Animal rescuers go to great lenghts to save doomed dogs
by Bob Shaw
To Jimmie Williams, the pickup truck looked like salvation on wheels.
"There they are! I can see 'em!" he shouted as the truck pulled into a parking lot.
Out tumbled three dogs, bedraggled after their three-day journey. Saved from being euthanized in Kentucky, they sniffed around the legs of their rescuers, looking a little confused.
"I can't tell you how good this feels," said Williams, who was delighted to be adopting a rescued dog.
The trip was another small triumph for a new — and controversial — transportation system for animals.
In only a few years, the network has sprung up, saving thousands of dogs and cats from euthanasia in states that can't — or won't — support their own animal-welfare systems.
Supporters call it a new "underground railway." And like the transportation system that saved slaves in the 19th century, this one runs only one direction — from south to north.
It can involve truck caravans carrying up to 100 dogs. Or it can include a 900-mile airplane relay from Virginia to Minnesota to save a single cat, as happened June 25.
The flow into Minnesota is swelling rapidly — despite the fact that this state kills more than 20,000 of its own dogs and cats every year.
"This is compassion run amok," said Lynae Gieseke, director of the Minnesota Valley Humane Society.
Critics say the volunteers want to feel like heroes by making 11th-hour cross country rescues — when they could be saving animals in their own local shelters.
"This is like a mental illness in the animal-welfare community," said Mike Fry, manager of the Animal Ark No-Kill Shelter in Hastings. "We have a huge problem in shelters here. Why would you bring in any more dogs? We are oversaturated with dogs."
"It is crazy — it is insane. I don't get it," said Laura Johnson, president of the cat-rescue group SCRAM. "We have so many here who need help."
Even as they are swept up in the thrill of their missions, some volunteers wonder about the wisdom of what they are doing.
"It does seem odd to transport into a state that euthanizes. Maybe we should get our own house in order first," said Pete Howell, of Falcon Heights, who has flown his airplane on two missions to rescue two dogs.
"My attitude is: I am going to go flying anyway, so I might as well help."
CRIES FOR HELP
An animal's ticket to salvation begins on the Internet.
Of the estimated 4 million dogs and cats euthanized annually in America, a lucky few are targeted to be rescued, shortly before their deaths.
The dozens of transport groups often focus on certain breeds, as with the Chihuahua Rescue Transport or Dalmatian Overland Transport Service. Others help dogs of any breed, such as the Petsmart-sponsored Rescue Waggin' and the Georgia Puppy Pipeline.
The pleas for help often have a desperate tone, as shown in typical e-mails from June:
* "Jack will DIE at 4PM unless saved!" said one e-mail from Franklin, Ga., concerning a Labrador. "Hennessy (a collie) will DIE TODAY AT 4PM UNLESS SAVED AS THE SHELTER IS TOTALLY FULL!"
* "I am begging ... PLEASE someone step forward and help. ... This boy's eyes speak only of sadness and betrayal," said one plea from Raleigh, N.C., on behalf of a boxer.
* From Bowling Green, Ky.: "Shelter is desperately overcrowded, and euthing (sic) hundreds of animals for space. ... They DO NOT WANT to kill, they need rescue help NOW!"
Big-hearted animal-lovers respond.
They work with groups like Save Our Strays, which moved 15,000 unwanted dogs out of Missouri from 1998 to 2006.
After that, group founder Connie Guthrie moved to Oklahoma — and now Oklahoma is a source of dogs bound for Minnesota.
"We are very, very blessed to have Minnesota helping us," Guthrie said. "To give these dogs another chance is remarkable."
Local groups organize their own rescues, as Minnesota Boxer Rescue, of Woodbury, did in June. The group saves only boxers — and responded to an e-mail about three of them in Kentucky.
On June 28, Jon Wiswell, of Minneapolis, volunteered to drive from Eau Claire, Wis., to Minneapolis, the final leg of a relay to save three dogs. "If I were in their position, I would want someone to do that for me," Wiswell said.
Sometimes pilots respond. A South Carolina-based group called Pilots N Paws started 18 months ago — and has already made 1,000 flights to rescue animals.
The group's flight log shows that a paralyzed kitten was flown June 21 from Fremont, Mich., to Wichita, Kan. On May 11, two pit bulls — a breed often euthanized in Minnesota — were flown from Greenville, S.C., to Milaca, Minn.
Co-founder Debi Boies is looking forward to the "Pilots N Paws 5000" — with a goal of airlifting 5,000 animals in one week, Sept. 12-20.
Boies said gleefully: "Are we crazy people or what?"
TROUBLED TRIP
Some rescues end in sadness.
Last summer, volunteers from Puppy Porch, a St. Paul rescue group, heard about a troubled shelter in California about to euthanize about 100 dogs.
Why can't a state as big as California take care of its own dogs?
In fact, board member Britt Gage said, five rescue groups in California were offering to help. But the Puppy Porch volunteers wanted to save the dogs themselves.
"We approve of rescues, period. We do not care who is rescued, or how," Gage said. "We want to save every life, here or in California." The group has rescued animals as far away as the island of St. Maarten in the Caribbean.
When the Minnesota rescuers arrived in California, some dogs were sick. About 11 died after the group arrived. Some dogs remained behind, and 75 were loaded aboard three vans.
Seventeen more died during the cross country trek or shortly afterward.
Gage said that in Minnesota, the group spent "thousands" on medical care for the dogs. "We thought they had all been vaccinated. They came down with an illness we were not familiar with," she said.
"We did the best we could."
DEMAND FOR DOGS
The Animal Humane Society joined the system this year. So far, it has accepted 400 dogs from other states.
The society is Minnesota's largest animal-welfare agency, with an $11 million annual budget and five locations.
Giving a tour of the society's complex in Golden Valley, Director Janelle Dixon gingerly opened a door with a sign saying, "Hearing protection recommended." Inside was a new batch of dogs from Oklahoma.
"Yesterday, we got in 34," Dixon shouted over the barking.
Dixon said more dogs do not mean more euthanasia — at least within the Animal Humane Society's system. She said the demand for dogs to adopt is high. A dog typically has to wait only three days in the society's kennels once it is cleared for adoption.
She said about 4 percent of the imported dogs are euthanized. The rest are adopted or are expected to be adopted quickly.
"We have a demand for dogs here. Where are people going to go? Pet stores? Puppy mills?" Dixon said.
"Doesn't it make sense to bring dogs from states where they aren't wanted into states where they are?"
Dixon showed off the spotless surgery rooms, where the society performs some of its 14,000 sterilizations a year.
Of the 10,000 dogs admitted each year, about 42 percent are euthanized — below the national rate of about 50 percent.
Like every shelter, she said, the Animal Humane Society kills only animals that are too sick or dangerous to be adopted.
No dogs, she said, are killed because of the interstate imports.
HERO COMPLEX
Other animal-welfare groups say that claim is short-sighted.
"For every dog brought in, there is a Minnesota dog euthanized because it could not find a home," said the Minnesota Valley Humane Society's Gieseke.
"It is just much more cool to save the life of a dog from Kentucky than to adopt one here."
Critics of the Animal Humane Society say it could adopt out many of the dogs and cats it kills — by spending more money to cure diseases or working harder to solve behavior problems.
Said Animal Ark's Fry: "We have a very large, very wealthy Animal Humane Society painting a pretty picture of Minnesota.
"They want people to think animals here are safe. If they were not killing those dogs for bogus reasons, they would not be able to take in those dogs from other states."
Cheryl Anderson, a volunteer with Minnesota Boxer Rescue, said that when the Animal Humane Society gets ready to euthanize dogs, it doesn't plead for help from local rescue groups — at least, not the way out-of-state groups send impassioned cries for help.
So volunteers rescue animals they do learn about, from other states.
Gieseke said the surge of animals being brought to Minnesota is partly because of another overpopulation problem — of rescue groups. Petfinder.com lists more than 180 in Minnesota. When those groups can't find local dogs to save, Gieseke said, they look to other states.
She said the only long-term solution to pet overpopulation is a nationwide spay and neuter program.
"You see all these desperate e-mails from Georgia or California. Might their time be better spent trying to sterilize more animals in their states?" Gieseke said.
She sees the same herocomplex phenomenon when a puppy mill is shut down, the dogs are confiscated, and the stories are told by local news outlets. Calls pour into her office from people wanting those dogs — while ignoring hundreds of others.
"I say: 'Wait a minute. Were you planning to add a dog to your family? Or does this just give you a good story to tell?' " Gieseke said.
FINDING A HOME
On a Sunday evening in June, Williams waited with a group of people outside a McDonald's Restaurant in Minneapolis for the delivery of dogs from Kentucky.
"It breaks your heart when you see these dogs online," said Megan Tholl, of Woodbury, as she ate a fish sandwich at a picnic table.
Finally, the pickup truck pulled in. The pitiful dogs climbed out. Eight people watching made a single sound in unison: "Awww ..."
Williams took an instant liking to his new dog, Tacoma. It took only a few licks in the face for Williams to start with the baby talk. "Oooh, oooh, you little kisser, you," he cooed to the dog.
Williams climbed into a car with his partner, Ron Snell, and they headed to their Minneapolis home.
"He needs a bath," Williams shouted out the window. His words were interrupted by licks on his face. "But he's giving me a bath!"
One badly starved dog looked like a skeleton in a pillowcase. "God, you can see every single bone," whispered driver Jon Wiswell.
He stroked the dog's scrawny back, and the dog looked up at him gratefully. "How could you say no to this face?" Wiswell said.
Bob Shaw can be reached at 651-228-5433.
1ST
U.S. rank in dog and cat populations among all countries, with 145 million total
17,000
Animals euthanized annually by Twin Cities animal shelters
15,000
Dogs shipped to northern states from Missouri by a single rescue group from 1998 to 2006.
42 PERCENT
Share of dogs euthanized by Animal Humane Society, of Golden Valley, compared with about 56 percent nationally.
70 PERCENT
Share of U.S. cats admitted to shelters that are euthanized
Sources: National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy, Humane Society of the U.S., Mapsoftheworld.com
Showing posts with label Minnesota. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Minnesota. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
MN- Rep. Tillberry pushes bill on animal breeder licensing- and is suprised at opposition
Rep. Tillberry pushes bill on animal breeder licensing
Friday, 20 March 2009
by T.W. Budig
ECM Capitol reporter
Rep. Tom Tillberry expressed a degree of surprise over opposition to his dog
and cat breeders' bill.
"I would think breeders would want that," said Tillberry of annual licensing
and initial inspections of commercial dog and cat breeder facilities
prescribed in the legislation.
It could serve to weed out bad breeders, he explained.
"I definitely think it is something we need to be doing," said Tillberry.
Media and public focus on cases of animal abuse and cruelty in so-called
"puppy mills" has legislators authoring a number of animal breeder bills
this session.
No one knows exactly how many dog and cat breeders there in Minnesota,
Tillberry explained.
That's because while federal law covers animal breeders selling to pet
brokers or pet stores, it does not apply to breeders selling puppies or
kittens on the Internet or to the family with the kid across town.
Try a Google search and see what comes up, suggested Tillberry of finding an
exact number.
83 USDA licensed animal breeders
According to the Minnesota Responsible Animal Owners Alliance, there are 83
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) licensed Class A animal
breeders in Minnesota.
The issue is emotional.
At a recent House hearing Tillberry showed a video showing graphic images of
abused dogs and cats discovered in Minnesota.
Currently, there are no state laws that require licensing or inspection of
non-USDA regulated breeders.
Beryl Board, co-executive director of Retrieve a Golden of Minnesota, a
multi-state retriever rescue and rehousing group, spoke of an increasing
number of animal rescues.
Speaking before the House public safety committee last week, Board spoke of
collars embedded in flesh, missing eyes - puppies subject to both physical
and psychology abuse by breeders.
"They were sold, or were going to be sold, that way," she said.
Dr. Christine Gabel, a veterinarian representing the Minnesota Purebreed Dog
Association, gave tentative support of Tillberry's legislation.
"We do support the bill with some reservations," she told the committee.
Tillberry reworked his original bill.
Distinctions are drawn between commercial and hobby breeders - the latter
defined as possessing fewer than 20 adult animals or who produce fewer than
five litters of puppies or kittens a year.
Annual state license required
Commercial breeders under the bill would need to obtain an annual state
license for each facility it owns or operates, beginning in July, 2010.
The State Board of Animal Health would inspect facilities prior to
licensing.
Other requirements are spelled out.
A number of people spoke out against Tillberry's bill last week.
Andrea Piper, a hobby breeder of French bulldogs from Brooklyn Park,
questioned how effective the legislation would be in controlling bad
breeders.
"I don't think we're going to grab all of the bad people by making a big
bill," she said.
If people want a certain a animal, they'll find one, Piper opined.
"We're selfish people. We want what we want," she said.
Speaking more recently, Piper, who likes some of the bill, said if it's
intended to stop puppy mills, it should be more specific about husbandry
practices.
Why not restrict the number of litters animal can produce? she opined.
Real issue is animal cruelty
Dr. Robinette Dunahugh-Ralston, a veterinarian from Farmington, argued
before the committee that the real issue underlying people's concerns is
animal cruelty.
But the bill doesn't address that, she argued.
Others testifying, in the same vein, argued animal cruelty laws are already
on the books.
Enforce them.
The Minnesota Veterinarian Medical Association could support the breeders'
legislation under certain conditions.
For example, the association wants the state board of animal health to
conduct inspections and enforcement.
The number of animals at a breeding facility has does not determine its
quality, the association argued in a position statement.
To that end, it wants inspections for all facilities, regardless of size,
upon valid complaint.
Dr. Tom Hagerty, a retired veterinarian who handles government relations for
the association, questions aspects of the Tillberry legislation.
"How do you find the breeders?" he said of regulating an industry that might
be conducted in the backyard. "How do you identify them?" he said.
Hagerty also questioned whether the licensing and inspections would be
self-funding - a special account is created to collected fees.
Not enough staff
But a Board of Animal Health official last week indicated she didn't believe
the board had enough staff to take on additional duties.
Tillberry's bill is scheduled for another hearing on Monday, March 23 in the
House civil justice committee.
Should it pass on Monday, it's expected to go the House agriculture
committee,
Tillberry, who views his bill as an example stakeholders achieving
compromise, is upbeat about its chances.
The bill easily cleared the public safety committee last week.
Sen. Don Betzold, DFL-Fridley, is carry similar breeders' legislation in the
Senate.
Betzold believe his bill, which sits in the Senate agriculture committee,
could soon have another hearing.
Friday, 20 March 2009
by T.W. Budig
ECM Capitol reporter
Rep. Tom Tillberry expressed a degree of surprise over opposition to his dog
and cat breeders' bill.
"I would think breeders would want that," said Tillberry of annual licensing
and initial inspections of commercial dog and cat breeder facilities
prescribed in the legislation.
It could serve to weed out bad breeders, he explained.
"I definitely think it is something we need to be doing," said Tillberry.
Media and public focus on cases of animal abuse and cruelty in so-called
"puppy mills" has legislators authoring a number of animal breeder bills
this session.
No one knows exactly how many dog and cat breeders there in Minnesota,
Tillberry explained.
That's because while federal law covers animal breeders selling to pet
brokers or pet stores, it does not apply to breeders selling puppies or
kittens on the Internet or to the family with the kid across town.
Try a Google search and see what comes up, suggested Tillberry of finding an
exact number.
83 USDA licensed animal breeders
According to the Minnesota Responsible Animal Owners Alliance, there are 83
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) licensed Class A animal
breeders in Minnesota.
The issue is emotional.
At a recent House hearing Tillberry showed a video showing graphic images of
abused dogs and cats discovered in Minnesota.
Currently, there are no state laws that require licensing or inspection of
non-USDA regulated breeders.
Beryl Board, co-executive director of Retrieve a Golden of Minnesota, a
multi-state retriever rescue and rehousing group, spoke of an increasing
number of animal rescues.
Speaking before the House public safety committee last week, Board spoke of
collars embedded in flesh, missing eyes - puppies subject to both physical
and psychology abuse by breeders.
"They were sold, or were going to be sold, that way," she said.
Dr. Christine Gabel, a veterinarian representing the Minnesota Purebreed Dog
Association, gave tentative support of Tillberry's legislation.
"We do support the bill with some reservations," she told the committee.
Tillberry reworked his original bill.
Distinctions are drawn between commercial and hobby breeders - the latter
defined as possessing fewer than 20 adult animals or who produce fewer than
five litters of puppies or kittens a year.
Annual state license required
Commercial breeders under the bill would need to obtain an annual state
license for each facility it owns or operates, beginning in July, 2010.
The State Board of Animal Health would inspect facilities prior to
licensing.
Other requirements are spelled out.
A number of people spoke out against Tillberry's bill last week.
Andrea Piper, a hobby breeder of French bulldogs from Brooklyn Park,
questioned how effective the legislation would be in controlling bad
breeders.
"I don't think we're going to grab all of the bad people by making a big
bill," she said.
If people want a certain a animal, they'll find one, Piper opined.
"We're selfish people. We want what we want," she said.
Speaking more recently, Piper, who likes some of the bill, said if it's
intended to stop puppy mills, it should be more specific about husbandry
practices.
Why not restrict the number of litters animal can produce? she opined.
Real issue is animal cruelty
Dr. Robinette Dunahugh-Ralston, a veterinarian from Farmington, argued
before the committee that the real issue underlying people's concerns is
animal cruelty.
But the bill doesn't address that, she argued.
Others testifying, in the same vein, argued animal cruelty laws are already
on the books.
Enforce them.
The Minnesota Veterinarian Medical Association could support the breeders'
legislation under certain conditions.
For example, the association wants the state board of animal health to
conduct inspections and enforcement.
The number of animals at a breeding facility has does not determine its
quality, the association argued in a position statement.
To that end, it wants inspections for all facilities, regardless of size,
upon valid complaint.
Dr. Tom Hagerty, a retired veterinarian who handles government relations for
the association, questions aspects of the Tillberry legislation.
"How do you find the breeders?" he said of regulating an industry that might
be conducted in the backyard. "How do you identify them?" he said.
Hagerty also questioned whether the licensing and inspections would be
self-funding - a special account is created to collected fees.
Not enough staff
But a Board of Animal Health official last week indicated she didn't believe
the board had enough staff to take on additional duties.
Tillberry's bill is scheduled for another hearing on Monday, March 23 in the
House civil justice committee.
Should it pass on Monday, it's expected to go the House agriculture
committee,
Tillberry, who views his bill as an example stakeholders achieving
compromise, is upbeat about its chances.
The bill easily cleared the public safety committee last week.
Sen. Don Betzold, DFL-Fridley, is carry similar breeders' legislation in the
Senate.
Betzold believe his bill, which sits in the Senate agriculture committee,
could soon have another hearing.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
The lobbying of One Person can make Law Makers Make Laws
Dogged lawmaker changes his mind
Friday, Feb 27 2009, 5:11 pm
By Sharna Johnson: CNJ staff writer
A state lawmaker is pulling a proposal to classify all pit bulls and rottweilers as dangerous dogs.
State Rep. John Heaton said Friday he's been persuaded by negative public reaction.
Heaton said he will offer a substitute bill, minus the breed specification, when the bill is scheduled for a House Consumer & Public Affairs Committee hearing Saturday.
Heaton, of Carlsbad, said the bill he introduced Feb. 9 cannot legally be changed until it is presented to committee.
Heaton's proposal sought to redefine the state's Dangerous Dog Act to specifically include rottweilers and pit bulls.
Under Heaton's original proposal, pit bulls and rottweilers would have been restricted to their own property except when receiving medical care. Owners also would have been required to submit to random property inspections and maintain $250,000 liability insurance coverage.
Public outcry and a change of heart by a constituent who initially lobbied him for legislation led to the planned retraction, Heaton said.
"Not every pit bull is a dangerous dog, there are a lot that are very gentle pets," he said.
An outcry over the proposed restrictions for pit bulls and rottweilers showed him, "people are very passionate about their pets."
Heaton said the bill was originally inspired by one of his constituents whose miniature horses were mauled by a pit bull while the dog's owners looked on.
The woman spent $63,000 to rehabilitate her horses, which are still suffering from the incident, and lobbied Heaton for legislation restricting dangerous dog breeds.
"I really didn't want to put breed specifications in there but my constituent wanted to and was insisting on it. I tried to talk her out of it," he said.
"My heart was never to put it in, but because she'd been through such a traumatic event, I let her instruct the bill."
Heaton said the substitute bill will still seek to require owners of dogs deemed dangerous by existing law to maintain $250,000 liability insurance, submit to property inspections and photographs or permanent marking of their pet.
Friday, Feb 27 2009, 5:11 pm
By Sharna Johnson: CNJ staff writer
A state lawmaker is pulling a proposal to classify all pit bulls and rottweilers as dangerous dogs.
State Rep. John Heaton said Friday he's been persuaded by negative public reaction.
Heaton said he will offer a substitute bill, minus the breed specification, when the bill is scheduled for a House Consumer & Public Affairs Committee hearing Saturday.
Heaton, of Carlsbad, said the bill he introduced Feb. 9 cannot legally be changed until it is presented to committee.
Heaton's proposal sought to redefine the state's Dangerous Dog Act to specifically include rottweilers and pit bulls.
Under Heaton's original proposal, pit bulls and rottweilers would have been restricted to their own property except when receiving medical care. Owners also would have been required to submit to random property inspections and maintain $250,000 liability insurance coverage.
Public outcry and a change of heart by a constituent who initially lobbied him for legislation led to the planned retraction, Heaton said.
"Not every pit bull is a dangerous dog, there are a lot that are very gentle pets," he said.
An outcry over the proposed restrictions for pit bulls and rottweilers showed him, "people are very passionate about their pets."
Heaton said the bill was originally inspired by one of his constituents whose miniature horses were mauled by a pit bull while the dog's owners looked on.
The woman spent $63,000 to rehabilitate her horses, which are still suffering from the incident, and lobbied Heaton for legislation restricting dangerous dog breeds.
"I really didn't want to put breed specifications in there but my constituent wanted to and was insisting on it. I tried to talk her out of it," he said.
"My heart was never to put it in, but because she'd been through such a traumatic event, I let her instruct the bill."
Heaton said the substitute bill will still seek to require owners of dogs deemed dangerous by existing law to maintain $250,000 liability insurance, submit to property inspections and photographs or permanent marking of their pet.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Bills introduced in NJ, NY, ME, FL, MN, IL, CA, CO, VA, MT
HSUS Off To Fast Start In 2009, But
Dog Owners Triumph In VA And MT
Beware Bills Introduced In NJ, NY, ME, FL, MN, IL, CA, CO, VA, MT
And Expect Legislation Soon In TX, MA, WI, MI, IN, OH, OK, AZ, NM
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
This article is archived:
Dog owners will face unprecedented and potentially devastating challenges in 2009, and it will take dedication and commitment to protect our rights. Sitting on the sidelines simply is not an option. It will take standing up and making your voice count.
The radical Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), buoyed by the victories of 95% of the state and federal candidates it endorsed in the November general election, has struck quickly in 2009 with legislation in 10 states that would severely restrict the rights of dog owners. Our sources also tell us that HSUS-anointed legislation will be introduced shortly in at least nine more states.
HSUS has launched this full-court press in only three weeks, and dog owners must act quickly and decisively or they will be overwhelmed.
However, there is some good news. This week, dog owners won the first two rounds in Virginia and Montana with the sound defeat of mandatory spay/neuter and breed-specific legislation.
In Virginia, HSUS and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals were s trongly in support of Senate Bill 1151, which would have mandated the spaying or neutering of any dog taken to an animal shelter for a second time. The legislation was killed this week by the Senate Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources Committee by an 8-6 vote.
This bill would have had a strong impact on hunting dogs, especially, and would have opened the door to many animal rights group kidnappings of hunting and companion dogs. Animal rights group kidnappings are becoming more common, and their goal is to take dogs to distant animal shelters were they will be euthanized.
In Montana, HSUS attempted to ram through breed-specific legislation after its usual media bombardment of inflammatory news stories, but it was killed in committee by a 17-1 vote after a reported 150 dog owners attended a hearing to voice opposition. Only three people spoke in favor of the bill.
While breed-specific legislation most often is seen as about “pit bulls,” many local ordinances have extended it to several other breeds ranging from Rottweilers to German shepherds. Moreover, the American Sporting Dog Alliance is concerned about this kind of le gislation because we see hunting breeds as next on the list of HSUS targets. Animal rights group websites frequently and falsely portray hunting dogs as vicious, some states are seriously considering banning or restricting hunting with hounds, and all hunting breeds were targeted specifically in failed federal legislation just two years ago.
HSUS-inspired legislation introduced in eight other states would affect all people who raise dogs. Those states are New York, New Jersey, Maine, Florida, Minnesota, Colorado, Illinois and California. Legislation also will be introduced soon in Texas, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is taking an active and aggressive role to defeat this legislation, which takes aim at people who raise dogs as an avocation and reflects the HSUS agenda of working toward the complete elimination of domestic animal ownership in America. We are urging dog owners to join with us to work to defeat this dangerous legislation.
Here is a synopsis of the legislation that has been introduced in each state:
New York
It looks like HSUS has learned a new trick in New York and trying for a rerun on an old one.
Legislation has been introduced that would require every dog and every dog owner to complete certified obedience training as a condition of licensing. Another bill would mandate microchipping of all dogs in order to get a license for them. Assembly Member Jose Peralta (D-Queens) introduced both bills.
AB 1540 mandates obedience training and certification. No dog could be licensed without an obedience training certificate, and no owner could buy a dog license without undergoing training. Ironically, Peralta exempts residents of his own city from the legislation.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly opposes this kind of legislation, which places a substantial burden on dog owners, bears no relationship to the realities of most dog ownership, is a solution in search of a problem, will result in a decrease in rabies and licensing law compliance, and will cause many pets to be abandoned when their owners can’t afford the services of a certified school.
Obedience courses are not available in many rural areas, and certification inevitably leads toward favoritism toward certain methods of training that are not endorsed by many dog owners. In addition, many dog owners are skilled trainers themselves and have no need for such services.
In many urban areas, a basic obedience course costs $1,000 or more. No evidence is shown that would justify imposing this kind of burden on the vast majority of dog owners. Moreover, many people simply will not be able to afford to provide this kind of training, especially in today’s poor economy, and this will force people to abandon their pets or fly under the radar without licensing their dogs or obtaining rabies vaccinations.
Here is a link to the text of this bill:
The second bill, AB 255, requires all dogs in New York to be microchipped by the age of four months.
In addition, a state registry would be created for microchip data for every dog in the state and their owners.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly opposes mandatory microchipping, which is controversial among some dog owners. Other options are available, such as name tags or tattoos. We also strongly oppose creating a state registry, which allows animal control agencies to go on a “fishing expedition” to enforce a variety of other laws, and thus invades the privacy of everyone without cause.
Here is a link to the text of this bill:
Both bills have been referred to the Assembly’s Agriculture Committee. We urge New York dog owners to=2 0contact Agriculture Committee members to voice strong opposition. Here is a link to members of the committee:
We also are studying two other pieces of New York legislation.
The first is a bill redefining a “pet dealer” in a way that might lead to including hobby breeders. Last year, failed legislation would have brought all hobby breeders under strict “pet dealer” regulations. This year’s legislation creates some ambiguity in this regard, but basically does little to change the law. This alarms us, as it might lead to an attempt to make amendments on the floor similar to last year’s bill. Here is a link:
The second bill, AB 2069 would impose stringent regulations on boarding kennels, which include training kennels and day care services. It is a backdoor approach to regulation, because it is based on health code compliance (not on animal law) and requires health department inspection and certification.
We see much potential to harm kennel owners without any good reason from this approach, which also creates a new and cumbersome level of bureaucracy.
We are very alarmed that this legislation is both an attempt to redefine animal care as a public health issue, and to give health inspectors unrestricted access to kennels when there is no proof of any relationship between kennels and human health concerns in the community. We see it as an attempt to add another unjustified regulatory burden on kennel owners.
Here is a link to the legislation:
New Jersey
New Jersey dog owners=2 0are facing one of the toughest and most restrictive pieces of breeding legislation in history this year, and a second bill will have a heavy impact on lost hunting dogs.
Anyone who sells five or more dogs, cats, puppies or kittens in a year would have to be licensed and inspected as a commercial breeder and also as a pet dealer, which means facing Draconian restrictions and truly devastating fines and penalties.
That translates into a person having only one litter of puppies a year, in most cases. Even hobby breeding of the smallest possible scale would be unable to survive this legislation.
The legislation also pays snitches to turn in breeders, and the reward can be in the thousands of dollars.
AB 1591 is sponsored by Assemblywomen Joan M. Voss (D-Bergen) and Dawn Marie Addieggo (D-Burlington). It is before the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.
A breeder is defined as anyon e who sells five or more dogs and cats a year. A pet dealer is defined as anyone who sells even one dog or cat for use as pets. A breeding facility is defined as a building or kennel, including a home, where two or more dogs or cats are kept for breeding.
Those definitions snag up everyone who raises dogs, and many people who simply keep a couple of dogs for hunting or pets.
The law also prohibits anyone from selling more than 25 dogs and/or cats a year, and specifically bans brother-sister matings.
Every word in the bill is inspired by HSUS and its agenda to eliminate animal ownership in America.
Every breeder (that’s you) must register with the Department of Health, which the legislations specifically says will develop regulations and standards of care through working closely with the radical HSUS. The bill says that the regulations also will cover spaying and neutering. Specific care and kenneling requirements also are covered. Extensive paperwork, veterinary examinations, and guarantees to buyers also20are required. A veterinarian must inspect and perform stool tests on every dog or puppy no longer than 14 days before a sale.
Anyone who buys or sells a dog without the proper New Jersey license, or who violates any of the above provisions, is subject to civil penalties of up to $10,000, heavy fines and imprisonment.
Even a first offense for a minor technical violation will result in a $5,000 civil penalty, fines and a ban against selling a dog or cat for five years. Someone who buys a dog or cat from an unlicensed breeder faces a $1,000 penalty for the first offense.
Accused dog owners will be denied their constitutional right to a day in court. They will be allowed only an administrative hearing before the same agency that charged them.
A frightening provision is that anyone who turns in a breeder will get 10-percent of the civil penalty as a reward, but not less than $250. Snitching by animal rights fanatics could become full-time and lucrative jobs in New Jersey if this bill passes!
0A
Here is a link to the actual legislation:
The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly urges all New Jersey dog owners to contact members of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee to voice clear opposition to this terrible legislation, which will destroy a lifetime of work by many of the most dedicated and high quality hobby breeders in America.
Here is a link to the committee members’ contact information:
New Jersey dog owners also face a second piece of bad legislation, AB 1568, which requires all dogs taken to an animal shelter to be sterilized before they are reclaimed by their owners.
This legislation will have a strong impact if a dog gets lost while hunting and is taken to an animal shelter by a good Samaritan, is found by an animal control officer or is kidnapped by an animal rights activist.
Exemptions are possible only for currently active show dogs or show champions. No exemption is provided for field trial, performance or hunting dogs.
In addition, a dog can meet the requirements for being spayed only by having a tattoo put on its belly by a veterinarian.
AB 1568 is sponsored by Assemblywoman Linda R. Greenstein (D- Mercer and Middlesex). It’s committee assignment has not been published.
Here is a link to the text of AB 1568:
Maine
Maine’s animal control director, Norma Worley, has clearly established herself as a staunch supporter of animal rights who is pursuing a personal crusade against people who raise dogs. There have been numerous reports of confrontational approaches to dog owners and heavy-handed enforcement since Worley’s appointment, and her writing and comments quoted in newspapers closely echoes HSUS position papers. She also uses the same derogatory labels as HSUS to describe people who raise dogs.
Worley rammed restrictive draft legislation through a task force, and now has presented it to the Legislature. The task force made few changes in the draft legislation prepared by Worley, and she wrote a report to the Legislature that ignored the views of most dog ownership advocates and made it falsely appear that they concurred. The attached minority reports recommended even tougher laws, and the Maine Federation of Dog Clubs refused to submit a minority report because of the biased nature of the participants and process.
This legislation would strip away dog owners’ constitutional rights to due process and equal treatment under the law, and eliminate constitutional requirements for search warrants, seizure warrants and appeals to a court of law. It is typical of all HSUS-backed legislation, which is designed to reduce dog owners to the status of second-class citizens.
Dog and kennel owners also would have their license costs increased dramatically, in order to pay for hiring many more enforcement personnel and funding a bureaucracy that recklessly overspent its budget by $600,000 last year. Worley claims that this extra money was needed to care for dogs that were seized, but we can’t imagine how it would cost $600,000 to provide short-term care for fewer than 300 dogs and cats. That would be more than $2,000 per animal!
The draft legislation requires anyone who owns five or more dogs to get a kennel license and be inspected by the state. Hunting and field trial dogs were mentioned specifically in this requirement.
Anyone who owns more than five female dogs that have not been spayed would be classified as a breeding kennel, subject to intensive regulation and inspection. Hunting, show, sled dog and field trial kennels would be exempt from this requirement, but only if they are municipally licensed and offer fewer than 16 dogs for sale in the year.
Anyone who sells even one dog would be classified as a vendor. They are required to follow complex disclosure rules to buyers, offer contractual guarantees, and have a veterinarian examine each dog or puppy that is sold.
Please read Worley’s report and the proposed legislation, which is located about midway through the document:
Worley sent the proposed legislation to the Legislature’s Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee. The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging Maine dog owners to contact each member of this committee and tell them why you are opposed to the legislation. Here is a link that lists all committee members: Each name links to a page with contact information.
FLORIDA
Almost every dog and cat in Florida would have to be spayed or neutered under the terms of House Bill 451.
Sterilization would have to be done within 30 days of an animal reaching four months of age, which is an age that much recent research has shown may be medically dangerous.
The only exceptions would be for severe medical risks, or if a municipality passes an ordinance that allows dogs registered with an approved registry to be licensed as a show animal, an animal actively engaged in competition, a guide dog, or a dog used by police officers or the military. Certain registries, such as Field Dog Stud Book, have not been approved in any place that has mandatory spay/neuter laws.
No dog or cat could be bred in Florida, except by virtue of a county ordinance allowing the sale of a breeding permit.
In the absence of a county ordinance, no one could breed a dog or cat in Florida. However, the legislation also allows counties to impose more strict ordinances, and even to ban all dog breeding outright.
Stiff fines are provided, and a third offense becomes a misdemeanor charge with possible jail time.
The preamble to the bill, which describes the reason for it, is based on several faulty or inaccurate presumptions. None of the stated reasons have been documented, and much research contradicts several of them.
Florida’s legislative session officially begins in March, and it is not known at this time what committee will get HB 451. It was introduced by Rep. Scott Randolph, D-Orange County.
Here is a link to the actual legislation:
We also urge all Floridians to contact their own legislator and express your opposition to this legislation. Here is a link page for each legislator’s contact information:
Illinois
Illinois House Bill 0198 is one of the most repressive and malicious pieces of animal rights legislation ever introduced in America. It takes aim at people who are hobby breeders of hunting dogs and other breeds of purebred dogs.
Anyone who owns more than three intact females and sells puppies would be classi fied as a commercial breeding kennel, subject to high fees for licensure, rigorous inspections, the forfeiture of several constitutional protections, mandatory fingerprinting and criminal background checks by the state police and Federal Bureau of Investigation, forfeiture of the right to redress in a court of law, heavy loads of paperwork, unworkable standards of care, and the forcible invasion of personal and financial records.
In addition, no one would be permitted to keep or own more than 20 dogs that are not spayed or neutered. No dog could be bred unless it is inspected by a veterinarian. Also, people would not be able to raise a litter of puppies inside their home if other adult dogs are present. It would be illegal to keep more than three dogs together, which would apply to the number of dogs kept inside a home, ban the common practice of kenneling a pack of hounds together and eliminate large fenced lots to allow young dogs to get plenty of exercise.
There also is an ambiguous provision that requires the state to pass judgment on the “qualifications” of a kennel license applicant before issuing a license. This would be an entirely subjective judgment by the kennel inspector, as the legislation does not define adequate qualifications.
Only veterinarians could euthanize a dog, which causes terrible suffering and agony if a veterinarian cannot be located quickly.
Dog owners also could face heavy fines and loss of licenses for irrelevant violations, such as surface rust on wires, a few cobwebs, a knocked over water bowl or chipped paint. Temperature requirements would make it impossible for people to acclimate hunting, herding and performance dogs to weather conditions, thus creating danger for the dogs. Fine and civil penalties would multiply exponentially, and even minor offenses have the potential to destroy a dog owner financially and cause the loss of her or his home and lifetime savings.
The legislation also contains numerous powers to seize dogs, or to require their owners to turn them over to an animal shelter within seven days of license revocation, or if a dog owner is incorrectly licensed.
This legislation, which is clearly out of the HSUS playbook, is being sponsored by State Rep. John A. Fritchey (D-Chicago). It has been cosponsored by Reps. Angelo Saviano, Deborah Mell, Jack D. Franks, Daniel J. Burke, Greg Harris, Michael J. Zalewski, JoAnn D. Osmond, Keith Farnham, Lou Lang and Harry Osterman (click on a name for a link to a contact page). It’s Senate counterpart, SB 53, will be sponsored by Sen. Dan Kotowski (D- Mt. Prospect).
The bill has been referred to the House Rules Committee. The House has not yet completed committee assignments, and the names of committee members are not yet available.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges Illinois dog owners to contact their senator and representative to voice opposition to HB 0198 and SB 53 to voice their opposition. In addition, we ask dog owners to contact the bill’s cosponsors to ask them to withdraw their support for the legislation.
The bill’s formal name is the Dog Breeders License Act. HSUS and other animal rights groups are nicknaming it “Chloe’s Bill,” for a dog allegedly rescued from an Illinois “puppy mill.”
HSUS has focused many of its resources on Illinois, and recently named a new State Director, attorney Jordan Matyas. We have received confirmed reports that Rep. Fritchey is sending correspondence about this bill directly to Matyas, and the replies to constituents are coming directly from HSUS.
Propaganda for the bill makes it sound like legislation to stop poorly operated commercial kennels, which have been dubbed “puppy mills” by HSUS. However, the bill actually targets small scale hobby breeders of purebred dogs. Large commercial kennels already are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the State of Illinois, and all kennels are under the jurisdiction of state animal cruelty laws.
Matyas and his cronies also continue to spread their agenda of canine destruction in neighboring Wisconsin and Indiana, which are expected to see similar legislation very soon, and in the City of Chicago.
Chicago
We are receiving some indications that a strong response from dog owners and veterinarians has put a proposed citywide spay and neuter mandate on the ropes. This ordinance, which is focused on destroying hobbyists in the city, has been a top priority for HSUS, Matyas and their allies from the wealthy and powerfu l PAWS animal rights group in Chicago.
The animal rights groups were stung by support for dog owners from the Chicago Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) and the Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association (ISVMA), and also by research by the American Sporting Dog Alliance, which shows the incredible success of the city’s sheltering program. The success of Chicago’s animal shelters has come very close to the ideal of not killing any healthy and adoptable animals, and destroys much of the rationale for the ordinance.
The CVMA and ISVMA have taken strong and courageous stances against the proposed ordinance, as have several animal sheltering and rescue organizations. Here is a link to some of these position statements:
In essence, a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance compromises the relationship between a veterinarian and patient.
For government to mandate veterinarians to perform certain medical proc edures also is a violation of at least two provisions of the American Veterinary Medical Association Code of Ethics, as was a requirement in the original proposed ordinance that would require veterinarians to report people who own dogs that are not spayed or neutered, documents show.
In addition, many veterinarians and dog owners oppose universal spay/neuter mandates because much of the most recent research shows elevated risks of serious and potentially fatal medical conditions from pet sterilization, especially at an early age. Because of this, veterinarians believe that the decision should be made on an individual basis by weighing benefits and risks as part of the client/patient/veterinarian relationship.
Veterinarians and sheltering group leaders also say that the proposed ordinance is very divisive and will harm the kind of community support that is needed to continue with the success of Chicago’s animal shelter alliance.
Aldermen Ed Burke and Ginger Rugai proposed the ordinance, and HSUS, Matyas and PAWS are its major proponents.
PAWS has even attempted to use strong-arm tactics against the veterinarians, by strongly hinting that it will ask its supporters to boycott any individual veterinarian who doesn’t support the ordinance.
Because of the veterinarians’ opposition, HSUS and the two aldermen have backpedaled on some of the requirements of the initial proposal. A revised ordinance draft removes the requirement for veterinarians to turn in their patients who have not sterilized their pets. In other communities that have passed sterilization mandates, compliance with rabies vaccination and licensing laws has plummeted because of the requirement to report violations.
However, the revised ordinance has not changed the requirement for pet owners to prove that their animals have been sterilized to get a license. In other communities, this has caused a dramatic decrease in licensing revenues, and the Los Angeles animal control program has become bankrupted since a spay/neuter ordinance was passed a year ago, and doesn’t have enough money to enforce it or even to operate its animal shelters now.
Other changes in the revised ordinance are softened language about the alleged health benefits of sterilization (which has been seriously questioned by much recent research), a greater emphasis on preventing dog fighting and dog attacks (even though research indicates that this is questionable, at best), and the elimination of heavy fines for a third offense.
It is clear that the real purpose of the ordinance has nothing to do with its stated purposes. Instead, it is directed at law-abiding people who raise dogs.
Existing city ordinances prohibit allowing a dog to roam, and dog attacks would be addressed if they are enforced. It is not directed at dangerous dogs, as Illinois already has a strong dangerous dog law. Nor is it directed at dog fighting, as Illinois law makes this a felony, and only about seven percent of the dogs in America are from “pit bull” breeds and crosses. Nor is it directed against criminals and the drug culture, as an existing Illinois law forbids most convicted felons of possessing a dog that has not been spayed or neutered and microchipped, or which has been shown to be dangerous.
The ordinance is directed against law-abiding dog owners. It requires all dogs and cats20over six months of age to be sterilized. Exceptions are made for show and competition dogs, although the “Catch 22” is that no registry meets the requirements. A dog can be bred, but only if the owner is willing to pay a fee of $100 per dog, keep extensive paperwork and submit to a background check.
It also ignores the fact that 70-percent of the dogs in America already are sterilized.
And it ignores the fact that Chicago already has serious budget problems and cannot adequately fund the animal control and shelter program.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges Chicagoans to contact their alderman to voice opposition to this proposed ordinance. Here is a link to the web pages of each of the aldermen, where you will find contact information:
Also, please contact local organizers to coordinate with us and a newly forming Chicago group that is opposed to the ordinance. They are Karen Perry (ouilmette4@sbcglobal.net), Margo Milde (mrm1206@yahoo.com), Michele Smith (msmith@cmscrescue.com) and Ami Moore (DOGDORIGHT@aol.com).
We hope that Chicago City Council takes a long hard look at other cities that have passed spay/neuter mandates recently, such as Fort Worth, which saw rabies compliance plummet and rabies cases soar before it scrapped the ordinance; Louisville, which faces a federal lawsuit, and brutal home invasions to enforce the ordinance have led to the destruction of the private animal rescue network; several cities which saw shelter admissions and euthanasia rates soar while license revenues fell; and most of all20to Los Angeles (see below).
California
Animal rights groups in California were soundly defeated last year when they attempted to get a statewide law mandating pet sterilization, and its key proponent in the legislature was trounced in the November election. That’s not surprising, as a Parade Magazine poll last year showed that 91-percent of the people oppose sterilization mandates.
This year they are trying to take their failed doctrine to the local level again, starting with Santa Barbara and Riverside counties.
But they don’t want to talk about Los Angeles, which passed a spay/neuter mandate a year ago and created a disaster zone for animals and taxpayers alike. Since the ordinance was introduced, shelter admission and euthanasia rates have soared far beyond the level created by the mortgage foreclosure crisis, and declining license revenues have driven the city’s animal control agency into bankruptcy, documents show.
The situation has become so critical that Los Angeles Controller Laura Chick urged the mayor and city council to privatize the sheltering program, in a letter dated December 22, 2008. Chick pointed out that the animal control budget increased from $16.2 million in FY 2005-06 to $22 million in FY 2007-08, in order to pay operating expenses and the salaries of 300 employees. In addition, she wrote, the city is paying off bond issues to build and repair animal shelters at the rate of $12.4 million a year.
This is balanced against revenues of only $2.8 million, which now are in steep decline because of major losses in licensing revenues following the ordinance.
Widespread employee layoffs and animal shelter closures have been discussed, and Chick said no money is available to enforce the spay/neuter and other animal ordinances, or to perform many other public services.
Chick suggested turning the animal shelter program over to private nonprofit groups, which can operate them much more economi cally and efficiently, her letter shows. The city would provide the animal shelter facilities at no charge, and the private groups would operate them.
What happened in Los Angeles also underscores the murderous intent of animal rights groups toward dogs and cats. On one hand, it is widely documented that spay/neuter mandates invariably cause major increases in animal shelter admission and euthanasia rates for several years. They kill innocent dogs and cats unnecessarily!
But the current economic situation in California further underscores the brutality of the animal rights agenda.
At a time when many pet owners are losing their homes or facing job losses, anyone who cares about animals should be showing compassion for both dogs and their owners. Anyone who cares should be doing everything possible to keep pets in their homes, or to provide short-term fostering programs until people get back on their feet and can reunite with their pets.
Instead, Los Angeles has passed an ordinance that will make it much harder for people to keep their pets in a tough economy, or if they have lost their homes.
The dogs are paying the price.
In Los Angeles, passage of the ordinance reversed a 10-year-long rapid decline in shelter admission and euthanasia rates, and this needless destruction of a successful sheltering program has been exacerbated by the economic crisis.
Shelter admission and euthanasia rates continued to fall for the first six months of the most recent fiscal year, despite the rapidly worsening foreclosure crisis, but this progress was destroyed in the six months following the ordinance’s introduction by skyrocketing shelter admission and euthanasia rates.
Shelter admissions declined steadily from 34,692 in 2001-02 to 25,553 in 2006-07, but shot up 19-percent to 30,513 following passage of the ordinance. All of the increase occurred in the six months after the ordinance was introduced. Undoubtedly some of this increase is the result of the foreclosure crisis, but California’s housing economy has been in deep trouble for most of this pe riod when shelter rates continued to improve.
The euthanasia rate rose even more steeply since the ordinance was passed, by 22-percent, from 6,070 to 7,414. Once again, the entire increase occurred after the ordinance was introduced. This follows a steady decline from 17,509 in 2001-02 to 6,070 in 2006-07.
The good news is that adoptions increased by 30-percent and owner-reclaimed rates rose by 10-percent. But the bad news is the divisiveness of the ordinance within the animal welfare community, which caused rescues to decline somewhat in the six months after the ordinance was passed.
Santa Barbara
Now it’s Santa Barbara’s turn to face the brutality of the animal rights agenda, as a task force created to provide non-mandatory ways to reduce shelter populations and euthanasia has become a stacked deck of people who want to bring the failed and discredited policy of mandatory pet sterilization to=2 0this county. We hope the county supervisors are wise enough to learn from the mistakes of Los Angeles and several other cities.
Dog owners on the task force may get some help to counterbalance the presence of Dr. Ron Faoro, the group’s chairman. Faoro strongly supports mandatory pet sterilization and has rode roughshod over the committee on several occasions.
The guest speaker at the Feb.18 task force meeting will be noted California veterinarian John A. Hamil. Dr. Hamil, who has spent a lifetime studying animal shelter admission and euthanasia issues, is strongly opposed to spay and neuter mandates. Hamil says mandatory measures make the problems worse, not better, and also are undesirable or counterproductive for several other reasons.
Here is a link to Dr. Hamil’s views about the defeated statewide mandate: He is very articulate and knows what he is talking about.
Task force members have been denied access to needed statistical data to put shelter and euthanasia numbers in perspective. After several years of miraculous success, Santa Barbara’s sheltering system saw large increases in both shelter admissions and euthanasia rates in the past year. Those increases are generally attributed to the economy, and the foreclosure crisis has hit Santa Barbara especially hard.
Data has been concealed about why the euthanasia rate has increased by more than 2.5 times the admission rate in the first six months of 2008. Admissions went up by 554, or 14-percent, but euthanasia increased 313, or 35-percent.
This simply does not make sense, except as a deliberate policy decision to kill more animals. The situation is made even more inexplicable because owner redemptions increased by 4.9 percent and adoptions increased by 12-percent.
Data also has not been made available to allow analysis of the admissions rates, such as a projected increase in enforcement, and the actual reasons why owners=2 0are surrendering dogs. Effective decisions are not possible without this information, which is being kept from the task force and public by animal services department personnel.
All of the evidence shows that a spay/neuter mandate will make shelter and animal control problems worse during economic hard times when many people are losing their homes and jobs.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is preparing a strategy to address these economic problems compassionately and effectively. Our proposals will include tax credits and rebates for people who adopt dogs and cats from animal shelters and rescue groups, tax incentives for people who are willing to provide temporary foster care or rescue services for displaced pets, exempting people who foster or rescue from pet limit and other animal control laws, and changing state funding formulas to penalize shelter programs that kill healthy and adoptable animals when all other alternatives have not been explored.
Minnesota
Two years ago, Minnesota dog owners had a close call with devastating animal rights legislation that was narrowly defeated in the legislature.
It’s back, and HSUS is throwing its full weight behind it.
SF 7, introduced by Sen. Don Betzold (D-Fridley), has been introduced into the Senate Agriculture and Veterans Committee.
This bill exempts what it calls “hobby breeders,” which means someone who has fewer than six intact females over six months old.
But it includes most people who actually are hobby breeders in real life, most of whom own at least six intact females, even though they may not be used for breeding in any year. Numbers add up quickly when retired dogs, older puppies, dogs being evaluated, dogs in competition, hunting dogs, breeding dogs and just plain pets are counted.
Most hobby breeders would have to undergo e xtensive licensing investigations, inspections (possibly including a veterinarian, police officer or animal cruelty officer), license fees, paperwork, mandatory microchipping, and standards of care that are vaguely defined.
One standard of care is especially alarming, in that it gives the state the undefined and unlimited power to develop and enforce “additional standards the board considers necessary to protect the public health and welfare of animals….”
The law also gives the state the power to seize animals when undefined standards of care are not met, and provides civil penalties of up to $5,000 for each alleged deficiency. Criminal charges, fines and imprisonment also are provided for violations.
The right of appeal to a court of law is denied. Instead, an accused dog owner is allowed only an administrative hearing before the state agency that is prosecuting him or her.
Here is a link to the legislation:
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all Minnesotans to contact members of the Senate Agriculture and Veterans Committee to voice strong opposition. Here is a link to committee members and contact information: http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/committees/committee_bio.php?cmte_id=1001&ls=#members.
Colorado
Colorado dog owners face some restrictions under HB 1172, sponsored by Reps. Elizabeth McCann (D-Denver) and Randy Fischer (D-Larimer). HSUS and other animal rights groups are supporting the legislation.
This legislation requires licensing and inspection, limits the number of un sterilized dogs a person may own, and requires a veterinary examination before a dog can be bred.
No dog breeder (including hobby breeders, who are defined as someone who produces fewer than two litters of puppies a year) in Colorado will be able to own or keep more than 25 dogs over six months of age that are not spayed or neutered, if the legislation passes.
In addition, no one would be allowed to breed any dog without an annual veterinary examination and certification of suitable health.
Existing law also was amended to allow inspectors unrestrained access to a dog owner’s home, kennel, property and records at any time, day or night, upon consent of an “administrative” search warrant. An administrative warrant circumvents constitutional guarantees of court review of a search warrant application.
Here is a link to the text of this legislation:
HB 1172 is now before the House Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources Committee.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance asks Colorado dog owners to contact members of this committee to oppose this legislation as being needlessly intrusive and restrictive.
Committee members are: Representative Curry, Chairman; Representative Fischer, Vice-Chairman; Gardner C., Hullinghorst, Labuda, Looper, McKinley, McNulty, Pace, Solano, Sonnenberg, Tipton and Vigil
Here is a link to contact information for committee members and all other legislators:
Upcoming Legislation
Texas – Breaking news: McAllen, TX, is considering a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance. We have not had time to research this in depth, and will make a full report soon. Here is a link to a news article about it: However, McAllen is only the beginning. All Texas dog owners will face a fight this year. Animal rights groups, including several with direct ties to the ultra-radical People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and HSUS, are hoping to take their successes in Texas cities to the state level. Buoyed by their success in ramming through spay/neuter mandates in Dallas, Houston and San Antonio, they are backing a bill aimed at all dog breeding statewide. Several organizations, centered around the Texas Humane Legislation Network (THLN) are pressuring the Legislature to “study puppy mill issues,” and legislation is in the works to restrict dog breeding statewide. Supporters of dog breeding legislation always claim that it focuses on commercial kennels, which they call “puppy mills.” But the legislation invariably focuses much more on small hobby breeders in its actual text.
Wisconsin – Dog owners narrowly turned back highly restrictive breeding and lemon law legislation last year that would have devastated hobby breeding of purebred dogs. Animal rights groups have substantial support in the legislature, and have vowed to come back with an even tougher bill this year. Political gains in the Legislature by animal rights groups make Wisconsin ripe for a major push again this year. HSUS is pouring resources into the state.
Indiana – Kennel and breeding legislation is expected here following a major drive by HSUS in the Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan region. Billboards have been spotted in several places, and anti-breeder newspaper articles are proliferating.
Ohio – Dog owners were able to block legislation tightening animal control laws and another bill that would have destroyed hobby breeding in the Buckeye State. However, sponsors and supporters of this legislation vowed to reintroduce it early in the current session. They have stronger support in the Legislature now than they did last year, following the November election.
Michigan – Anti-breeder legislation is expected early here, following withdrawal of devastating legislation late last year after American Sporting Dog Alliance disclosures of the text of the bill, which had been hidden even from its sponsor.
Massachusetts – HSUS has announced that it will try again to get an anti-breeder law passed here.
Arizona – A major push is expected for mandatory spay/neuter legislation here. Residents are battling local legislation in several counties, as well.
New Mexico – Mandatory spay/neuter legislation and overly zealous enforcement of animal cruelty laws are expected here in 2009.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web. Our email is asda@csonline.net.
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS
The American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
Please Join Us
Dog Owners Triumph In VA And MT
Beware Bills Introduced In NJ, NY, ME, FL, MN, IL, CA, CO, VA, MT
And Expect Legislation Soon In TX, MA, WI, MI, IN, OH, OK, AZ, NM
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
This article is archived:
Dog owners will face unprecedented and potentially devastating challenges in 2009, and it will take dedication and commitment to protect our rights. Sitting on the sidelines simply is not an option. It will take standing up and making your voice count.
The radical Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), buoyed by the victories of 95% of the state and federal candidates it endorsed in the November general election, has struck quickly in 2009 with legislation in 10 states that would severely restrict the rights of dog owners. Our sources also tell us that HSUS-anointed legislation will be introduced shortly in at least nine more states.
HSUS has launched this full-court press in only three weeks, and dog owners must act quickly and decisively or they will be overwhelmed.
However, there is some good news. This week, dog owners won the first two rounds in Virginia and Montana with the sound defeat of mandatory spay/neuter and breed-specific legislation.
In Virginia, HSUS and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals were s trongly in support of Senate Bill 1151, which would have mandated the spaying or neutering of any dog taken to an animal shelter for a second time. The legislation was killed this week by the Senate Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources Committee by an 8-6 vote.
This bill would have had a strong impact on hunting dogs, especially, and would have opened the door to many animal rights group kidnappings of hunting and companion dogs. Animal rights group kidnappings are becoming more common, and their goal is to take dogs to distant animal shelters were they will be euthanized.
In Montana, HSUS attempted to ram through breed-specific legislation after its usual media bombardment of inflammatory news stories, but it was killed in committee by a 17-1 vote after a reported 150 dog owners attended a hearing to voice opposition. Only three people spoke in favor of the bill.
While breed-specific legislation most often is seen as about “pit bulls,” many local ordinances have extended it to several other breeds ranging from Rottweilers to German shepherds. Moreover, the American Sporting Dog Alliance is concerned about this kind of le gislation because we see hunting breeds as next on the list of HSUS targets. Animal rights group websites frequently and falsely portray hunting dogs as vicious, some states are seriously considering banning or restricting hunting with hounds, and all hunting breeds were targeted specifically in failed federal legislation just two years ago.
HSUS-inspired legislation introduced in eight other states would affect all people who raise dogs. Those states are New York, New Jersey, Maine, Florida, Minnesota, Colorado, Illinois and California. Legislation also will be introduced soon in Texas, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is taking an active and aggressive role to defeat this legislation, which takes aim at people who raise dogs as an avocation and reflects the HSUS agenda of working toward the complete elimination of domestic animal ownership in America. We are urging dog owners to join with us to work to defeat this dangerous legislation.
Here is a synopsis of the legislation that has been introduced in each state:
New York
It looks like HSUS has learned a new trick in New York and trying for a rerun on an old one.
Legislation has been introduced that would require every dog and every dog owner to complete certified obedience training as a condition of licensing. Another bill would mandate microchipping of all dogs in order to get a license for them. Assembly Member Jose Peralta (D-Queens) introduced both bills.
AB 1540 mandates obedience training and certification. No dog could be licensed without an obedience training certificate, and no owner could buy a dog license without undergoing training. Ironically, Peralta exempts residents of his own city from the legislation.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly opposes this kind of legislation, which places a substantial burden on dog owners, bears no relationship to the realities of most dog ownership, is a solution in search of a problem, will result in a decrease in rabies and licensing law compliance, and will cause many pets to be abandoned when their owners can’t afford the services of a certified school.
Obedience courses are not available in many rural areas, and certification inevitably leads toward favoritism toward certain methods of training that are not endorsed by many dog owners. In addition, many dog owners are skilled trainers themselves and have no need for such services.
In many urban areas, a basic obedience course costs $1,000 or more. No evidence is shown that would justify imposing this kind of burden on the vast majority of dog owners. Moreover, many people simply will not be able to afford to provide this kind of training, especially in today’s poor economy, and this will force people to abandon their pets or fly under the radar without licensing their dogs or obtaining rabies vaccinations.
Here is a link to the text of this bill:
The second bill, AB 255, requires all dogs in New York to be microchipped by the age of four months.
In addition, a state registry would be created for microchip data for every dog in the state and their owners.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly opposes mandatory microchipping, which is controversial among some dog owners. Other options are available, such as name tags or tattoos. We also strongly oppose creating a state registry, which allows animal control agencies to go on a “fishing expedition” to enforce a variety of other laws, and thus invades the privacy of everyone without cause.
Here is a link to the text of this bill:
Both bills have been referred to the Assembly’s Agriculture Committee. We urge New York dog owners to=2 0contact Agriculture Committee members to voice strong opposition. Here is a link to members of the committee:
We also are studying two other pieces of New York legislation.
The first is a bill redefining a “pet dealer” in a way that might lead to including hobby breeders. Last year, failed legislation would have brought all hobby breeders under strict “pet dealer” regulations. This year’s legislation creates some ambiguity in this regard, but basically does little to change the law. This alarms us, as it might lead to an attempt to make amendments on the floor similar to last year’s bill. Here is a link:
The second bill, AB 2069 would impose stringent regulations on boarding kennels, which include training kennels and day care services. It is a backdoor approach to regulation, because it is based on health code compliance (not on animal law) and requires health department inspection and certification.
We see much potential to harm kennel owners without any good reason from this approach, which also creates a new and cumbersome level of bureaucracy.
We are very alarmed that this legislation is both an attempt to redefine animal care as a public health issue, and to give health inspectors unrestricted access to kennels when there is no proof of any relationship between kennels and human health concerns in the community. We see it as an attempt to add another unjustified regulatory burden on kennel owners.
Here is a link to the legislation:
New Jersey
New Jersey dog owners=2 0are facing one of the toughest and most restrictive pieces of breeding legislation in history this year, and a second bill will have a heavy impact on lost hunting dogs.
Anyone who sells five or more dogs, cats, puppies or kittens in a year would have to be licensed and inspected as a commercial breeder and also as a pet dealer, which means facing Draconian restrictions and truly devastating fines and penalties.
That translates into a person having only one litter of puppies a year, in most cases. Even hobby breeding of the smallest possible scale would be unable to survive this legislation.
The legislation also pays snitches to turn in breeders, and the reward can be in the thousands of dollars.
AB 1591 is sponsored by Assemblywomen Joan M. Voss (D-Bergen) and Dawn Marie Addieggo (D-Burlington). It is before the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.
A breeder is defined as anyon e who sells five or more dogs and cats a year. A pet dealer is defined as anyone who sells even one dog or cat for use as pets. A breeding facility is defined as a building or kennel, including a home, where two or more dogs or cats are kept for breeding.
Those definitions snag up everyone who raises dogs, and many people who simply keep a couple of dogs for hunting or pets.
The law also prohibits anyone from selling more than 25 dogs and/or cats a year, and specifically bans brother-sister matings.
Every word in the bill is inspired by HSUS and its agenda to eliminate animal ownership in America.
Every breeder (that’s you) must register with the Department of Health, which the legislations specifically says will develop regulations and standards of care through working closely with the radical HSUS. The bill says that the regulations also will cover spaying and neutering. Specific care and kenneling requirements also are covered. Extensive paperwork, veterinary examinations, and guarantees to buyers also20are required. A veterinarian must inspect and perform stool tests on every dog or puppy no longer than 14 days before a sale.
Anyone who buys or sells a dog without the proper New Jersey license, or who violates any of the above provisions, is subject to civil penalties of up to $10,000, heavy fines and imprisonment.
Even a first offense for a minor technical violation will result in a $5,000 civil penalty, fines and a ban against selling a dog or cat for five years. Someone who buys a dog or cat from an unlicensed breeder faces a $1,000 penalty for the first offense.
Accused dog owners will be denied their constitutional right to a day in court. They will be allowed only an administrative hearing before the same agency that charged them.
A frightening provision is that anyone who turns in a breeder will get 10-percent of the civil penalty as a reward, but not less than $250. Snitching by animal rights fanatics could become full-time and lucrative jobs in New Jersey if this bill passes!
0A
Here is a link to the actual legislation:
The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly urges all New Jersey dog owners to contact members of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee to voice clear opposition to this terrible legislation, which will destroy a lifetime of work by many of the most dedicated and high quality hobby breeders in America.
Here is a link to the committee members’ contact information:
New Jersey dog owners also face a second piece of bad legislation, AB 1568, which requires all dogs taken to an animal shelter to be sterilized before they are reclaimed by their owners.
This legislation will have a strong impact if a dog gets lost while hunting and is taken to an animal shelter by a good Samaritan, is found by an animal control officer or is kidnapped by an animal rights activist.
Exemptions are possible only for currently active show dogs or show champions. No exemption is provided for field trial, performance or hunting dogs.
In addition, a dog can meet the requirements for being spayed only by having a tattoo put on its belly by a veterinarian.
AB 1568 is sponsored by Assemblywoman Linda R. Greenstein (D- Mercer and Middlesex). It’s committee assignment has not been published.
Here is a link to the text of AB 1568:
Maine
Maine’s animal control director, Norma Worley, has clearly established herself as a staunch supporter of animal rights who is pursuing a personal crusade against people who raise dogs. There have been numerous reports of confrontational approaches to dog owners and heavy-handed enforcement since Worley’s appointment, and her writing and comments quoted in newspapers closely echoes HSUS position papers. She also uses the same derogatory labels as HSUS to describe people who raise dogs.
Worley rammed restrictive draft legislation through a task force, and now has presented it to the Legislature. The task force made few changes in the draft legislation prepared by Worley, and she wrote a report to the Legislature that ignored the views of most dog ownership advocates and made it falsely appear that they concurred. The attached minority reports recommended even tougher laws, and the Maine Federation of Dog Clubs refused to submit a minority report because of the biased nature of the participants and process.
This legislation would strip away dog owners’ constitutional rights to due process and equal treatment under the law, and eliminate constitutional requirements for search warrants, seizure warrants and appeals to a court of law. It is typical of all HSUS-backed legislation, which is designed to reduce dog owners to the status of second-class citizens.
Dog and kennel owners also would have their license costs increased dramatically, in order to pay for hiring many more enforcement personnel and funding a bureaucracy that recklessly overspent its budget by $600,000 last year. Worley claims that this extra money was needed to care for dogs that were seized, but we can’t imagine how it would cost $600,000 to provide short-term care for fewer than 300 dogs and cats. That would be more than $2,000 per animal!
The draft legislation requires anyone who owns five or more dogs to get a kennel license and be inspected by the state. Hunting and field trial dogs were mentioned specifically in this requirement.
Anyone who owns more than five female dogs that have not been spayed would be classified as a breeding kennel, subject to intensive regulation and inspection. Hunting, show, sled dog and field trial kennels would be exempt from this requirement, but only if they are municipally licensed and offer fewer than 16 dogs for sale in the year.
Anyone who sells even one dog would be classified as a vendor. They are required to follow complex disclosure rules to buyers, offer contractual guarantees, and have a veterinarian examine each dog or puppy that is sold.
Please read Worley’s report and the proposed legislation, which is located about midway through the document:
Worley sent the proposed legislation to the Legislature’s Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee. The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging Maine dog owners to contact each member of this committee and tell them why you are opposed to the legislation. Here is a link that lists all committee members: Each name links to a page with contact information.
FLORIDA
Almost every dog and cat in Florida would have to be spayed or neutered under the terms of House Bill 451.
Sterilization would have to be done within 30 days of an animal reaching four months of age, which is an age that much recent research has shown may be medically dangerous.
The only exceptions would be for severe medical risks, or if a municipality passes an ordinance that allows dogs registered with an approved registry to be licensed as a show animal, an animal actively engaged in competition, a guide dog, or a dog used by police officers or the military. Certain registries, such as Field Dog Stud Book, have not been approved in any place that has mandatory spay/neuter laws.
No dog or cat could be bred in Florida, except by virtue of a county ordinance allowing the sale of a breeding permit.
In the absence of a county ordinance, no one could breed a dog or cat in Florida. However, the legislation also allows counties to impose more strict ordinances, and even to ban all dog breeding outright.
Stiff fines are provided, and a third offense becomes a misdemeanor charge with possible jail time.
The preamble to the bill, which describes the reason for it, is based on several faulty or inaccurate presumptions. None of the stated reasons have been documented, and much research contradicts several of them.
Florida’s legislative session officially begins in March, and it is not known at this time what committee will get HB 451. It was introduced by Rep. Scott Randolph, D-Orange County.
Here is a link to the actual legislation:
We also urge all Floridians to contact their own legislator and express your opposition to this legislation. Here is a link page for each legislator’s contact information:
Illinois
Illinois House Bill 0198 is one of the most repressive and malicious pieces of animal rights legislation ever introduced in America. It takes aim at people who are hobby breeders of hunting dogs and other breeds of purebred dogs.
Anyone who owns more than three intact females and sells puppies would be classi fied as a commercial breeding kennel, subject to high fees for licensure, rigorous inspections, the forfeiture of several constitutional protections, mandatory fingerprinting and criminal background checks by the state police and Federal Bureau of Investigation, forfeiture of the right to redress in a court of law, heavy loads of paperwork, unworkable standards of care, and the forcible invasion of personal and financial records.
In addition, no one would be permitted to keep or own more than 20 dogs that are not spayed or neutered. No dog could be bred unless it is inspected by a veterinarian. Also, people would not be able to raise a litter of puppies inside their home if other adult dogs are present. It would be illegal to keep more than three dogs together, which would apply to the number of dogs kept inside a home, ban the common practice of kenneling a pack of hounds together and eliminate large fenced lots to allow young dogs to get plenty of exercise.
There also is an ambiguous provision that requires the state to pass judgment on the “qualifications” of a kennel license applicant before issuing a license. This would be an entirely subjective judgment by the kennel inspector, as the legislation does not define adequate qualifications.
Only veterinarians could euthanize a dog, which causes terrible suffering and agony if a veterinarian cannot be located quickly.
Dog owners also could face heavy fines and loss of licenses for irrelevant violations, such as surface rust on wires, a few cobwebs, a knocked over water bowl or chipped paint. Temperature requirements would make it impossible for people to acclimate hunting, herding and performance dogs to weather conditions, thus creating danger for the dogs. Fine and civil penalties would multiply exponentially, and even minor offenses have the potential to destroy a dog owner financially and cause the loss of her or his home and lifetime savings.
The legislation also contains numerous powers to seize dogs, or to require their owners to turn them over to an animal shelter within seven days of license revocation, or if a dog owner is incorrectly licensed.
This legislation, which is clearly out of the HSUS playbook, is being sponsored by State Rep. John A. Fritchey (D-Chicago). It has been cosponsored by Reps. Angelo Saviano, Deborah Mell, Jack D. Franks, Daniel J. Burke, Greg Harris, Michael J. Zalewski, JoAnn D. Osmond, Keith Farnham, Lou Lang and Harry Osterman (click on a name for a link to a contact page). It’s Senate counterpart, SB 53, will be sponsored by Sen. Dan Kotowski (D- Mt. Prospect).
The bill has been referred to the House Rules Committee. The House has not yet completed committee assignments, and the names of committee members are not yet available.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges Illinois dog owners to contact their senator and representative to voice opposition to HB 0198 and SB 53 to voice their opposition. In addition, we ask dog owners to contact the bill’s cosponsors to ask them to withdraw their support for the legislation.
The bill’s formal name is the Dog Breeders License Act. HSUS and other animal rights groups are nicknaming it “Chloe’s Bill,” for a dog allegedly rescued from an Illinois “puppy mill.”
HSUS has focused many of its resources on Illinois, and recently named a new State Director, attorney Jordan Matyas. We have received confirmed reports that Rep. Fritchey is sending correspondence about this bill directly to Matyas, and the replies to constituents are coming directly from HSUS.
Propaganda for the bill makes it sound like legislation to stop poorly operated commercial kennels, which have been dubbed “puppy mills” by HSUS. However, the bill actually targets small scale hobby breeders of purebred dogs. Large commercial kennels already are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the State of Illinois, and all kennels are under the jurisdiction of state animal cruelty laws.
Matyas and his cronies also continue to spread their agenda of canine destruction in neighboring Wisconsin and Indiana, which are expected to see similar legislation very soon, and in the City of Chicago.
Chicago
We are receiving some indications that a strong response from dog owners and veterinarians has put a proposed citywide spay and neuter mandate on the ropes. This ordinance, which is focused on destroying hobbyists in the city, has been a top priority for HSUS, Matyas and their allies from the wealthy and powerfu l PAWS animal rights group in Chicago.
The animal rights groups were stung by support for dog owners from the Chicago Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) and the Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association (ISVMA), and also by research by the American Sporting Dog Alliance, which shows the incredible success of the city’s sheltering program. The success of Chicago’s animal shelters has come very close to the ideal of not killing any healthy and adoptable animals, and destroys much of the rationale for the ordinance.
The CVMA and ISVMA have taken strong and courageous stances against the proposed ordinance, as have several animal sheltering and rescue organizations. Here is a link to some of these position statements:
In essence, a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance compromises the relationship between a veterinarian and patient.
For government to mandate veterinarians to perform certain medical proc edures also is a violation of at least two provisions of the American Veterinary Medical Association Code of Ethics, as was a requirement in the original proposed ordinance that would require veterinarians to report people who own dogs that are not spayed or neutered, documents show.
In addition, many veterinarians and dog owners oppose universal spay/neuter mandates because much of the most recent research shows elevated risks of serious and potentially fatal medical conditions from pet sterilization, especially at an early age. Because of this, veterinarians believe that the decision should be made on an individual basis by weighing benefits and risks as part of the client/patient/veterinarian relationship.
Veterinarians and sheltering group leaders also say that the proposed ordinance is very divisive and will harm the kind of community support that is needed to continue with the success of Chicago’s animal shelter alliance.
Aldermen Ed Burke and Ginger Rugai proposed the ordinance, and HSUS, Matyas and PAWS are its major proponents.
PAWS has even attempted to use strong-arm tactics against the veterinarians, by strongly hinting that it will ask its supporters to boycott any individual veterinarian who doesn’t support the ordinance.
Because of the veterinarians’ opposition, HSUS and the two aldermen have backpedaled on some of the requirements of the initial proposal. A revised ordinance draft removes the requirement for veterinarians to turn in their patients who have not sterilized their pets. In other communities that have passed sterilization mandates, compliance with rabies vaccination and licensing laws has plummeted because of the requirement to report violations.
However, the revised ordinance has not changed the requirement for pet owners to prove that their animals have been sterilized to get a license. In other communities, this has caused a dramatic decrease in licensing revenues, and the Los Angeles animal control program has become bankrupted since a spay/neuter ordinance was passed a year ago, and doesn’t have enough money to enforce it or even to operate its animal shelters now.
Other changes in the revised ordinance are softened language about the alleged health benefits of sterilization (which has been seriously questioned by much recent research), a greater emphasis on preventing dog fighting and dog attacks (even though research indicates that this is questionable, at best), and the elimination of heavy fines for a third offense.
It is clear that the real purpose of the ordinance has nothing to do with its stated purposes. Instead, it is directed at law-abiding people who raise dogs.
Existing city ordinances prohibit allowing a dog to roam, and dog attacks would be addressed if they are enforced. It is not directed at dangerous dogs, as Illinois already has a strong dangerous dog law. Nor is it directed at dog fighting, as Illinois law makes this a felony, and only about seven percent of the dogs in America are from “pit bull” breeds and crosses. Nor is it directed against criminals and the drug culture, as an existing Illinois law forbids most convicted felons of possessing a dog that has not been spayed or neutered and microchipped, or which has been shown to be dangerous.
The ordinance is directed against law-abiding dog owners. It requires all dogs and cats20over six months of age to be sterilized. Exceptions are made for show and competition dogs, although the “Catch 22” is that no registry meets the requirements. A dog can be bred, but only if the owner is willing to pay a fee of $100 per dog, keep extensive paperwork and submit to a background check.
It also ignores the fact that 70-percent of the dogs in America already are sterilized.
And it ignores the fact that Chicago already has serious budget problems and cannot adequately fund the animal control and shelter program.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges Chicagoans to contact their alderman to voice opposition to this proposed ordinance. Here is a link to the web pages of each of the aldermen, where you will find contact information:
Also, please contact local organizers to coordinate with us and a newly forming Chicago group that is opposed to the ordinance. They are Karen Perry (ouilmette4@sbcglobal.net), Margo Milde (mrm1206@yahoo.com), Michele Smith (msmith@cmscrescue.com) and Ami Moore (DOGDORIGHT@aol.com).
We hope that Chicago City Council takes a long hard look at other cities that have passed spay/neuter mandates recently, such as Fort Worth, which saw rabies compliance plummet and rabies cases soar before it scrapped the ordinance; Louisville, which faces a federal lawsuit, and brutal home invasions to enforce the ordinance have led to the destruction of the private animal rescue network; several cities which saw shelter admissions and euthanasia rates soar while license revenues fell; and most of all20to Los Angeles (see below).
California
Animal rights groups in California were soundly defeated last year when they attempted to get a statewide law mandating pet sterilization, and its key proponent in the legislature was trounced in the November election. That’s not surprising, as a Parade Magazine poll last year showed that 91-percent of the people oppose sterilization mandates.
This year they are trying to take their failed doctrine to the local level again, starting with Santa Barbara and Riverside counties.
But they don’t want to talk about Los Angeles, which passed a spay/neuter mandate a year ago and created a disaster zone for animals and taxpayers alike. Since the ordinance was introduced, shelter admission and euthanasia rates have soared far beyond the level created by the mortgage foreclosure crisis, and declining license revenues have driven the city’s animal control agency into bankruptcy, documents show.
The situation has become so critical that Los Angeles Controller Laura Chick urged the mayor and city council to privatize the sheltering program, in a letter dated December 22, 2008. Chick pointed out that the animal control budget increased from $16.2 million in FY 2005-06 to $22 million in FY 2007-08, in order to pay operating expenses and the salaries of 300 employees. In addition, she wrote, the city is paying off bond issues to build and repair animal shelters at the rate of $12.4 million a year.
This is balanced against revenues of only $2.8 million, which now are in steep decline because of major losses in licensing revenues following the ordinance.
Widespread employee layoffs and animal shelter closures have been discussed, and Chick said no money is available to enforce the spay/neuter and other animal ordinances, or to perform many other public services.
Chick suggested turning the animal shelter program over to private nonprofit groups, which can operate them much more economi cally and efficiently, her letter shows. The city would provide the animal shelter facilities at no charge, and the private groups would operate them.
What happened in Los Angeles also underscores the murderous intent of animal rights groups toward dogs and cats. On one hand, it is widely documented that spay/neuter mandates invariably cause major increases in animal shelter admission and euthanasia rates for several years. They kill innocent dogs and cats unnecessarily!
But the current economic situation in California further underscores the brutality of the animal rights agenda.
At a time when many pet owners are losing their homes or facing job losses, anyone who cares about animals should be showing compassion for both dogs and their owners. Anyone who cares should be doing everything possible to keep pets in their homes, or to provide short-term fostering programs until people get back on their feet and can reunite with their pets.
Instead, Los Angeles has passed an ordinance that will make it much harder for people to keep their pets in a tough economy, or if they have lost their homes.
The dogs are paying the price.
In Los Angeles, passage of the ordinance reversed a 10-year-long rapid decline in shelter admission and euthanasia rates, and this needless destruction of a successful sheltering program has been exacerbated by the economic crisis.
Shelter admission and euthanasia rates continued to fall for the first six months of the most recent fiscal year, despite the rapidly worsening foreclosure crisis, but this progress was destroyed in the six months following the ordinance’s introduction by skyrocketing shelter admission and euthanasia rates.
Shelter admissions declined steadily from 34,692 in 2001-02 to 25,553 in 2006-07, but shot up 19-percent to 30,513 following passage of the ordinance. All of the increase occurred in the six months after the ordinance was introduced. Undoubtedly some of this increase is the result of the foreclosure crisis, but California’s housing economy has been in deep trouble for most of this pe riod when shelter rates continued to improve.
The euthanasia rate rose even more steeply since the ordinance was passed, by 22-percent, from 6,070 to 7,414. Once again, the entire increase occurred after the ordinance was introduced. This follows a steady decline from 17,509 in 2001-02 to 6,070 in 2006-07.
The good news is that adoptions increased by 30-percent and owner-reclaimed rates rose by 10-percent. But the bad news is the divisiveness of the ordinance within the animal welfare community, which caused rescues to decline somewhat in the six months after the ordinance was passed.
Santa Barbara
Now it’s Santa Barbara’s turn to face the brutality of the animal rights agenda, as a task force created to provide non-mandatory ways to reduce shelter populations and euthanasia has become a stacked deck of people who want to bring the failed and discredited policy of mandatory pet sterilization to=2 0this county. We hope the county supervisors are wise enough to learn from the mistakes of Los Angeles and several other cities.
Dog owners on the task force may get some help to counterbalance the presence of Dr. Ron Faoro, the group’s chairman. Faoro strongly supports mandatory pet sterilization and has rode roughshod over the committee on several occasions.
The guest speaker at the Feb.18 task force meeting will be noted California veterinarian John A. Hamil. Dr. Hamil, who has spent a lifetime studying animal shelter admission and euthanasia issues, is strongly opposed to spay and neuter mandates. Hamil says mandatory measures make the problems worse, not better, and also are undesirable or counterproductive for several other reasons.
Here is a link to Dr. Hamil’s views about the defeated statewide mandate: He is very articulate and knows what he is talking about.
Task force members have been denied access to needed statistical data to put shelter and euthanasia numbers in perspective. After several years of miraculous success, Santa Barbara’s sheltering system saw large increases in both shelter admissions and euthanasia rates in the past year. Those increases are generally attributed to the economy, and the foreclosure crisis has hit Santa Barbara especially hard.
Data has been concealed about why the euthanasia rate has increased by more than 2.5 times the admission rate in the first six months of 2008. Admissions went up by 554, or 14-percent, but euthanasia increased 313, or 35-percent.
This simply does not make sense, except as a deliberate policy decision to kill more animals. The situation is made even more inexplicable because owner redemptions increased by 4.9 percent and adoptions increased by 12-percent.
Data also has not been made available to allow analysis of the admissions rates, such as a projected increase in enforcement, and the actual reasons why owners=2 0are surrendering dogs. Effective decisions are not possible without this information, which is being kept from the task force and public by animal services department personnel.
All of the evidence shows that a spay/neuter mandate will make shelter and animal control problems worse during economic hard times when many people are losing their homes and jobs.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is preparing a strategy to address these economic problems compassionately and effectively. Our proposals will include tax credits and rebates for people who adopt dogs and cats from animal shelters and rescue groups, tax incentives for people who are willing to provide temporary foster care or rescue services for displaced pets, exempting people who foster or rescue from pet limit and other animal control laws, and changing state funding formulas to penalize shelter programs that kill healthy and adoptable animals when all other alternatives have not been explored.
Minnesota
Two years ago, Minnesota dog owners had a close call with devastating animal rights legislation that was narrowly defeated in the legislature.
It’s back, and HSUS is throwing its full weight behind it.
SF 7, introduced by Sen. Don Betzold (D-Fridley), has been introduced into the Senate Agriculture and Veterans Committee.
This bill exempts what it calls “hobby breeders,” which means someone who has fewer than six intact females over six months old.
But it includes most people who actually are hobby breeders in real life, most of whom own at least six intact females, even though they may not be used for breeding in any year. Numbers add up quickly when retired dogs, older puppies, dogs being evaluated, dogs in competition, hunting dogs, breeding dogs and just plain pets are counted.
Most hobby breeders would have to undergo e xtensive licensing investigations, inspections (possibly including a veterinarian, police officer or animal cruelty officer), license fees, paperwork, mandatory microchipping, and standards of care that are vaguely defined.
One standard of care is especially alarming, in that it gives the state the undefined and unlimited power to develop and enforce “additional standards the board considers necessary to protect the public health and welfare of animals….”
The law also gives the state the power to seize animals when undefined standards of care are not met, and provides civil penalties of up to $5,000 for each alleged deficiency. Criminal charges, fines and imprisonment also are provided for violations.
The right of appeal to a court of law is denied. Instead, an accused dog owner is allowed only an administrative hearing before the state agency that is prosecuting him or her.
Here is a link to the legislation:
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all Minnesotans to contact members of the Senate Agriculture and Veterans Committee to voice strong opposition. Here is a link to committee members and contact information: http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/committees/committee_bio.php?cmte_id=1001&ls=#members.
Colorado
Colorado dog owners face some restrictions under HB 1172, sponsored by Reps. Elizabeth McCann (D-Denver) and Randy Fischer (D-Larimer). HSUS and other animal rights groups are supporting the legislation.
This legislation requires licensing and inspection, limits the number of un sterilized dogs a person may own, and requires a veterinary examination before a dog can be bred.
No dog breeder (including hobby breeders, who are defined as someone who produces fewer than two litters of puppies a year) in Colorado will be able to own or keep more than 25 dogs over six months of age that are not spayed or neutered, if the legislation passes.
In addition, no one would be allowed to breed any dog without an annual veterinary examination and certification of suitable health.
Existing law also was amended to allow inspectors unrestrained access to a dog owner’s home, kennel, property and records at any time, day or night, upon consent of an “administrative” search warrant. An administrative warrant circumvents constitutional guarantees of court review of a search warrant application.
Here is a link to the text of this legislation:
HB 1172 is now before the House Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources Committee.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance asks Colorado dog owners to contact members of this committee to oppose this legislation as being needlessly intrusive and restrictive.
Committee members are: Representative Curry, Chairman; Representative Fischer, Vice-Chairman; Gardner C., Hullinghorst, Labuda, Looper, McKinley, McNulty, Pace, Solano, Sonnenberg, Tipton and Vigil
Here is a link to contact information for committee members and all other legislators:
Upcoming Legislation
Texas – Breaking news: McAllen, TX, is considering a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance. We have not had time to research this in depth, and will make a full report soon. Here is a link to a news article about it: However, McAllen is only the beginning. All Texas dog owners will face a fight this year. Animal rights groups, including several with direct ties to the ultra-radical People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and HSUS, are hoping to take their successes in Texas cities to the state level. Buoyed by their success in ramming through spay/neuter mandates in Dallas, Houston and San Antonio, they are backing a bill aimed at all dog breeding statewide. Several organizations, centered around the Texas Humane Legislation Network (THLN) are pressuring the Legislature to “study puppy mill issues,” and legislation is in the works to restrict dog breeding statewide. Supporters of dog breeding legislation always claim that it focuses on commercial kennels, which they call “puppy mills.” But the legislation invariably focuses much more on small hobby breeders in its actual text.
Wisconsin – Dog owners narrowly turned back highly restrictive breeding and lemon law legislation last year that would have devastated hobby breeding of purebred dogs. Animal rights groups have substantial support in the legislature, and have vowed to come back with an even tougher bill this year. Political gains in the Legislature by animal rights groups make Wisconsin ripe for a major push again this year. HSUS is pouring resources into the state.
Indiana – Kennel and breeding legislation is expected here following a major drive by HSUS in the Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan region. Billboards have been spotted in several places, and anti-breeder newspaper articles are proliferating.
Ohio – Dog owners were able to block legislation tightening animal control laws and another bill that would have destroyed hobby breeding in the Buckeye State. However, sponsors and supporters of this legislation vowed to reintroduce it early in the current session. They have stronger support in the Legislature now than they did last year, following the November election.
Michigan – Anti-breeder legislation is expected early here, following withdrawal of devastating legislation late last year after American Sporting Dog Alliance disclosures of the text of the bill, which had been hidden even from its sponsor.
Massachusetts – HSUS has announced that it will try again to get an anti-breeder law passed here.
Arizona – A major push is expected for mandatory spay/neuter legislation here. Residents are battling local legislation in several counties, as well.
New Mexico – Mandatory spay/neuter legislation and overly zealous enforcement of animal cruelty laws are expected here in 2009.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web. Our email is asda@csonline.net.
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS
The American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
Please Join Us
Saturday, January 24, 2009
MN-Breeder Bills up for Consideration on Jan.27
Friday, January 23, 2009]
Two Minnesota Senate proposals, SF 7 and SF 201, each featuring different breeder regulation proposals, will be heard on Tuesday, January 27, by the Senate Agriculture and Veterans Affairs Committee. It is vitally important that all responsible dog breeders and owners in Minnesota attend Tuesday’s committee hearing to express their positions on these bills or contact the committee members prior to the committee hearing to express their concerns with these bills.
SENATE FILE 7
Sponsored by Senator Don Betzold, SF 7 seeks to establish strict regulatory requirements for breeders, to require inspections of breeders’ facilities, and to impose undisclosed fee increases upon breeders. The proposed changes in this bill include:
Changing the definition of "breeder" to those who own 6 or more intact adult females, defined as any dog over 24 weeks old, for breeding purposes and who are engaged in the business of direct or indirect sale or exchange.
Limiting, by July 2010, the number of dogs a breeder may keep at a facility for the purpose of breeding to 50.
Requiring all breeders to obtain an annual license for each facility they own and operate. Additionally, the statement must include the number of adult dogs and the estimated number of puppies to be kept, housed, and maintained at the facility for the year. Licenses must be prominently displayed in each facility.
Mandating all breeders to pay an undisclosed fee to register their facility.
Calling for the annual inspection of each facility, with no advance notice required.
Imposing strict requirements for breeders beyond current federal and local laws and regulations.
If passed and signed into law, the changes proposed in this legislation would have a significant, negative impact on dog breeders in Minnesota. The changes proposed in Senate Bill 7 are impractical, costly, and unenforceable: Most importantly, will not improve the quality of life for dogs in Minnesota. It is imperative that breeders and concerned dog owners contact their senator and committee members to express their opposition to Senate Bill 7.
SENATE FILE 201
Sponsored by Senator Steve Dille, this bill seeks to provide for the registration of, and standards of care applicable to, dog and cat breeders in Minnesota. Substantially different from SF 7, SF 201 seeks to:
Permit animal control authorities to charge dog breeders unidentified "reasonable" fees for registration.
Define "breeder" as someone other than a hobby breeder, who is engaged in the business of breeding animals for sale and who possesses 20 or more intact adult females for the purposes of breeding.
Defines "hobby breeder" as someone who is engaged in the business of breeding animals for direct sale and who possesses less than 10 intact adult females for the purpose of breeding. It is unclear how those owning between 11-19 intact adult females would be regulated.
Require breeders to register, by March 1, 2010, with the local animal control authority. Registration is required every four years thereafter.
Allow breeders the option of complying with USDA care standards or complying with standards issued by the Commissioner of Agriculture.
Limit investigations to only those instances when a formal complaint alleging violations of standards of care is received by the Minnesota Board of Animal Health, a local animal control authority, a peace officer, or a feedlot inspector.
Allow breeders 30 days after notification to correct any violations found during an investigation.
Permit seizure of affected animals only in cases where a breeder has not corrected a violation after 30 days and only if such violations threaten the health and welfare of an animal.
AKC is concerned with several provisions contained in SF 201, including, but not limited to: the threshold discrepancy between the definitions to "breeder" and "hobby breeder"; the undetermined fee to be charged for dog breeders to register with local animal control authorities; and the potential that, if breeders opt to adhere to regulatory standards of care issued by the Commissioner, such standards may be unreasonable and onerous without public input.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Attend the Agriculture and Veterans Committee hearing on Tuesday, January 27, 2009, at 3:00 p.m. and express your positions on these bills. The hearing will be held at:
Minnesota State Capitol Building
Room 107
75 Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Contact your State Senator to express your opposition. To find your Senator, click here.
Contact the members of the Minnesota Senate Agriculture and Veterans Committee to express your opposition.
Chairman: Jim Vickerman
(651) 296-5650
Click here to contact Chairman Vickerman
Vice-Chair: Sharon Erickson Ropes
(651) 296-5649
sen.sharon.erickson.ropes@senate.mn
Ranking Minority Member: Steve Dille
(651) 296-4131
sen.steve.dille@senate.mn
Satveer Chaudhary
(651) 296-4334
sen.satveer.chaudhary@senate.mn
Lisa Fobbe
(651) 296-8075
sen.lisa.fobbe@senate.mn
Joe Gimse
(651) 296-3826
sen.joe.gimse@senate.mn
David Hann
(651) 296-1749
Click here to contact Senator Hann
Bill Ingebrigtsen
(651) 297-8063
sen.bill.ingebrigtsen@senate.mn
Paul Koering
(651) 296-4875
sen.paul.koering@senate.mn
Gary Kubly
(651) 296-5094
sen.gary.kubly@senate.mn
Keith Langseth
(651) 296-3205
Click here to contact Senator Langseth
Tony Lourey
(651) 296-0293
sen.tony.lourey@senate.mn
Steve Murphy
(651) 296-0293
Click here to contact Senator Murphy
Rod Skoe
(651) 296-4196
sen.rod.skoe@senate.mn
Dan Skogen
(651) 296-5655
sen.dan.skogen@senate.mn
Two Minnesota Senate proposals, SF 7 and SF 201, each featuring different breeder regulation proposals, will be heard on Tuesday, January 27, by the Senate Agriculture and Veterans Affairs Committee. It is vitally important that all responsible dog breeders and owners in Minnesota attend Tuesday’s committee hearing to express their positions on these bills or contact the committee members prior to the committee hearing to express their concerns with these bills.
SENATE FILE 7
Sponsored by Senator Don Betzold, SF 7 seeks to establish strict regulatory requirements for breeders, to require inspections of breeders’ facilities, and to impose undisclosed fee increases upon breeders. The proposed changes in this bill include:
Changing the definition of "breeder" to those who own 6 or more intact adult females, defined as any dog over 24 weeks old, for breeding purposes and who are engaged in the business of direct or indirect sale or exchange.
Limiting, by July 2010, the number of dogs a breeder may keep at a facility for the purpose of breeding to 50.
Requiring all breeders to obtain an annual license for each facility they own and operate. Additionally, the statement must include the number of adult dogs and the estimated number of puppies to be kept, housed, and maintained at the facility for the year. Licenses must be prominently displayed in each facility.
Mandating all breeders to pay an undisclosed fee to register their facility.
Calling for the annual inspection of each facility, with no advance notice required.
Imposing strict requirements for breeders beyond current federal and local laws and regulations.
If passed and signed into law, the changes proposed in this legislation would have a significant, negative impact on dog breeders in Minnesota. The changes proposed in Senate Bill 7 are impractical, costly, and unenforceable: Most importantly, will not improve the quality of life for dogs in Minnesota. It is imperative that breeders and concerned dog owners contact their senator and committee members to express their opposition to Senate Bill 7.
SENATE FILE 201
Sponsored by Senator Steve Dille, this bill seeks to provide for the registration of, and standards of care applicable to, dog and cat breeders in Minnesota. Substantially different from SF 7, SF 201 seeks to:
Permit animal control authorities to charge dog breeders unidentified "reasonable" fees for registration.
Define "breeder" as someone other than a hobby breeder, who is engaged in the business of breeding animals for sale and who possesses 20 or more intact adult females for the purposes of breeding.
Defines "hobby breeder" as someone who is engaged in the business of breeding animals for direct sale and who possesses less than 10 intact adult females for the purpose of breeding. It is unclear how those owning between 11-19 intact adult females would be regulated.
Require breeders to register, by March 1, 2010, with the local animal control authority. Registration is required every four years thereafter.
Allow breeders the option of complying with USDA care standards or complying with standards issued by the Commissioner of Agriculture.
Limit investigations to only those instances when a formal complaint alleging violations of standards of care is received by the Minnesota Board of Animal Health, a local animal control authority, a peace officer, or a feedlot inspector.
Allow breeders 30 days after notification to correct any violations found during an investigation.
Permit seizure of affected animals only in cases where a breeder has not corrected a violation after 30 days and only if such violations threaten the health and welfare of an animal.
AKC is concerned with several provisions contained in SF 201, including, but not limited to: the threshold discrepancy between the definitions to "breeder" and "hobby breeder"; the undetermined fee to be charged for dog breeders to register with local animal control authorities; and the potential that, if breeders opt to adhere to regulatory standards of care issued by the Commissioner, such standards may be unreasonable and onerous without public input.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Attend the Agriculture and Veterans Committee hearing on Tuesday, January 27, 2009, at 3:00 p.m. and express your positions on these bills. The hearing will be held at:
Minnesota State Capitol Building
Room 107
75 Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Contact your State Senator to express your opposition. To find your Senator, click here.
Contact the members of the Minnesota Senate Agriculture and Veterans Committee to express your opposition.
Chairman: Jim Vickerman
(651) 296-5650
Click here to contact Chairman Vickerman
Vice-Chair: Sharon Erickson Ropes
(651) 296-5649
sen.sharon.erickson.ropes@senate.mn
Ranking Minority Member: Steve Dille
(651) 296-4131
sen.steve.dille@senate.mn
Satveer Chaudhary
(651) 296-4334
sen.satveer.chaudhary@senate.mn
Lisa Fobbe
(651) 296-8075
sen.lisa.fobbe@senate.mn
Joe Gimse
(651) 296-3826
sen.joe.gimse@senate.mn
David Hann
(651) 296-1749
Click here to contact Senator Hann
Bill Ingebrigtsen
(651) 297-8063
sen.bill.ingebrigtsen@senate.mn
Paul Koering
(651) 296-4875
sen.paul.koering@senate.mn
Gary Kubly
(651) 296-5094
sen.gary.kubly@senate.mn
Keith Langseth
(651) 296-3205
Click here to contact Senator Langseth
Tony Lourey
(651) 296-0293
sen.tony.lourey@senate.mn
Steve Murphy
(651) 296-0293
Click here to contact Senator Murphy
Rod Skoe
(651) 296-4196
sen.rod.skoe@senate.mn
Dan Skogen
(651) 296-5655
sen.dan.skogen@senate.mn
Friday, January 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.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
MN- Problematic "Dangerous Dog" Bill
Problematic Dangerous Dog Bill Introduced in Minnesota
[Wednesday, February 20, 2008]
Minnesota House File 3245, sponsored by Representative Dennis Ozment, seeks to lift the state's current prohibition on breed-specific legislation. If passed and signed into law, the changes imposed by this bill would have a profound impact on all dog owners in Minnesota. It is imperative that all dog owners and breeders in Minnesota contact the members of the House Public Safety and Civil Justice Committee to express their opposition to the bill as currently written.
The American Kennel Club (AKC) supports reasonable, enforceable, non-discriminatory laws to govern the ownership of dogs. We support laws that: establish a fair process by which specific dogs are identified as "dangerous" based on stated, measurable actions; impose appropriate penalties on irresponsible owners; and establish a well-defined method for dealing with dogs proven to be dangerous. The AKC strongly opposes any legislation that determines a dog to be "dangerous" based on specific breeds or phenotypic classes of dogs.
As currently worded, HF 3245 conflicts with AKC's reasonable, non-discriminatory dangerous dog position. Specifically, it would:
Establish a task force to study and recommend a uniform, statewide, mandatory system of dog owner and dog obedience education training according to commonly accepted standards and best practices for each breed or mixed breed of dog.
Allow all statutory or home rule charter cities, or counties, to recommend to the task force specific breeds of dogs to be designated as dangerous or potentially dangerous based solely on the specific breed of dog.
For a copy of the bill, click here.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Contact the members of the Minnesota House Public Safety and Civil Justice Committee who will consider this bill. Let them know that, if passed as currently written, HF 3245 will result in unfair and discriminatory dangerous dog policy in Minnesota.
Representative Joe Mullery, Chairman
(651) 296-4262
rep.joe.mullery@house.mn
Representative Jeremy Kalin, Vice Chairman
(651) 296-5377
rep.jeremy.kalin@house.mn
Representative Paul Kohls
(651) 296-4282
rep.paul.kohls@house.mn
Representative Karla Bigham
(651) 296-4342
rep.karla.bigham@house.mn
Representative Tony Cornish
(651) 296-4240
rep.tony.cornish@house.mn
Representative Chris DeLaForest
(651) 296-4231
rep.chris.delaforest@house.mn
Representative Tom Emmer
(651) 296-4336
rep.tom.emmer@house.mn
Representative Debra Hilstrom
(651) 296-3709
rep.debra.hilstom@house.mn
Representative Mary Liz Holberg
(651) 296-6926
rep.mayliz.holberg@house.mn
Representative Sheldon Johnson
(651) 296-4201
rep.sheldon.johnson@house.mn
Representative Scott Kranz
(651) 296-4226
rep.scott.kranz@house.mn
Representative John Lesch
(651) 296-4224
rep.john.lesch@house.mn
Representative Leon Lillie
(651) 296-1188
rep.leon.lillie@house.mn
Representative Dave Olin
(651) 296-9635
rep.dave.olin@house.mn
Representative Michael Paymar
(651) 296-4199
rep.michael.paymar@house.mn
Representative Brita Sailer
(651) 296-4265
rep.brita.sailer@house.mn
Representative Steve Simon
(651) 296-9889
rep.steve.simon@house.mn
Representative Steve Smith
(651) 296-9188
rep.steve.smith@house.mn
Representative Torrey Westrom
(651) 296-4929
rep.torrey.westrom@house.mn
For more information, contact AKC's Canine Legislation Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.
[Wednesday, February 20, 2008]
Minnesota House File 3245, sponsored by Representative Dennis Ozment, seeks to lift the state's current prohibition on breed-specific legislation. If passed and signed into law, the changes imposed by this bill would have a profound impact on all dog owners in Minnesota. It is imperative that all dog owners and breeders in Minnesota contact the members of the House Public Safety and Civil Justice Committee to express their opposition to the bill as currently written.
The American Kennel Club (AKC) supports reasonable, enforceable, non-discriminatory laws to govern the ownership of dogs. We support laws that: establish a fair process by which specific dogs are identified as "dangerous" based on stated, measurable actions; impose appropriate penalties on irresponsible owners; and establish a well-defined method for dealing with dogs proven to be dangerous. The AKC strongly opposes any legislation that determines a dog to be "dangerous" based on specific breeds or phenotypic classes of dogs.
As currently worded, HF 3245 conflicts with AKC's reasonable, non-discriminatory dangerous dog position. Specifically, it would:
Establish a task force to study and recommend a uniform, statewide, mandatory system of dog owner and dog obedience education training according to commonly accepted standards and best practices for each breed or mixed breed of dog.
Allow all statutory or home rule charter cities, or counties, to recommend to the task force specific breeds of dogs to be designated as dangerous or potentially dangerous based solely on the specific breed of dog.
For a copy of the bill, click here.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Contact the members of the Minnesota House Public Safety and Civil Justice Committee who will consider this bill. Let them know that, if passed as currently written, HF 3245 will result in unfair and discriminatory dangerous dog policy in Minnesota.
Representative Joe Mullery, Chairman
(651) 296-4262
rep.joe.mullery@house.mn
Representative Jeremy Kalin, Vice Chairman
(651) 296-5377
rep.jeremy.kalin@house.mn
Representative Paul Kohls
(651) 296-4282
rep.paul.kohls@house.mn
Representative Karla Bigham
(651) 296-4342
rep.karla.bigham@house.mn
Representative Tony Cornish
(651) 296-4240
rep.tony.cornish@house.mn
Representative Chris DeLaForest
(651) 296-4231
rep.chris.delaforest@house.mn
Representative Tom Emmer
(651) 296-4336
rep.tom.emmer@house.mn
Representative Debra Hilstrom
(651) 296-3709
rep.debra.hilstom@house.mn
Representative Mary Liz Holberg
(651) 296-6926
rep.mayliz.holberg@house.mn
Representative Sheldon Johnson
(651) 296-4201
rep.sheldon.johnson@house.mn
Representative Scott Kranz
(651) 296-4226
rep.scott.kranz@house.mn
Representative John Lesch
(651) 296-4224
rep.john.lesch@house.mn
Representative Leon Lillie
(651) 296-1188
rep.leon.lillie@house.mn
Representative Dave Olin
(651) 296-9635
rep.dave.olin@house.mn
Representative Michael Paymar
(651) 296-4199
rep.michael.paymar@house.mn
Representative Brita Sailer
(651) 296-4265
rep.brita.sailer@house.mn
Representative Steve Simon
(651) 296-9889
rep.steve.simon@house.mn
Representative Steve Smith
(651) 296-9188
rep.steve.smith@house.mn
Representative Torrey Westrom
(651) 296-4929
rep.torrey.westrom@house.mn
For more information, contact AKC's Canine Legislation Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.
MN- "Breeders Bills" moving Forward
Minnesota Breeders Bills Moving Forward
[Wednesday, February 20, 2008]
Minnesota House Bill 2469, known as the Dog and Cat Breeders Act, passed the House Committee on Public Safety and Criminal Justice by a vote of 8-7 on Tuesday, February 19. It is expected to be heard by the House Agriculture, Rural Economies, and Veterans Affairs Finance Division committee soon. Its companion in the Senate, Senate Bill 2292, will be heard in the Senate Agriculture and Veterans committee Tuesday, February 26 at 3 PM in Room 107 of the State Office Building.
These bills seek to establish breeder licensing and would require inspection of all “kennels.” They also seek to establish standards of care that are unproven, many of which would be significant burdens on responsible breeders. If passed and signed into law, the changes imposed by these bills would have a profound negative impact on dog breeders in Minnesota. It is imperative that breeders and concerned dog owners contact their Representative, Senator, the committee chairmen, and the committee members to express their opposition.
The American Kennel Club strongly supports humane treatment of dogs, including an adequate and nutritious diet, clean water, clean living conditions, regular veterinary care, kind and responsive human companionship, and training in appropriate behavior. However, many of the changes proposed by HB 2469 and SB 2292 are impractical, unenforceable, and costly. Most importantly, the quality of life for dogs in Minnesota will not improve because of the provisions of this bill. Instead, enactment of this law will create greater burdens for responsible breeders and many will be forced to stop breeding altogether.
For example, the proposed set of laws would require the following;
Any breeder with six or more intact adult females will be forced to comply with the requirements of HB 2469 and SB 2292. An adult dog is defined as one who is 24 weeks of age or older. This threshold is both arbitrary and overreaching as it does not focus on the number of litters or puppies produced and sold.
In addition to annual renewal applications and their associated fees, breeders must also submit annual reports to the Minnesota Board of Animal Health.
It will be almost impossible for smaller breeders and dog owners who maintain their dogs in their own residential premises to comply with the unreasonable building standards required by HB 2469 and SB 2292.
HB 2469 and SB 2292 will require an annual inspection of any premises deemed to be a kennel. The inspection may be conducted with no notice.
Animals may not be tethered or leashed as a means of confinement.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Attend the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Veterans meeting and express your opposition to SB 2292. The committee will consider the bill Tuesday, February 26 at 3:00PM, in Room 107 of the State Office Building, 110 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd, Saint Paul, MN 55155.
Contact your Representative to express your opposition. To find your Representative, click here.
Contact your Senator to express your opposition. To find your Senator, click here.
Contact the members of Minnesota Senate Agriculture and Veterans Committee.
Chair: Jim Vickerman
296-5650
sen.jim.vickerman@senate.mn
Vice Chair: Sharon L. Erickson Ropes
296-5649
sen.sharon.erickson.ropes@senate.mn
Ranking Minority Member: Steve Dille
296-4131
sen.steve.dille@senate.mn
Satveer S. Chaudhary
296-4334
sen.satveer.chaudhary@senate.mn
Joe Gimse
296-3826
sen.joe.gimse@senate.mn
David W. Hann
296-1749
sen.david.hann@senate.mn
Bill G. Ingebrigtsen
297-8063
sen.bill.ingebrigtsen@senate.mn
Paul E. Koering
296-4875
sen.paul.koering@senate.mn
Gary W. Kubly
296-5094
sen.gary.kubly@senate.mn
Keith Langseth
296-3205
sen.keith.langseth@senate.mn
Tony Lourey
296-0293
sen.tony.lourey@senate.mn
Steve Murphy
296-4264
sen.steve.murphy@senate.mn
Rod Skoe
296-4196
sen.rod.skoe@senate.mn
Dan Skogen
296-5655
sen.dan.skogen@senate.mn
Betsy L. Wergin
296-8075
sen.betsy.wergin@senate.mn
Contact the members of the Minnesota House Agriculture, Rural Economies, and Veterans Affairs Finance Division Committee on who will consider this bill.
Chair: Mary Ellen Otremba (DFL)
296-3201
rep.maryellen.otremba@house.mn
Vice Chair: Tim Faust (DFL)
296-0518
rep.tim.faust@house.mn
Lead-GOP: Rod Hamilton (R)
296-5373
rep.rod.hamilton@house.mn
Robin Brown (DFL)
296-8216
rep.robin.brown@house.mn
Al Doty (DFL)
296-4247
rep.al.doty@house.mn
Steve Drazkowski (R)
296-2273
rep.steve.drazkowski@house.mn
Kent Eken (DFL)
296-9918
rep.kent.eken@house.mn
Brad Finstad (R)
296-9303
rep.brad.finstad@house.mn
Larry Hosch (DFL)
296-4373
rep.larry.hosch@house.mn
Al Juhnke (DFL)
296-6206
rep.al.juhnke@house.mn
Terry Morrow (DFL)
296-8634
rep.terry.morrow@house.mn
Ron Shimanski (R)
296-1534
rep.ron.shimanski@house.mn
Dean Urdahl (R)
296-4344
rep.dean.urdahl@house.mn
For more information and regular updates, please check www.akc.org. To contact AKC's Canine Legislation Department call (919) 816-3720 or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.
[Wednesday, February 20, 2008]
Minnesota House Bill 2469, known as the Dog and Cat Breeders Act, passed the House Committee on Public Safety and Criminal Justice by a vote of 8-7 on Tuesday, February 19. It is expected to be heard by the House Agriculture, Rural Economies, and Veterans Affairs Finance Division committee soon. Its companion in the Senate, Senate Bill 2292, will be heard in the Senate Agriculture and Veterans committee Tuesday, February 26 at 3 PM in Room 107 of the State Office Building.
These bills seek to establish breeder licensing and would require inspection of all “kennels.” They also seek to establish standards of care that are unproven, many of which would be significant burdens on responsible breeders. If passed and signed into law, the changes imposed by these bills would have a profound negative impact on dog breeders in Minnesota. It is imperative that breeders and concerned dog owners contact their Representative, Senator, the committee chairmen, and the committee members to express their opposition.
The American Kennel Club strongly supports humane treatment of dogs, including an adequate and nutritious diet, clean water, clean living conditions, regular veterinary care, kind and responsive human companionship, and training in appropriate behavior. However, many of the changes proposed by HB 2469 and SB 2292 are impractical, unenforceable, and costly. Most importantly, the quality of life for dogs in Minnesota will not improve because of the provisions of this bill. Instead, enactment of this law will create greater burdens for responsible breeders and many will be forced to stop breeding altogether.
For example, the proposed set of laws would require the following;
Any breeder with six or more intact adult females will be forced to comply with the requirements of HB 2469 and SB 2292. An adult dog is defined as one who is 24 weeks of age or older. This threshold is both arbitrary and overreaching as it does not focus on the number of litters or puppies produced and sold.
In addition to annual renewal applications and their associated fees, breeders must also submit annual reports to the Minnesota Board of Animal Health.
It will be almost impossible for smaller breeders and dog owners who maintain their dogs in their own residential premises to comply with the unreasonable building standards required by HB 2469 and SB 2292.
HB 2469 and SB 2292 will require an annual inspection of any premises deemed to be a kennel. The inspection may be conducted with no notice.
Animals may not be tethered or leashed as a means of confinement.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Attend the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Veterans meeting and express your opposition to SB 2292. The committee will consider the bill Tuesday, February 26 at 3:00PM, in Room 107 of the State Office Building, 110 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd, Saint Paul, MN 55155.
Contact your Representative to express your opposition. To find your Representative, click here.
Contact your Senator to express your opposition. To find your Senator, click here.
Contact the members of Minnesota Senate Agriculture and Veterans Committee.
Chair: Jim Vickerman
296-5650
sen.jim.vickerman@senate.mn
Vice Chair: Sharon L. Erickson Ropes
296-5649
sen.sharon.erickson.ropes@senate.mn
Ranking Minority Member: Steve Dille
296-4131
sen.steve.dille@senate.mn
Satveer S. Chaudhary
296-4334
sen.satveer.chaudhary@senate.mn
Joe Gimse
296-3826
sen.joe.gimse@senate.mn
David W. Hann
296-1749
sen.david.hann@senate.mn
Bill G. Ingebrigtsen
297-8063
sen.bill.ingebrigtsen@senate.mn
Paul E. Koering
296-4875
sen.paul.koering@senate.mn
Gary W. Kubly
296-5094
sen.gary.kubly@senate.mn
Keith Langseth
296-3205
sen.keith.langseth@senate.mn
Tony Lourey
296-0293
sen.tony.lourey@senate.mn
Steve Murphy
296-4264
sen.steve.murphy@senate.mn
Rod Skoe
296-4196
sen.rod.skoe@senate.mn
Dan Skogen
296-5655
sen.dan.skogen@senate.mn
Betsy L. Wergin
296-8075
sen.betsy.wergin@senate.mn
Contact the members of the Minnesota House Agriculture, Rural Economies, and Veterans Affairs Finance Division Committee on who will consider this bill.
Chair: Mary Ellen Otremba (DFL)
296-3201
rep.maryellen.otremba@house.mn
Vice Chair: Tim Faust (DFL)
296-0518
rep.tim.faust@house.mn
Lead-GOP: Rod Hamilton (R)
296-5373
rep.rod.hamilton@house.mn
Robin Brown (DFL)
296-8216
rep.robin.brown@house.mn
Al Doty (DFL)
296-4247
rep.al.doty@house.mn
Steve Drazkowski (R)
296-2273
rep.steve.drazkowski@house.mn
Kent Eken (DFL)
296-9918
rep.kent.eken@house.mn
Brad Finstad (R)
296-9303
rep.brad.finstad@house.mn
Larry Hosch (DFL)
296-4373
rep.larry.hosch@house.mn
Al Juhnke (DFL)
296-6206
rep.al.juhnke@house.mn
Terry Morrow (DFL)
296-8634
rep.terry.morrow@house.mn
Ron Shimanski (R)
296-1534
rep.ron.shimanski@house.mn
Dean Urdahl (R)
296-4344
rep.dean.urdahl@house.mn
For more information and regular updates, please check www.akc.org. To contact AKC's Canine Legislation Department call (919) 816-3720 or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)