and county legislation
in recent years. Skip Trimble, chairman of the Dallas Shelter Commission,
is THLN's treasurer and board member.
Two other board members of THLN were the force behind getting San Antonio's
onerous ordinance passed in December: Joel Hailey, San Antonio attorney
with Voice for Animals, and Jef Hale, director of San Antonio's Animal Care
Services.
There's proof of HSUS's involvement in the Dallas ordinance at the link
below. Just browse the links and follow the yellow brick road for some eye
opening information: two form emails from SPCA and HSUS; a Dallas
veterinarian's supporting letter for the ordinance (Tony Lopez, DVM, DABVP);
postcards from SPCA mailed to members and HSUS emails sent out. The website
also ties in Metroplex Animal Coalition where donations can be made for
campaign expenses. There are many interesting links. The website falsely
claims 25% of purebred dogs are in shelters. This contradicts the American
Humane Association's quote of approximately 7% purebred dogs and less than
1% purebred cats in shelters.
For more information and to follow t! he links, go to:
http://dallasanimaladvocates.wordpress.com/2008/06/22/spca-calls-for-action-dallas-its-time-to-act1/
OR Tiny URL
http://tinyurl.com/6nnjbq
HSUS has a regional office in Ft. Worth and a Spay/Neuter Clinic in Dallas.
Jay Sabatucci, HSUS employee, serves as president of the Texas Animal
Control Association. What a web they do weave in Texas! Some years back
SPCA of Texas was the subject of a 20/20 expose on raids and seizures of
dogs that didn't appear to be cruelly treated. The cruelty investigator
from SPCA had a criminal record for a rape conviction and was fired shortly
thereafter. The 20/20 cameraman was actually a veterinarian in real life
who said the animals weren't cruelly treated.
Dallas City Council has some members who are wavering and we MUST have a
good turnout at the Council Meeting Wednesday for the vote!
If you can att! end (whether you speak or not!), email Verjean Lunenschloss at
ver jean.lunenschloss@verizon.net . It is imperative that the Dallas
ordinance be defeated. More information about the ordinance and contact
info for city officials is on our website:
www.responsiblepetowners.org
Check out the Extreme-Animal-Rights Blog at the URL:
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/extreme-animal-rights/message/5969
OR Tiny URL:
http://tinyurl.com/6b9uxk
For some time RPOA has noticed security is lax around crating areas at dog
shows. Dogs in crates should never be left unattended. Another blog
regarding protests at the July 3-6 dog show and calling breeders/murderers
of shelter dogs is at:
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/extreme-animal-rights/message/5949
Or Tiny URL: http://tinyurl.com/5gdqgw
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance
900 NE Loop 410 #311-D
San Antonio, TX 78209
P! hone: (210) 822-6763
Website: www.responsiblepetowners.org
From Responsible Pet Owners Alliance,
the reasonable voice regarding animal issues in Texas.
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance is an animal welfare organization,
not "animal rights" and, yes, there is a difference.
Permission granted to crosspost.
June 23, 2008
The San Antonio and Dallas animal ordinances were not proposed to actually
address animal problems but are a national "animal rights" legislative
agenda to end all use, breeding and ownership of animals for any reason
including pet ownership. The extremists consider animals and humans to be
equals. Therefore they consider pet ownership to be slavery.
HSUS recently launched their new campaign targeting "puppymills" on the
Oprah Winfrey Show. However the show ignored the fact that there were
already unenforced laws on the books to address the problems shown. HSUS
and other "animal rights" groups consider anyone who breeds a dog to be a
"puppymill." To them there is no such thing as a responsible breeder and
their goal is for purebred dogs and cats to become extinct and eventually
all species of pets. What has sounded incredulous to some over the years
has been proven to be fact today with ordinances similar to CA's original AB
1634 popping up everywhere. RPOA can only say, "We told you so."
For 17 years Responsible Pet Owners Alliance has warned everyone that this
was coming but few believed us -- until now. Texas Humane Legislation
Network (THLN) is a coalition of Texas "animal rights" activists and groups
who do nothing but lobby each year at the state level for their national
legislative agenda. This has been extended to city and county legislation
in recent years. Skip Trimble, chairman of the Dallas Shelter Commission,
is THLN's treasurer and board member.
Two other board members of THLN were the force behind getting San Antonio's
onerous ordinance passed in December: Joel Hailey, San Antonio attorney
with Voice for Animals, and Jef Hale, director of San Antonio's Animal Care
Services.
There's proof of HSUS's involvement in the Dallas ordinance at the link
below. Just browse the links and follow the yellow brick road for some eye
opening information: two form emails from SPCA and HSUS; a Dallas
veterinarian's supporting letter for the ordinance (Tony Lopez, DVM, DABVP);
postcards from SPCA mailed to members and HSUS emails sent out. The website
also ties in Metroplex Animal Coalition where donations can be made for
campaign expenses. There are many interesting links. The website falsely
claims 25% of purebred dogs are in shelters. This contradicts the American
Humane Association's quote of approximately 7% purebred dogs and less than
1% purebred cats in shelters.
For more information and to follow t! he links, go to:
http://dallasanimaladvocates.wordpress.com/2008/06/22/spca-calls-for-action-dallas-its-time-to-act1/
OR Tiny URL
http://tinyurl.com/6nnjbq
HSUS has a regional office in Ft. Worth and a Spay/Neuter Clinic in Dallas.
Jay Sabatucci, HSUS employee, serves as president of the Texas Animal
Control Association. What a web they do weave in Texas! Some years back
SPCA of Texas was the subject of a 20/20 expose on raids and seizures of
dogs that didn't appear to be cruelly treated. The cruelty investigator
from SPCA had a criminal record for a rape conviction and was fired shortly
thereafter. The 20/20 cameraman was actually a veterinarian in real life
who said the animals weren't cruelly treated.
Dallas City Council has some members who are wavering and we MUST have a
good turnout at the Council Meeting Wednesday for the vote!
If you can att! end (whether you speak or not!), email Verjean Lunenschloss at
ver jean.lunenschloss@verizon.net . It is imperative that the Dallas
ordinance be defeated. More information about the ordinance and contact
info for city officials is on our website:
www.responsiblepetowners.org
Check out the Extreme-Animal-Rights Blog at the URL:
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/extreme-animal-rights/message/5969
OR Tiny URL:
http://tinyurl.com/6b9uxk
For some time RPOA has noticed security is lax around crating areas at dog
shows. Dogs in crates should never be left unattended. Another blog
regarding protests at the July 3-6 dog show and calling breeders/murderers
of shelter dogs is at:
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/extreme-animal-rights/message/5949
Or Tiny URL: http://tinyurl.com/5gdqgw
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance
900 NE Loop 410 #311-D
San Antonio, TX 78209
P! hone: (210) 822-6763
Website: www.responsiblepetowners.org
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Congress Curtails Flow of Foreign Dogs into US
From Patti Strand
May 14, 2008
Congress Curtails Flow of Foreign Dogs into US
Conferees from the US House and Senate have finally reached agreement on the current Farm Bill. One amendment that was accepted is of special importance to dog enthusiasts and professionals because it would put more stringent health and screening requirements in place for dogs and puppies imported into the US for resale, an issue NAIA has monitored and lobbied for many years. Although the bill may need further clarification down the road to achieve its purpose, this is a critically important first step in ensuring public health, the health of our pets and the vitality of the pet industry in America.
The bill is expected to pass both houses of Congress, and if President Bush vetoes it, as he has indicated he will due to provisions which he considers wasteful, the Senate and House are expected to attempt an override.
This provision has become necessary due to a disturbing dynamic at work that NAIA has been working to inform American pet consumers about. Ironically, campaigns to end pet overpopulation have been so successful that demand for puppies actually outstrips supply in the United States today. The result is that US pet suppliers, both commercial distributors and animal shelters alike, have turned to foreign sources to fill it. A staggering 300,000 dogs were brought into the US in 2006 alone, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and that total may not include the significant number of puppies smuggled in through the black market.
Imported dogs, legal or illegal, typically come from countries without the high level of veterinary medicine found in the US and they displace higher quality American-bred dogs and existing shelter dogs struggling to find homes. Without the new Farm Bill provision, or without enforcement, imported dogs will continue to be a public health threat, exposing Americans to zoonotic (animal-to-human) diseases such as rabies, and exposing the U.S. pet, livestock and wildlife populations to diseases and parasites that they would not contract otherwise.
NAIA favors the language recommended by the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians in their Animal Rabies Compendium, namely that: "The movement of dogs for purpose of adoption or sale from areas with dog-to-dog rabies transmission should be prohibited." We think the Farm Bill with its 6 month requirement for puppy imports is a major step in the right direction.
In the meantime, NAIA continues to support the Center for Disease Control's ongoing efforts to develop tougher import regulations, urging their adoption of standards that will protect Americans from sick foreign dogs. You may read NAIA's comment letter here. Enhanced CDC rules, combined with passage of the new Farm Bill, would finally bring our decade-long campaign to address puppy imports to fruition.
We urge you to go to our Farm Bill Action Alert and write your US Senator and Representative today asking them to support the Farm Bill when it comes to the floor.
Please also Make a Donation Today to help NAIA shut down puppy imports and protect healthy pets in America.
For more background and press coverage of this issue, see the following articles:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-21-dog-imports_N.htm?csp=34
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3765973&page=1
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2006/jun_jul/other/puppies.xml
Thank you for your support!
May 14, 2008
Congress Curtails Flow of Foreign Dogs into US
Conferees from the US House and Senate have finally reached agreement on the current Farm Bill. One amendment that was accepted is of special importance to dog enthusiasts and professionals because it would put more stringent health and screening requirements in place for dogs and puppies imported into the US for resale, an issue NAIA has monitored and lobbied for many years. Although the bill may need further clarification down the road to achieve its purpose, this is a critically important first step in ensuring public health, the health of our pets and the vitality of the pet industry in America.
The bill is expected to pass both houses of Congress, and if President Bush vetoes it, as he has indicated he will due to provisions which he considers wasteful, the Senate and House are expected to attempt an override.
This provision has become necessary due to a disturbing dynamic at work that NAIA has been working to inform American pet consumers about. Ironically, campaigns to end pet overpopulation have been so successful that demand for puppies actually outstrips supply in the United States today. The result is that US pet suppliers, both commercial distributors and animal shelters alike, have turned to foreign sources to fill it. A staggering 300,000 dogs were brought into the US in 2006 alone, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and that total may not include the significant number of puppies smuggled in through the black market.
Imported dogs, legal or illegal, typically come from countries without the high level of veterinary medicine found in the US and they displace higher quality American-bred dogs and existing shelter dogs struggling to find homes. Without the new Farm Bill provision, or without enforcement, imported dogs will continue to be a public health threat, exposing Americans to zoonotic (animal-to-human) diseases such as rabies, and exposing the U.S. pet, livestock and wildlife populations to diseases and parasites that they would not contract otherwise.
NAIA favors the language recommended by the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians in their Animal Rabies Compendium, namely that: "The movement of dogs for purpose of adoption or sale from areas with dog-to-dog rabies transmission should be prohibited." We think the Farm Bill with its 6 month requirement for puppy imports is a major step in the right direction.
In the meantime, NAIA continues to support the Center for Disease Control's ongoing efforts to develop tougher import regulations, urging their adoption of standards that will protect Americans from sick foreign dogs. You may read NAIA's comment letter here. Enhanced CDC rules, combined with passage of the new Farm Bill, would finally bring our decade-long campaign to address puppy imports to fruition.
We urge you to go to our Farm Bill Action Alert and write your US Senator and Representative today asking them to support the Farm Bill when it comes to the floor.
Please also Make a Donation Today to help NAIA shut down puppy imports and protect healthy pets in America.
For more background and press coverage of this issue, see the following articles:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-21-dog-imports_N.htm?csp=34
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3765973&page=1
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2006/jun_jul/other/puppies.xml
Thank you for your support!
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Overview of situation concerning anti-dog legislation
This gives you an overview of the national situation -- just in case you
might doubt that we are facing an aggressive campaign against dog
ownership from the animals rights people. This has been one of the most
active years for anti-dog legislation and I expect we will have even
more in 2008.
http://www.akc.org/enewsletter/taking_command/2008/january/major.cfm
might doubt that we are facing an aggressive campaign against dog
ownership from the animals rights people. This has been one of the most
active years for anti-dog legislation and I expect we will have even
more in 2008.
http://www.akc.org/enewsletter/taking_command/2008/january/major.cfm
Thursday, January 31, 2008
08 Candidates
Humane Society Legislative Fund's review of all candidates: http://www.fund.org/voter_guide/2008_pres_candidates.html <http://www.fund.org/voter_guide/2008_pres_candidates.html>
John Edwards response to the Humane Society Legislative Fund: http://www.fund.org/pdfs/john-edwards-statement.pdf <http://www.fund.org/pdfs/john-edwards-statement.pdf>
Overall review of John Edwards on animal issues: http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2007/12/the-president-1.html <http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2007/12/the-president-1.html>
Hiliary Clinton's response to her background (actions) in regards to animal rights: http://www.fund.org/pdfs/hillary-clinton.pdf <http://www.fund.org/pdfs/hillary-clinton.pdf> Overall review of Hiliary Clinton's stance on animal issues: http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2008/01/hillary-clinton.html <http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2008/01/hillary-clinton.html>
Barack Obama's response to his background (actions) in regards to animal rights: http://www.fund.org/pdfs/senator-obama-response.pdf <http://www.fund.org/pdfs/senator-obama-response.pdf>
Overall review of Barack Obama's stance on animal issues: http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2007/12/the-president-3.html <http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2007/12/the-president-3.html>
Review of all republican candidates in regards to animal issues: http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2008/01/elephants.html <http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2008/01/elephants.html>
An embarrassing story of how Mitt Romney broke the law and endangered the family pet on vacation: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1638065,00.html <http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1638065,00.html>
Why Coco the Blogging Dog endorses John McCain: http://www.cocothebloggingdog.com/2007/12/2008-presidential-dog-vote-john-mccain.html <http://www.cocothebloggingdog.com/2007/12/2008-presidential-dog-vote-john-mccain.html>
What groups John McCain has supported in relation to animal rights: http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=53270&type=category&category=5&go.x=6&go.y=8 <http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=53270&type=category&category=5&go.x=6&go.y=
What groups Ron Paul has supported in relation to animal rights: http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=296&type=category&category=5&go.x=11&go.y=6 <http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=296&type=category&category=5&go.x=11&go.y=6>
How ALL the Senators voted on HR 2419 (Farm Bill): http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00434 <http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00434>
John Edwards response to the Humane Society Legislative Fund: http://www.fund.org/pdfs/john-edwards-statement.pdf <http://www.fund.org/pdfs/john-edwards-statement.pdf>
Overall review of John Edwards on animal issues: http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2007/12/the-president-1.html <http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2007/12/the-president-1.html>
Hiliary Clinton's response to her background (actions) in regards to animal rights: http://www.fund.org/pdfs/hillary-clinton.pdf <http://www.fund.org/pdfs/hillary-clinton.pdf> Overall review of Hiliary Clinton's stance on animal issues: http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2008/01/hillary-clinton.html <http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2008/01/hillary-clinton.html>
Barack Obama's response to his background (actions) in regards to animal rights: http://www.fund.org/pdfs/senator-obama-response.pdf <http://www.fund.org/pdfs/senator-obama-response.pdf>
Overall review of Barack Obama's stance on animal issues: http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2007/12/the-president-3.html <http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2007/12/the-president-3.html>
Review of all republican candidates in regards to animal issues: http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2008/01/elephants.html <http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2008/01/elephants.html>
An embarrassing story of how Mitt Romney broke the law and endangered the family pet on vacation: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1638065,00.html <http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1638065,00.html>
Why Coco the Blogging Dog endorses John McCain: http://www.cocothebloggingdog.com/2007/12/2008-presidential-dog-vote-john-mccain.html <http://www.cocothebloggingdog.com/2007/12/2008-presidential-dog-vote-john-mccain.html>
What groups John McCain has supported in relation to animal rights: http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=53270&type=category&category=5&go.x=6&go.y=8 <http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=53270&type=category&category=5&go.x=6&go.y=
What groups Ron Paul has supported in relation to animal rights: http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=296&type=category&category=5&go.x=11&go.y=6 <http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=296&type=category&category=5&go.x=11&go.y=6>
How ALL the Senators voted on HR 2419 (Farm Bill): http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00434 <http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00434>
Monday, January 14, 2008
Animal Rights- Domestic Terrorism
These postings came through one of my lists. In addition to the upcoming fight next Wednesday morning with the Columbia County Commissioners over the new breeding ban kennel law they are now trying to institute, this came upon a national level. A friend of mine informs me she is even fighting a province wide breeding ban they are trying to install in the middle of the interior of British Columbia, Canada, in order to get rid of dog mushers. It is now a worldwide problem. If you send money to the Humane Society Of The United States, which is the funding arm of PETA, ALF and ELF, you are contributing to Animal Rights domestic terrorism and the destruction of your own Constitutional Rights. Go to the websites of any of these organizations if you do not believe me.
Their sole goal is to do away with ALL animal ownership, or as they call it, exploitation and slavery, and turn the entire world into Vegans through incremental legislation. Their aim is to give all animals the same legal rights as human beings. You will never be allowed to own a pet of any kind,and never to use any animal products such as steak, milk, eggs, or leather. They have also opened the first ever Vegan mall in SE Portland. It guarantees all goods and services you can obtain in any of the stores in this mall use no animal products what soever. Their plan is to open thousands of these malls across the USA.
I don't know about you, but I severely object to anyone trying to legislate their cult religion onto me. I call that fascism. These are not warm and fuzzy people, these are terrorists. Get a clue. And don't support them,and DON'T go to, buy, or support this movie for starters.
This is war, folks. It is your inalienable rights versus their cult power over your life. If you think they have some good points, think on this: in 2006 PETA destroyed 97% of the animals turned over to its "rescue"operations. We in the dog community work to support animal welfare, educate the public, and end animal cruelty, but detest these extreme animal rightists.
Cheryl Anderson Cherden Shelties since 1966
Their sole goal is to do away with ALL animal ownership, or as they call it, exploitation and slavery, and turn the entire world into Vegans through incremental legislation. Their aim is to give all animals the same legal rights as human beings. You will never be allowed to own a pet of any kind,and never to use any animal products such as steak, milk, eggs, or leather. They have also opened the first ever Vegan mall in SE Portland. It guarantees all goods and services you can obtain in any of the stores in this mall use no animal products what soever. Their plan is to open thousands of these malls across the USA.
I don't know about you, but I severely object to anyone trying to legislate their cult religion onto me. I call that fascism. These are not warm and fuzzy people, these are terrorists. Get a clue. And don't support them,and DON'T go to, buy, or support this movie for starters.
This is war, folks. It is your inalienable rights versus their cult power over your life. If you think they have some good points, think on this: in 2006 PETA destroyed 97% of the animals turned over to its "rescue"operations. We in the dog community work to support animal welfare, educate the public, and end animal cruelty, but detest these extreme animal rightists.
Cheryl Anderson Cherden Shelties since 1966
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Is your Politician listening to PETA?
PETA is ratcheting up our campaign against cat and dog breeders, and this beautiful billboard (saying Breeders KILL shelter dog's chances) in New York is the first of a number of strong statements you can look for over the next few months designed to remind people that buying animals from breeders or pet stores when millions are dying in shelters is, simply put, irresponsible and cruel. Of course, the real villains here are the breeders themselves. Not only are these people directly contributing to the animal overpopulation epidemic in this country—they’re also making a tidy profit out of it (in case it’s not immediately clear, I don’t have an awful lot of sympathy for animal breeders). There’s some more information on this topic here, and I’ll keep you posted as this campaign progresses—we’ve got some great stuff on the way ...
This is from PETA's website. Are YOU contacting your local, state, and Fed. politicians to tell them the REAL story?
This is from PETA's website. Are YOU contacting your local, state, and Fed. politicians to tell them the REAL story?
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
"Just A Dog"- Ask your local politican if they feel that way
This is what will be taken away from you by many of the proposed laws
Its just A Dog
From time to time, people tell me, "lighten up, it's just a dog," or,"that's a lot of money for just a dog."
They don't understand the distance traveled, the time spent, or the costs involved for "just a dog."
Some of my proudest moments have come about with "just a dog."
Many hours have passed and my only company was "just a dog," but I did not once feel slighted.
Some of my saddest moments have been brought about by "just a dog," and in those days of darkness, the gentle touch of "just a dog" gave me comfort and reason to overcome the day.
If you, too, think it's "just a dog," then you will probably understand phrases like "just a friend," "just a sunrise," or "just a promise."
"Just a dog" brings into my life the very essence of friendship, trust, and pure unbridled joy.
"Just a dog" brings out the compassion and patience that make me a better person.
Because of "just a dog", I will rise early, take long walks and look longingly to the future.
So for me and folks like me, it's not "just a dog" but an embodiment of all the hopes and dreams of the future, the fond memories of the past, and the pure joy of the moment.
"Just a dog" brings out what's good in me and diverts my thoughts away from myself and the worries of the day.
I hope that someday they can understand that it's not "just a dog", but the thing that gives me humanity and keeps me from being "just a man or woman."
So the next time you hear the phrase "just a dog" just smile... because they "just don't understand."
Written by an unknown Doctor of Veterinary Medicine.
From the Therapy Dog Inc. News Magazine
Its just A Dog
From time to time, people tell me, "lighten up, it's just a dog," or,"that's a lot of money for just a dog."
They don't understand the distance traveled, the time spent, or the costs involved for "just a dog."
Some of my proudest moments have come about with "just a dog."
Many hours have passed and my only company was "just a dog," but I did not once feel slighted.
Some of my saddest moments have been brought about by "just a dog," and in those days of darkness, the gentle touch of "just a dog" gave me comfort and reason to overcome the day.
If you, too, think it's "just a dog," then you will probably understand phrases like "just a friend," "just a sunrise," or "just a promise."
"Just a dog" brings into my life the very essence of friendship, trust, and pure unbridled joy.
"Just a dog" brings out the compassion and patience that make me a better person.
Because of "just a dog", I will rise early, take long walks and look longingly to the future.
So for me and folks like me, it's not "just a dog" but an embodiment of all the hopes and dreams of the future, the fond memories of the past, and the pure joy of the moment.
"Just a dog" brings out what's good in me and diverts my thoughts away from myself and the worries of the day.
I hope that someday they can understand that it's not "just a dog", but the thing that gives me humanity and keeps me from being "just a man or woman."
So the next time you hear the phrase "just a dog" just smile... because they "just don't understand."
Written by an unknown Doctor of Veterinary Medicine.
From the Therapy Dog Inc. News Magazine
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
National Animal Welfare Act
Model National Animal Welfare Act Summary:
This model law was drafted to provide a starting point for the drafting of national animal welfare law. It includes sections related to companion animals, animal cruelty, owner responsibilities, animal experimentation, and food animal provisions, among others.
Statute in Full:
Model National Animal Welfare Legislation
Drafted by Professor David Favre & Jaime Olin
Animal and Legal Historical Web Center
Michigan State University College of Law
Summary: This model statute represents general animal welfare legislation that can be easily adopted by developing countries. (A full translation into Spanish is available.) It sets out specific criminal actions, and a process for future regulatory acts by national and local governments. A full explanation of the draft law can be found in the accompanying paper. There is also an article that compares existing national statutes which might be helpful in understanding the issues that need to be addressed. (comparative paper)
Statute in Full: This law shall be know as the Animal Welfare Act of [2004] .
Sec. 1. Introduction
(a) Animals, having both intrinsic and extrinsic value to human societies, deserve special protection of their individual interests under the law. This statute acknowledges the obligations that humans have toward animals.
(b) All branches of the government shall endeavor to implement the spirit of this law in assuring the best possible life for animals within our community.
(c) This law acknowledges the rights of humans to keep and use animals, but only where the interests of the animals are recognized and protected.
Sec. 2. Definitions
(a) "Abandon" means the intentional relinquishment of dominion and control of domesticated animals without appropriate safeguards for the animal's well-being.
(b) "Abuse" means the intentional mistreatment of an animal, by example, but not limited to, the use of poison, torture, torment, electrical shock, wounding, unjustified killing, excessive beating, or removal of food or water.
(c) "Animal" means any living vertebrate other than human beings.
(d) "Animal sanctuary" means permanent housing for animals developed by a for-profit or non-profit organization.
(e) "Animal shelter" means physical facilities created by for-profit or non-profit organization to provide housing for unwanted or stray animals. These may be authorized by the National Agency to provide veterinary care, to investigate violations of this statute, to adopt out animals, and to administer euthanasia.
(f) "Companion animal" means animals kept in or near the household for the primary purpose of companionship for the member(s) of the household. This includes, but is not limited to, dogs, cats, and parrots. Dangerous wild animals, including all large cats, bears, and other species designated by the National Agency, shall not be allowed as companion animals.
(g) "Cruelty" means the intentional, unjustified killing, poisoning, physically injuring, causing physical pain, or causing psychological distress to any animal.
(h) "Dangerous dog" means any dog which, when unprovoked and in an aggressive manner, inflicts severe injury on or kills a human being, or twice within a 12 month period has killed a domestic animal.
(i) "Euthanasia" means the humane killing of animals. The National Agency shall establish the acceptable methods of euthanasia, but in the absence of such provisions, only methods which bring quick unconsciousness or death shall be used.
(j) "Experimental animals" means animals used for scientific or educational purposes in the public or private sphere, including universities and other schools. This includes, but is not limited to, mice, rats, primates, other mammals and birds.
(k) "Experimenter" means a scientist involved with the development of protocols using animals and/or the person performing such experiments employed at a university or corporation engaged in scientific research.
(l) "Farm animals" means animals kept for the purposes of production of goods, including milk, meat, and clothing. Animals covered include, but may not be limited to, cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens, turkeys, and goats. [Based on local custom it is expected this list will be expanded by the adopting legislature.]
(m) "'Feral' wildlife" means animals once privately owned, or their progeny. These animals are no longer under the control of humans. This includes, but is not limited to, dogs and cats.
(n) "Inhumane" means the mistreatment of animals that goes against cultural norms for acceptable.
(o) "Keeper" means a person with primary caregiving responsibilities for the animal.
(p) "National Agency" means the _________ Department [or Ministry] which will have responsibility for the adoption and implementation of regulations required under this statute.
(q) "Owner" means a person at least 16 years of age who holds title to the animal.
(r) "Pain" means both the adverse physiological and psychological processes experienced by animals when injured or harmed. This may or may not be manifested by the animals' behavior.
(s) "Person" means any human, business partnership or corporation.
(t) "Unjustified" means actions for which a suitable reason other than cruelty cannot be found. [The breadth of this definition should be determined in accordance with the norms of the culture.]
(u) "Veterinarian" means a person with ample experience in performing medical procedures on animals. This can be ascertained by the existence of a state license or through compliance with standards adopted by the National Agency.
(v) "Working animals" means animals kept for the purpose of performing tasks. This includes, but is not limited to, carrying loads, performing in human entertainment, and assisting humans in other ways.
Sec. 3. General provisions.
(a) An owner or keeper of an animal shall not do any of the following:
(1) Fail to provide proper food, water, shelter, and ample space for bodily movement and reasonable exercise,
(2) Force an animal to do anything beyond its species-specific capabilities,
(3) Abandon an animal,
(4) Abuse or cruelly treat an animal,
(5) Refuse to supply veterinary care to an animal in debilitating pain.
(b) A person shall not do any of the following:
(1) Cruelly treat or abuse an animal,
(2) Fail to provide veterinary care to an animal in pain that they have caused,
(3) Neglect to report animal abuse or inhumane treatment, within their personal knowledge, to local officials. When such information is provided, no civil liability shall attach to the reporting of the information.
Sec. 4. Companion animals.
(a) Because of the importance of companion animals in human lives, and because of the known connection between animal abuse and child/spousal/elder abuse, this statute mandates compliance with the following provisions.
(b) The owner or keeper shall:
(1) Provide the animal with access to daylight and sufficient space for ease of movement,
(2) Provide the animal with sufficient shelter to protect against heat, rain, and cold,
(3) Ensure the animal has necessary freedom of movement and access to food and water,
(4) Vaccinate their animals against any diseases the National Agency deems necessary,
(5) Provide veterinary care when the animal is ill or injured. Home treatment may be provided where reasonable under the circumstances.
(6) Use live animals as prizes in contest and games, or as targets in shooting matches.
(c) The owner or keeper shall not:
(1) Tether the animal if doing so may lead to injuries or suffering, or if the tether is less than five feet or three times the length of the animal,
(2) Permanently chain an animal, indoors or outdoors,
(3) Allow a dog deemed to be dangerous to run at large.
(d) The local administrative body may [shall]:
(1) Require licensing of dogs,
(2) Implement a sliding scale for licensing fees, depending on the type and breeding status of the animals,
(3) Require easy identification of dogs, including tattooing, microchipping, and collar tags,
(4) Establish low- or no-cost vaccination and spay/neuter clinics [where possible]. Fees from dog licenses may be utilized to help pay for this program,
(5) Establish a maximum number of animals that may be kept per owner,
(6) Implement humane regulations concerning overpopulation, which may include mandatory spay/neuter programs, mandatory permits for owners intending to breed their animals, authorizing higher licensing fees for intact animals, and national education programs addressing overpopulation,
(7) Prohibit businesses from keeping more than six breeding females for the sole purpose of providing young to the market, ( Establish proper means for disposal of unwanted animals, including the creation of animal shelters, creation of sanctuaries, or where no alternative exists, humane euthanasia,
(9) Establish and fund animal control agencies and animal cruelty investigators,
(10) Establish ordinances to deal with dangerous dogs, although breed- specific bans are not allowed. Any such ordinance shall not provide for the killing of a dog without notice to the owner or keeper, nor without an administrative hearing for the owner of the dog. Restrictions on the dog and owner shall be utilized when it is possible to do so while protecting public safety.
Sec. 4. Experimental animals.
(a) Experiments and tests on animals are permissible only if they are necessary for scientific progress or protection of health for humans or animals, and if these objectives cannot be reached in another way because of the lack of appropriate alternative methods. A researcher is obligated to use international information in a given field of science in order to eliminate the risks of the unnecessary repetition of experiments. The three Rs (reduction, refinement, and replacement) should be utilized in the development of experimental protocols.
(b) The testing of consumer products on animals is prohibited.
(c) A national review board shall be established, within the National Agency, to set regulations for experimentation on animals. This board shall be comprised of five members, including a veterinarian, a researcher, and an animal welfare advocate. Individual institutional review boards must be established at all institutions licensed for animal research in order to do the initial review of individual protocols, to investigate laboratory conditions, and to provide general research support for the institution.
(d) The national review board shall:
(1) Set minimum and optimal requirements for the care and keeping of laboratory animals, addressing issues of physical space, provision of food and water, social requirements, and psychological requirements. Until such regulations are adopted, animal research institutions shall be guided by the "Guide for Care and Use of Laboratory Animals" as published by the United States National Research Council,
(2) Reevaluate and update these standards at least every five years to comply with newly discovered information about each particular species used,
(3) Grant, suspend and revoke scientific investigation permits to institutions carrying out animal experiments. And shall conduct annual investigations of all laboratories to ensure compliance with the regulations.
(e) An experimenter shall:
(1) Submit all experimental protocols involving animals to the institutional review board initially, and with their approval to the national review board before proceeding with the experiment,
(2) Follow the protocol approved by the review board. If he/she wishes to deviate from the approved procedure, he/she must receive prior approval in writing from the board,
(3) Obtain animals for experimentation only from approved sources. This excludes animal shelters, private owners, and wild-caught animals,
(4) Treat laboratory animals humanely, taking care to minimize pain and discomfort,
(5) Provide appropriate housing for laboratory animals, acknowledging physical, psychological, and social well-being of the species and individual animal,
(6) Administer anesthesia or painkillers to animals involved in painful experiments,
(7) Administer euthanasia to an animal that will suffer ongoing extreme pain after an experiment, ( Research and use alternatives to animal experimentation wherever possible.
(f) An experimenter shall not:
(1) Use an animal in more than one invasive and/or painful experiment,
(2) Euthanize any healthy animal,
(3) Use great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and bonobos) for any scientific experimentation.
(g) Scientific education.
(1) Dissection shall not be permitted in grade schools [through age 18],
(2) Where dissection is permitted at the university level, students must be allowed to opt out of the procedures without suffering any detriment to their grades,
(3) Dissection alternatives should be researched by universities and implemented where possible. Where a university finds dissection necessary to its educational goals, care should be taken to provide for the humane treatment and euthanasia of the animals.
Sec. 5. Farm animals.
(a) Animals that are raised and bred for the purposes of providing food and clothing for humans should be accorded humane treatment. Respect for each individual animal should be encouraged, and methods of husbandry, transport, and slaughter should be altered as new, more humane methods are developed.
(b) The owner or keeper shall:
(1) Only keep animals in enclosures where the animal has ample room to rise to its full height, turn around, lie down, and will not incur any danger from the enclosure itself,
(2) Acknowledge social behavior of the species when determining the number of animals to keep per enclosure,
(3) Provide regular food, water, space, fresh air, society, access to exercise, and appropriate social grouping,
(4) Provide veterinary care for diseased or injured animals,
(5) Slaughter farm animals using the most humane methods possible. The animal must either be unconscious before death or death must be instantaneous.
(c) The owner or keeper shall not:
(1) Keep animals in cages,
(2) Keep too many animals in each enclosure where this will lead to crowding, injury, or stress to the animals,
(3) Cut off beaks or tails,
(4) Give animals growth hormones,
(5) Fatten geese and ducks for the purpose of foie gras production,
(6) Keep calves in small single animal enclosures and withhold proper nutrition for the production of veal,
(7) Keep any animal permanently chained or caged for ongoing, physically invasive procedures.
(d) Persons who transport farm animals shall:
(1) Use the fastest and/or most comfortable route to maintain the well-being of the animals,
(2) Correctly position animals in the vehicle so that animals have the ability to lie down and get up during transport without discomfort,
(3) Keep the floors and walls of the vehicle clean and sanitary,
(4) Maintain appropriate temperature, ventilation, and space in the vehicle,
(5) During a transport of longer than eight consecutive hours, provide the animals with food and water at regular intervals, and give the animals an opportunity to rest,
(6) Provide sick or injured animals with veterinary care,
(7) Immediately remove animals that die during transport.
Sec. 6. Working animals.
(a) Animals that perform tasks for humans, whether seeing-eye dogs, load-pulling oxen, racehorses, or circus ponies, shall be accorded humane treatment. Because of this, the use of animals in shows and sports characterized by cruelty and/or pain, including but not limited to fights between or among bulls, dogs, and cocks, is strictly forbidden.
(b) Persons using animals for work shall:
(1) Provide a rest period both during the work and after the work for animals appropriate to their species to enable them to recuperate their strength,
(2) Appoint a duly qualified person to carry out animal training for the purposes of shows and entertainment. Pain shall never be used as a method of training an animal,
(3) Submit to inspections by national or international animal welfare organizations to ensure compliance with performing animal regulations.
(c) Persons using animals for work shall not:
(1) Overburden or force animals to perform behaviors beyond their species-specific capabilities,
(2) Use animals that are sick, too young, too old, or undernourished for work,
(3) Use objects or tools for driving or training animals that could cause bodily injuries or unnecessary pain,
(4) Use excessive force while the animal is performing its task,
(5) Give any substance to an animal for the sole reason of enhancing performance.
(6) Engage in the breeding or training of animals to be used in criminal fighting activity, or to organize or promote an animal fighting event.
(d) Circuses.
(1) The creation of new circuses or traveling menageries containing wild-caught animals is forbidden,
(2) Circuses and traveling menageries may not include elephants, lions, tigers, or bears. Those businesses that already contain these animals must retire the animals to sanctuaries. [Businesses complying with this regulation may be compensated by the non-profit organization running the sanctuary],
(3) Persons engaged in the training of animals for circus performances must comply with Sec. 6 (b) and (c).
(e) Zoos.
(1) Zoos must comply with the regulations set out by the [American Zoological Association]. They will have [two years] to come into compliance. [This may include the creation of a review board to investigate living conditions at the facilities],
(2) Zoos may implement breeding programs for animals only when there is space available for the offspring in the zoo or when the breeding is part of a program approved by the National Agency. [These programs must be approved by the review board before begun.],
(3) Zoos with excess or unhealthy animals must establish or utilize existing sanctuaries at which to retire these animals. Humane euthanasia should only be used as a last resort. Sec. 7. `Feral' wildlife.
(a) It is acknowledged that previously-domesticated animals running at large are a substantial problem in urban and other areas. These animals should be treated humanely and carefully while taking into account the public health and safety concerns they present.
(b) The local governing body shall:
(1) Implement a program for spay/neuter clinics to prevent population growth of these animals. [These clinics should be staffed by a veterinarian or veterinary technician],
(2) Encourage volunteers from the community to staff these clinics,
(3) Discourage citizens from feeding these wild populations,
(4) Establish easy contact information for citizens to report to the clinics as to the whereabouts and living conditions of these populations,
(5) Either release altered animals back to the place where they were found, or relocate them elsewhere,
(6) Provide funding for these clinics to administer vaccinations and veterinary care for the animals,
(7) Use humane euthanasia of these populations only as a last resort,
(8) Educate the community as to the proper ways to approach, trap, and transport these animals to the clinics,
(9) Educate the community as to the public health and safety concerns surrounding these animals.
Sec. 8 Enforcement.
(a) Both national and local police officials shall enforce the provisions of this law. Local government may appoint animal control officers to specifically deal with the requirements of this law,
(b) Private non-profit animal shelters may have employees authorized by local police as capable of engaging in criminal investigations and arrest under this law. Such a candidate must show a full understanding of law enforcement generally and the provisions of this law specifically,
(c) The National Agency may seek an injunction to stop an ongoing violation of this law. It may initiate a civil proceeding against any party who violates any regulation or procedure adopted by the National Agency. The outcome of such civil proceeding shall include to revoke or modify any permits granted, and/or to impose fines up to $1,000 per violation,
(d) Private non-profit animal shelters, designated by the National Agency for this purpose, are authorized to bring lawsuits to stop by injunction ongoing violations of this law. While such organizations may not seek money damages, the court may award cost of attorney fees.
Sec. 9. Penalties
(a) If a court finds that a defendant has violated Section 3 (b) or 6 (a), then the penalty shall be up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine for the first such offence. For second and subsequent convictions, the penalty shall be up to three years in jail and $10,000 fine for each conviction, and a minimum of two months in jail shall be required. Each animal impacted by defendant's actions shall constitute a separate count under the law,
(b) For all other violations of the provisions of this law, the court shall impose a penalty of up to 60 days in jail and a $100 fine for a first offence and six month and $1,000 fine for subsequent convictions. Each animal impacted by defendant's actions shall constitute a separate count under the law,
(c) A person or organization that is caring for an animal pending the resolution of criminal proceeding concerning the animal may make a motion to the court for the cost of caring for the animal and the court may require the owner to either pay the cost of care or relinquish title of the animal to the party holding the animal,
(d) A court may require a convicted defendant to give up the animal in question and may limit future ownership and possession of animals by the defendant.
http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stmodelanimalact.htm
This model law was drafted to provide a starting point for the drafting of national animal welfare law. It includes sections related to companion animals, animal cruelty, owner responsibilities, animal experimentation, and food animal provisions, among others.
Statute in Full:
Model National Animal Welfare Legislation
Drafted by Professor David Favre & Jaime Olin
Animal and Legal Historical Web Center
Michigan State University College of Law
Summary: This model statute represents general animal welfare legislation that can be easily adopted by developing countries. (A full translation into Spanish is available.) It sets out specific criminal actions, and a process for future regulatory acts by national and local governments. A full explanation of the draft law can be found in the accompanying paper. There is also an article that compares existing national statutes which might be helpful in understanding the issues that need to be addressed. (comparative paper)
Statute in Full: This law shall be know as the Animal Welfare Act of [2004] .
Sec. 1. Introduction
(a) Animals, having both intrinsic and extrinsic value to human societies, deserve special protection of their individual interests under the law. This statute acknowledges the obligations that humans have toward animals.
(b) All branches of the government shall endeavor to implement the spirit of this law in assuring the best possible life for animals within our community.
(c) This law acknowledges the rights of humans to keep and use animals, but only where the interests of the animals are recognized and protected.
Sec. 2. Definitions
(a) "Abandon" means the intentional relinquishment of dominion and control of domesticated animals without appropriate safeguards for the animal's well-being.
(b) "Abuse" means the intentional mistreatment of an animal, by example, but not limited to, the use of poison, torture, torment, electrical shock, wounding, unjustified killing, excessive beating, or removal of food or water.
(c) "Animal" means any living vertebrate other than human beings.
(d) "Animal sanctuary" means permanent housing for animals developed by a for-profit or non-profit organization.
(e) "Animal shelter" means physical facilities created by for-profit or non-profit organization to provide housing for unwanted or stray animals. These may be authorized by the National Agency to provide veterinary care, to investigate violations of this statute, to adopt out animals, and to administer euthanasia.
(f) "Companion animal" means animals kept in or near the household for the primary purpose of companionship for the member(s) of the household. This includes, but is not limited to, dogs, cats, and parrots. Dangerous wild animals, including all large cats, bears, and other species designated by the National Agency, shall not be allowed as companion animals.
(g) "Cruelty" means the intentional, unjustified killing, poisoning, physically injuring, causing physical pain, or causing psychological distress to any animal.
(h) "Dangerous dog" means any dog which, when unprovoked and in an aggressive manner, inflicts severe injury on or kills a human being, or twice within a 12 month period has killed a domestic animal.
(i) "Euthanasia" means the humane killing of animals. The National Agency shall establish the acceptable methods of euthanasia, but in the absence of such provisions, only methods which bring quick unconsciousness or death shall be used.
(j) "Experimental animals" means animals used for scientific or educational purposes in the public or private sphere, including universities and other schools. This includes, but is not limited to, mice, rats, primates, other mammals and birds.
(k) "Experimenter" means a scientist involved with the development of protocols using animals and/or the person performing such experiments employed at a university or corporation engaged in scientific research.
(l) "Farm animals" means animals kept for the purposes of production of goods, including milk, meat, and clothing. Animals covered include, but may not be limited to, cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens, turkeys, and goats. [Based on local custom it is expected this list will be expanded by the adopting legislature.]
(m) "'Feral' wildlife" means animals once privately owned, or their progeny. These animals are no longer under the control of humans. This includes, but is not limited to, dogs and cats.
(n) "Inhumane" means the mistreatment of animals that goes against cultural norms for acceptable.
(o) "Keeper" means a person with primary caregiving responsibilities for the animal.
(p) "National Agency" means the _________ Department [or Ministry] which will have responsibility for the adoption and implementation of regulations required under this statute.
(q) "Owner" means a person at least 16 years of age who holds title to the animal.
(r) "Pain" means both the adverse physiological and psychological processes experienced by animals when injured or harmed. This may or may not be manifested by the animals' behavior.
(s) "Person" means any human, business partnership or corporation.
(t) "Unjustified" means actions for which a suitable reason other than cruelty cannot be found. [The breadth of this definition should be determined in accordance with the norms of the culture.]
(u) "Veterinarian" means a person with ample experience in performing medical procedures on animals. This can be ascertained by the existence of a state license or through compliance with standards adopted by the National Agency.
(v) "Working animals" means animals kept for the purpose of performing tasks. This includes, but is not limited to, carrying loads, performing in human entertainment, and assisting humans in other ways.
Sec. 3. General provisions.
(a) An owner or keeper of an animal shall not do any of the following:
(1) Fail to provide proper food, water, shelter, and ample space for bodily movement and reasonable exercise,
(2) Force an animal to do anything beyond its species-specific capabilities,
(3) Abandon an animal,
(4) Abuse or cruelly treat an animal,
(5) Refuse to supply veterinary care to an animal in debilitating pain.
(b) A person shall not do any of the following:
(1) Cruelly treat or abuse an animal,
(2) Fail to provide veterinary care to an animal in pain that they have caused,
(3) Neglect to report animal abuse or inhumane treatment, within their personal knowledge, to local officials. When such information is provided, no civil liability shall attach to the reporting of the information.
Sec. 4. Companion animals.
(a) Because of the importance of companion animals in human lives, and because of the known connection between animal abuse and child/spousal/elder abuse, this statute mandates compliance with the following provisions.
(b) The owner or keeper shall:
(1) Provide the animal with access to daylight and sufficient space for ease of movement,
(2) Provide the animal with sufficient shelter to protect against heat, rain, and cold,
(3) Ensure the animal has necessary freedom of movement and access to food and water,
(4) Vaccinate their animals against any diseases the National Agency deems necessary,
(5) Provide veterinary care when the animal is ill or injured. Home treatment may be provided where reasonable under the circumstances.
(6) Use live animals as prizes in contest and games, or as targets in shooting matches.
(c) The owner or keeper shall not:
(1) Tether the animal if doing so may lead to injuries or suffering, or if the tether is less than five feet or three times the length of the animal,
(2) Permanently chain an animal, indoors or outdoors,
(3) Allow a dog deemed to be dangerous to run at large.
(d) The local administrative body may [shall]:
(1) Require licensing of dogs,
(2) Implement a sliding scale for licensing fees, depending on the type and breeding status of the animals,
(3) Require easy identification of dogs, including tattooing, microchipping, and collar tags,
(4) Establish low- or no-cost vaccination and spay/neuter clinics [where possible]. Fees from dog licenses may be utilized to help pay for this program,
(5) Establish a maximum number of animals that may be kept per owner,
(6) Implement humane regulations concerning overpopulation, which may include mandatory spay/neuter programs, mandatory permits for owners intending to breed their animals, authorizing higher licensing fees for intact animals, and national education programs addressing overpopulation,
(7) Prohibit businesses from keeping more than six breeding females for the sole purpose of providing young to the market, ( Establish proper means for disposal of unwanted animals, including the creation of animal shelters, creation of sanctuaries, or where no alternative exists, humane euthanasia,
(9) Establish and fund animal control agencies and animal cruelty investigators,
(10) Establish ordinances to deal with dangerous dogs, although breed- specific bans are not allowed. Any such ordinance shall not provide for the killing of a dog without notice to the owner or keeper, nor without an administrative hearing for the owner of the dog. Restrictions on the dog and owner shall be utilized when it is possible to do so while protecting public safety.
Sec. 4. Experimental animals.
(a) Experiments and tests on animals are permissible only if they are necessary for scientific progress or protection of health for humans or animals, and if these objectives cannot be reached in another way because of the lack of appropriate alternative methods. A researcher is obligated to use international information in a given field of science in order to eliminate the risks of the unnecessary repetition of experiments. The three Rs (reduction, refinement, and replacement) should be utilized in the development of experimental protocols.
(b) The testing of consumer products on animals is prohibited.
(c) A national review board shall be established, within the National Agency, to set regulations for experimentation on animals. This board shall be comprised of five members, including a veterinarian, a researcher, and an animal welfare advocate. Individual institutional review boards must be established at all institutions licensed for animal research in order to do the initial review of individual protocols, to investigate laboratory conditions, and to provide general research support for the institution.
(d) The national review board shall:
(1) Set minimum and optimal requirements for the care and keeping of laboratory animals, addressing issues of physical space, provision of food and water, social requirements, and psychological requirements. Until such regulations are adopted, animal research institutions shall be guided by the "Guide for Care and Use of Laboratory Animals" as published by the United States National Research Council,
(2) Reevaluate and update these standards at least every five years to comply with newly discovered information about each particular species used,
(3) Grant, suspend and revoke scientific investigation permits to institutions carrying out animal experiments. And shall conduct annual investigations of all laboratories to ensure compliance with the regulations.
(e) An experimenter shall:
(1) Submit all experimental protocols involving animals to the institutional review board initially, and with their approval to the national review board before proceeding with the experiment,
(2) Follow the protocol approved by the review board. If he/she wishes to deviate from the approved procedure, he/she must receive prior approval in writing from the board,
(3) Obtain animals for experimentation only from approved sources. This excludes animal shelters, private owners, and wild-caught animals,
(4) Treat laboratory animals humanely, taking care to minimize pain and discomfort,
(5) Provide appropriate housing for laboratory animals, acknowledging physical, psychological, and social well-being of the species and individual animal,
(6) Administer anesthesia or painkillers to animals involved in painful experiments,
(7) Administer euthanasia to an animal that will suffer ongoing extreme pain after an experiment, ( Research and use alternatives to animal experimentation wherever possible.
(f) An experimenter shall not:
(1) Use an animal in more than one invasive and/or painful experiment,
(2) Euthanize any healthy animal,
(3) Use great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and bonobos) for any scientific experimentation.
(g) Scientific education.
(1) Dissection shall not be permitted in grade schools [through age 18],
(2) Where dissection is permitted at the university level, students must be allowed to opt out of the procedures without suffering any detriment to their grades,
(3) Dissection alternatives should be researched by universities and implemented where possible. Where a university finds dissection necessary to its educational goals, care should be taken to provide for the humane treatment and euthanasia of the animals.
Sec. 5. Farm animals.
(a) Animals that are raised and bred for the purposes of providing food and clothing for humans should be accorded humane treatment. Respect for each individual animal should be encouraged, and methods of husbandry, transport, and slaughter should be altered as new, more humane methods are developed.
(b) The owner or keeper shall:
(1) Only keep animals in enclosures where the animal has ample room to rise to its full height, turn around, lie down, and will not incur any danger from the enclosure itself,
(2) Acknowledge social behavior of the species when determining the number of animals to keep per enclosure,
(3) Provide regular food, water, space, fresh air, society, access to exercise, and appropriate social grouping,
(4) Provide veterinary care for diseased or injured animals,
(5) Slaughter farm animals using the most humane methods possible. The animal must either be unconscious before death or death must be instantaneous.
(c) The owner or keeper shall not:
(1) Keep animals in cages,
(2) Keep too many animals in each enclosure where this will lead to crowding, injury, or stress to the animals,
(3) Cut off beaks or tails,
(4) Give animals growth hormones,
(5) Fatten geese and ducks for the purpose of foie gras production,
(6) Keep calves in small single animal enclosures and withhold proper nutrition for the production of veal,
(7) Keep any animal permanently chained or caged for ongoing, physically invasive procedures.
(d) Persons who transport farm animals shall:
(1) Use the fastest and/or most comfortable route to maintain the well-being of the animals,
(2) Correctly position animals in the vehicle so that animals have the ability to lie down and get up during transport without discomfort,
(3) Keep the floors and walls of the vehicle clean and sanitary,
(4) Maintain appropriate temperature, ventilation, and space in the vehicle,
(5) During a transport of longer than eight consecutive hours, provide the animals with food and water at regular intervals, and give the animals an opportunity to rest,
(6) Provide sick or injured animals with veterinary care,
(7) Immediately remove animals that die during transport.
Sec. 6. Working animals.
(a) Animals that perform tasks for humans, whether seeing-eye dogs, load-pulling oxen, racehorses, or circus ponies, shall be accorded humane treatment. Because of this, the use of animals in shows and sports characterized by cruelty and/or pain, including but not limited to fights between or among bulls, dogs, and cocks, is strictly forbidden.
(b) Persons using animals for work shall:
(1) Provide a rest period both during the work and after the work for animals appropriate to their species to enable them to recuperate their strength,
(2) Appoint a duly qualified person to carry out animal training for the purposes of shows and entertainment. Pain shall never be used as a method of training an animal,
(3) Submit to inspections by national or international animal welfare organizations to ensure compliance with performing animal regulations.
(c) Persons using animals for work shall not:
(1) Overburden or force animals to perform behaviors beyond their species-specific capabilities,
(2) Use animals that are sick, too young, too old, or undernourished for work,
(3) Use objects or tools for driving or training animals that could cause bodily injuries or unnecessary pain,
(4) Use excessive force while the animal is performing its task,
(5) Give any substance to an animal for the sole reason of enhancing performance.
(6) Engage in the breeding or training of animals to be used in criminal fighting activity, or to organize or promote an animal fighting event.
(d) Circuses.
(1) The creation of new circuses or traveling menageries containing wild-caught animals is forbidden,
(2) Circuses and traveling menageries may not include elephants, lions, tigers, or bears. Those businesses that already contain these animals must retire the animals to sanctuaries. [Businesses complying with this regulation may be compensated by the non-profit organization running the sanctuary],
(3) Persons engaged in the training of animals for circus performances must comply with Sec. 6 (b) and (c).
(e) Zoos.
(1) Zoos must comply with the regulations set out by the [American Zoological Association]. They will have [two years] to come into compliance. [This may include the creation of a review board to investigate living conditions at the facilities],
(2) Zoos may implement breeding programs for animals only when there is space available for the offspring in the zoo or when the breeding is part of a program approved by the National Agency. [These programs must be approved by the review board before begun.],
(3) Zoos with excess or unhealthy animals must establish or utilize existing sanctuaries at which to retire these animals. Humane euthanasia should only be used as a last resort. Sec. 7. `Feral' wildlife.
(a) It is acknowledged that previously-domesticated animals running at large are a substantial problem in urban and other areas. These animals should be treated humanely and carefully while taking into account the public health and safety concerns they present.
(b) The local governing body shall:
(1) Implement a program for spay/neuter clinics to prevent population growth of these animals. [These clinics should be staffed by a veterinarian or veterinary technician],
(2) Encourage volunteers from the community to staff these clinics,
(3) Discourage citizens from feeding these wild populations,
(4) Establish easy contact information for citizens to report to the clinics as to the whereabouts and living conditions of these populations,
(5) Either release altered animals back to the place where they were found, or relocate them elsewhere,
(6) Provide funding for these clinics to administer vaccinations and veterinary care for the animals,
(7) Use humane euthanasia of these populations only as a last resort,
(8) Educate the community as to the proper ways to approach, trap, and transport these animals to the clinics,
(9) Educate the community as to the public health and safety concerns surrounding these animals.
Sec. 8 Enforcement.
(a) Both national and local police officials shall enforce the provisions of this law. Local government may appoint animal control officers to specifically deal with the requirements of this law,
(b) Private non-profit animal shelters may have employees authorized by local police as capable of engaging in criminal investigations and arrest under this law. Such a candidate must show a full understanding of law enforcement generally and the provisions of this law specifically,
(c) The National Agency may seek an injunction to stop an ongoing violation of this law. It may initiate a civil proceeding against any party who violates any regulation or procedure adopted by the National Agency. The outcome of such civil proceeding shall include to revoke or modify any permits granted, and/or to impose fines up to $1,000 per violation,
(d) Private non-profit animal shelters, designated by the National Agency for this purpose, are authorized to bring lawsuits to stop by injunction ongoing violations of this law. While such organizations may not seek money damages, the court may award cost of attorney fees.
Sec. 9. Penalties
(a) If a court finds that a defendant has violated Section 3 (b) or 6 (a), then the penalty shall be up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine for the first such offence. For second and subsequent convictions, the penalty shall be up to three years in jail and $10,000 fine for each conviction, and a minimum of two months in jail shall be required. Each animal impacted by defendant's actions shall constitute a separate count under the law,
(b) For all other violations of the provisions of this law, the court shall impose a penalty of up to 60 days in jail and a $100 fine for a first offence and six month and $1,000 fine for subsequent convictions. Each animal impacted by defendant's actions shall constitute a separate count under the law,
(c) A person or organization that is caring for an animal pending the resolution of criminal proceeding concerning the animal may make a motion to the court for the cost of caring for the animal and the court may require the owner to either pay the cost of care or relinquish title of the animal to the party holding the animal,
(d) A court may require a convicted defendant to give up the animal in question and may limit future ownership and possession of animals by the defendant.
http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stmodelanimalact.htm
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Federal Dog Protection Act
U.S. Rep. Elton Gallegly Serving the 24th District of California
http://www.house.gov/gallegly/media/media2007/media2007.htm
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 2, 2007
Contact: Tom Pfeifer, (202) 225-5811
Gallegly & Blumenauer Introduce Federal Dog Protection Act
WASHINGTON, DC-Congressmen Elton Gallegly (R-CA) and Earl Blumenauer(D-OR) today introduced the Federal Dog Protection Act to further protect animals from human cruelty. The Gallegly/Blumenauer bill would:
a.. Ban animal fighting and anything associated with it, such astraining tools, videos and magazines.
b.. Allow private entities that care for and house animals that have been rescued by federal agents to recoup their expenses.
c.. Would allow private citizens to sue any person alleged to be inviolation of the law.
Previously, Gallegly and Blumenauer worked together to pass the Animal Prohibition Enforcement Act, which was signed into law on May 3. That law makes violations a felony punishable by up to three years in prison, makes it a felonyto transport an animal across state or international borders for the purpose ofanimal fighting, and prohibits the interstate and foreign commerce in knives and gaffs designed for use in cockfighting. "The Michael Vick case has proven that stricter federal laws against animal fighting are necessary," Gallegly said. "If the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act had been in effect when these alleged atrocities occurred, Mr. Vick would be facing three felonies instead of a felony and two misdemeanors."The Federal Dog Protection Act takes this further by outlawing the paraphernalia that goes along with animal fighting and empowering private citizens to fight this scourge."Violators of the Federal Dog Protection Act would face up to a 5-year sentence and a $250,000 fine for each count."Congress made great progress earlier this year by passing the Gallegly-Blumenauer Animal Fighting Protection Act, which the President signed into law in May," Blumenauer said. "Yet we must get at the root of the problem by penalizing spectators and removing all economic incentives for cultivating dog fighting networks."The Michael Vick case has demonstrated that these networks are extensive and fueled by money. Our new legislation takes important steps to crack down on any and all incentives to promote these sordid and violent dog fighting rings,and I am confident that our bill will have broad support."Gallegly noted that criminals who commit violent acts against other humans often started their acts of cruelty against animals. The FBI has recognized the connection since the 1970s and the American Psychiatric Association considers animal cruelty one of the diagnostic criteria for later violent behavior."Other crimes often go hand-in-hand with animal fighting, including illegal gambling and drug trafficking," Gallegly said."In the last six months, virtually every reported arrest at an animal fight also led to additional arrests for at least one of these criminal activities."
The bill was introduced with 52 original cosponsors.
http://www.house.gov/gallegly/media/media2007/media2007.htm
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 2, 2007
Contact: Tom Pfeifer, (202) 225-5811
Gallegly & Blumenauer Introduce Federal Dog Protection Act
WASHINGTON, DC-Congressmen Elton Gallegly (R-CA) and Earl Blumenauer(D-OR) today introduced the Federal Dog Protection Act to further protect animals from human cruelty. The Gallegly/Blumenauer bill would:
a.. Ban animal fighting and anything associated with it, such astraining tools, videos and magazines.
b.. Allow private entities that care for and house animals that have been rescued by federal agents to recoup their expenses.
c.. Would allow private citizens to sue any person alleged to be inviolation of the law.
Previously, Gallegly and Blumenauer worked together to pass the Animal Prohibition Enforcement Act, which was signed into law on May 3. That law makes violations a felony punishable by up to three years in prison, makes it a felonyto transport an animal across state or international borders for the purpose ofanimal fighting, and prohibits the interstate and foreign commerce in knives and gaffs designed for use in cockfighting. "The Michael Vick case has proven that stricter federal laws against animal fighting are necessary," Gallegly said. "If the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act had been in effect when these alleged atrocities occurred, Mr. Vick would be facing three felonies instead of a felony and two misdemeanors."The Federal Dog Protection Act takes this further by outlawing the paraphernalia that goes along with animal fighting and empowering private citizens to fight this scourge."Violators of the Federal Dog Protection Act would face up to a 5-year sentence and a $250,000 fine for each count."Congress made great progress earlier this year by passing the Gallegly-Blumenauer Animal Fighting Protection Act, which the President signed into law in May," Blumenauer said. "Yet we must get at the root of the problem by penalizing spectators and removing all economic incentives for cultivating dog fighting networks."The Michael Vick case has demonstrated that these networks are extensive and fueled by money. Our new legislation takes important steps to crack down on any and all incentives to promote these sordid and violent dog fighting rings,and I am confident that our bill will have broad support."Gallegly noted that criminals who commit violent acts against other humans often started their acts of cruelty against animals. The FBI has recognized the connection since the 1970s and the American Psychiatric Association considers animal cruelty one of the diagnostic criteria for later violent behavior."Other crimes often go hand-in-hand with animal fighting, including illegal gambling and drug trafficking," Gallegly said."In the last six months, virtually every reported arrest at an animal fight also led to additional arrests for at least one of these criminal activities."
The bill was introduced with 52 original cosponsors.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)