The Chicago City Council is meeting to consider a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance requiring all dogs and cats to be spayed or neutered unless the animal qualifies for a specific exemption.
Passage of this ordinance will negatively impact responsible dog breeders and owners. It will make it almost impossible for Chicago residents to purchase a healthy, well-bred pet from a local breeder.
The ordinance will require that all dogs cats and over the age of six months be spayed or neutered unless they qualify for one of the following exemptions:
* A licensed veterinarian certifies that the animal’s health would best be served by spaying/neutering after a specified date, or that due to age or poor health it is unsafe to sterilize the animal at this time.
* The owner of the dog or cat has a valid $100 breeding permit.
Applicants are required to undergo a criminal background check.
Residents are permitted to whelp only 1 litter per year unless they receive a special exemption from the commission. A separate permit is still required for each animal, even if it is not being bred that year.
This permit is in addition to the $50 intact license fee.
The breeding permit number must be displayed in any advertisement for sale.
Breeders are required to provide contact information for new owners to the city and to present the new owner with an application for a pet license.
* The dog or cat is registered with a registry approved by the commission and is kept for the purposes of competing in legitimate shows or competitions. (It is unclear how an owner would demonstrate this.)
* The dog has earned, or is actively being trained and is in the process of earning an agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, hunting, working or other title from an approved registry or association. (It is unclear how a resident would prove an animal is being “trained.”)
* The dog is trained or in the process of being trained as a guide, signal or service dog or is enrolled in a licensed breeding program for these activities.
* The dog is trained or in the process of being trained and is actively used by law enforcement agencies or the military.
The ordinance makes a variety of findings, many of which are related to dangerous dogs and dog fighting. It is not reasonable to believe that individuals who are engaging in dog fighting, which is a felony under Illinois state law, would comply with animal control regulations, the violation of which generates only the issuance of a citation. Enactment of this ordinance would only serve to punish responsible dog owners and breeders for a problem they did not create.
The proposal allows animals to be impounded simply because they are not sterilized, a situation that is likely to increase the number of animals in shelters, not decrease it. To reclaim an animal it must be sterilized and microchipped and the owner must pay the full costs of those procedures in addition to penalties. Again, this is likely to force more abandonments and increase shelter populations.
What You Can Do
IT'S NOT TOO LATE TO CONTACT ALDERMAN ED BURKE- WRITE OR CALL HIM NOW.
a vote by the Chicago City Council's Finance Committee, in consideration of a proposed mandatory spay/neuter ordinance, was put off by committee chairman Alderman Ed Burke. After several hours of testimony, Alderman Burke delayed a vote to allow more testimony to be heard. No new hearing date has been set.
Chicago residents, send a letter to the Alderman who represents your district. Remember that this letter must be personalized and you need to include your full name and mailing address so you will be recognized as a constituent. To find out who represents you, please click here.
Fanciers who have traveled to Chicago to attend dog events, please personalize this sample letter and send it to the authors, Aldermen Burke and Rugai as well as Alderman Schulter, Chair of the Committee on Licensing and Consumer Protection.
Club Officers please have your club author a letter opposing this ordinance and send it to the Aldermen listed below. A sample letter to personalize can be found here.
Contact Information for the Aldermen Burke, Rugai and Schulter
Alderman Edward Burke
Chair, Committee on Finance
121 N. LaSalle St., Room 302
Chicago, IL 60602
eburke@cityofchicago.org
FAX: (312) 744-1955
Alderman Virginia Rugai
121 N. LaSalle St., Room 300
Chicago, IL 60602
vrugai@cityofchicago.org
FAX: 773- 238-9049
Alderman Eugene Schulter
Chair, Committee on License and Consumer Protection
121 N. LaSalle St., Room 300
Chicago, IL 60602
ward47@cityofchicago.org
FAX: 312-744-1509
Monday, August 4, 2008
Thursday, July 24, 2008
PETA - what do they really want?
If you give money to this organization, you need to watch this video to the end (15 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19ijLulwUTY
This video contains adult language.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19ijLulwUTY
This video contains adult language.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Letter to Sen. Bob Casey- D (PA)
Senator Bob Casey March 1, 2007
Dear Senator Casey,
Re. Changes to Dog Laws
I am writing to you to address my concern over the recent trend in changes to dog laws across the country, and Pennsylvania specifically. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendel has proposed changes to the dog laws in Pennsylvania that would affect far more than just the “puppy mills” that he vocally opposes. These proposed changes are currently in the comment period and I, along with countless other dog fanciers, are working to fight the changes that have been proposed.
At a time in history where the “threat of terrorism” is behind every door, it is painfully obvious that Americans can still terrorize each other as “special interest groups”- in this case the “Animal Rights” groups. Vice President Chaney stated, “Our way of life is not negotiable”- did he mean oil only? Or is my way of life, raising quality dogs in my home, protected too? I urge you to help stop domestic terrorism that threatens American’s ability to live freely without injury to others. My dogs are not a threat to anyone, but this type of legislation is a threat to my quality of life and the quality of life that my dogs currently enjoy.
Your predecessor, Senator Rick Santorum, had proposed similar legislation, SB 1139 called the Pet Animal Welfare Statute (PAWS) and before that he proposed the “The Puppy Protection Act”, both of which received nationwide opposition. Organized kennel clubs around the state (and around the country) worked to support you and vote out Senator Santorum over his proposal and support of this legislation. It has become obvious that this issue is by-partisan. I am a registered Democrat, however I can not support any Democrat that supports this type of social over regulation that has no bearing on public health and safety.
As a dog breeder and life long dog enthusiast, I do think that dogs produced in “commercial” dog kennels, i.e. kennels producing dogs for profit and the purpose of resale only, often have deplorable conditions. Our country prides itself on the “market economy”. If the public continues to support such conditions by purchasing these animals, then these “commercial” kennels will continue to exist. The buying public should demand better. Current proposed legislation intends to improve the living conditions of these poor dogs, however, they miss the mark and will not in fact accomplish that goal, but will instead, support only the commercial kennel that can jump through the hoops and will eliminate the hobby breeder who genuinely cares about the dogs. This will reduce the choices of the buying public and impede the “market economy”.
I have included a copy of the Pennsylvania proposed changes along with my concerns (found in red on the document) and letters that I have written to my local Senator, Representative, and the Dog Czar. I met with PA Senator Jake Corman and PA Representative Adam Harris in person to discuss my concerns about this issue.
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Sincerely, Cadie Pruss
Dear Senator Casey,
Re. Changes to Dog Laws
I am writing to you to address my concern over the recent trend in changes to dog laws across the country, and Pennsylvania specifically. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendel has proposed changes to the dog laws in Pennsylvania that would affect far more than just the “puppy mills” that he vocally opposes. These proposed changes are currently in the comment period and I, along with countless other dog fanciers, are working to fight the changes that have been proposed.
At a time in history where the “threat of terrorism” is behind every door, it is painfully obvious that Americans can still terrorize each other as “special interest groups”- in this case the “Animal Rights” groups. Vice President Chaney stated, “Our way of life is not negotiable”- did he mean oil only? Or is my way of life, raising quality dogs in my home, protected too? I urge you to help stop domestic terrorism that threatens American’s ability to live freely without injury to others. My dogs are not a threat to anyone, but this type of legislation is a threat to my quality of life and the quality of life that my dogs currently enjoy.
Your predecessor, Senator Rick Santorum, had proposed similar legislation, SB 1139 called the Pet Animal Welfare Statute (PAWS) and before that he proposed the “The Puppy Protection Act”, both of which received nationwide opposition. Organized kennel clubs around the state (and around the country) worked to support you and vote out Senator Santorum over his proposal and support of this legislation. It has become obvious that this issue is by-partisan. I am a registered Democrat, however I can not support any Democrat that supports this type of social over regulation that has no bearing on public health and safety.
As a dog breeder and life long dog enthusiast, I do think that dogs produced in “commercial” dog kennels, i.e. kennels producing dogs for profit and the purpose of resale only, often have deplorable conditions. Our country prides itself on the “market economy”. If the public continues to support such conditions by purchasing these animals, then these “commercial” kennels will continue to exist. The buying public should demand better. Current proposed legislation intends to improve the living conditions of these poor dogs, however, they miss the mark and will not in fact accomplish that goal, but will instead, support only the commercial kennel that can jump through the hoops and will eliminate the hobby breeder who genuinely cares about the dogs. This will reduce the choices of the buying public and impede the “market economy”.
I have included a copy of the Pennsylvania proposed changes along with my concerns (found in red on the document) and letters that I have written to my local Senator, Representative, and the Dog Czar. I met with PA Senator Jake Corman and PA Representative Adam Harris in person to discuss my concerns about this issue.
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Sincerely, Cadie Pruss
Man found guilty of cruelty dispite permission from PA Department of Agriculture Dog Warden
Notice that the SPCA cited him- not a PA Department of Agriculture Dog Law Warden
BY FRANK ANDRUSCAVAGE
STAFF WRITER
fandruscavage@republicanherald.com
Published: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 4:20 AM EDT
http://www.republicanherald.com/articles/2008/07/16/news/local_news/pr_republican.20080716.a.pg28.pr16beagles_s1.1814512_loc.txt
FRACKVILLE A 45-year-old Girardville man was found guilty of a charge of cruelty to animals Tuesday afternoon in district court despite testimony by a state dog warden who said he gave permission to use a trailer seven beagles were kept in.
After more than two hours of testimony, Magisterial District Judge Bernadette J. Nahas found John Yagielinskie, 125 W. Ogden St., guilty and ordered him to pay a fine of $300 plus costs of $134 for a total of $434.
Yagielinskie's lawyer, Mark A. Barket, Pottsville, said his client will appeal the decision in Schuylkill County Court.
Yagielinskie was cited June 10 by Barbara A. Umlauf of Hillside SPCA in Pottsville, who charged him with having seven dogs in an unattended trailer on a Girardville street. Umlauf cited improper shelter, no water, filthy conditions, heat exhaustion, overcrowding and open wounds due to fighting as the basis of the charge.
Umlauf said the trailer the animals were housed in had four compartments and that three dogs were in one, two dogs each in two others and one was empty. The trailer, she said, should not have been used as kennel.
However, Francis J. Cremia, a dog warden with the state Department of Agriculture, said the he saw the custom-built trailer shortly after a June 3 fire at Yagielinskie's kennel in Pitman and gave permission to use it to house his animals.
Cremia said the trailer Yagielinskie was using under state law could be considered both a "primary conveyance" for transporting animals and a "primary enclosure" to be used as a kennel.
When asked by Umlauf if the animals were overcrowded, being three and two dogs in each section, Cremia said they were not.
"Two would be fine but three would be stretching it," he said. "There'd probably be enough room for three."
Cremia said he could not say for certain if any dog laws were broken because the animals would have had to be measured before the amount of space required for each was determined.
Under cross-examination by Barket, Cremia said he saw the trailer two days after the fire and although he gave permission to use it, he was "not thrilled" about taking it to Girardville simply because he feared that barking would be a problem.
Yagielinskie told the court that the day Umlauf and another SPCA worker came to Girardville, the trailer was unattended because he and professional dog trainer Paul E. Thompson, Kentucky, were using the truck to pick up new kennels.
Cremia confirmed that Yagielinskie purchased new kennels and placed the animals in them on the property of his friend, Nevin Maurer, Pitman.
Yagielinskie said that he lost 24 beagles in the fire and that 11 survived. He said the 11 that did survive were with him because nine of them needed constant treatment for burns and other wounds they suffered.
Yagielinskie said the animals received water that morning and that there was no heat exhaustion because the trailer the dogs were in is equipped with battery-operated fans that turn on if the temperature reaches 75 degrees inside.
Veterinarian Amy Swinehart said she examined nine of the animals on June 12 and determined all were healthy.
After the hearing, Yagielinskie said he was upset with the decision.
"Those dogs are all I have left after 30 years," he said. "Some I've owned up to seven generations behind them, their grandfathers and great-grandfathers."
BY FRANK ANDRUSCAVAGE
STAFF WRITER
fandruscavage@republicanherald.com
Published: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 4:20 AM EDT
http://www.republicanherald.com/articles/2008/07/16/news/local_news/pr_republican.20080716.a.pg28.pr16beagles_s1.1814512_loc.txt
FRACKVILLE A 45-year-old Girardville man was found guilty of a charge of cruelty to animals Tuesday afternoon in district court despite testimony by a state dog warden who said he gave permission to use a trailer seven beagles were kept in.
After more than two hours of testimony, Magisterial District Judge Bernadette J. Nahas found John Yagielinskie, 125 W. Ogden St., guilty and ordered him to pay a fine of $300 plus costs of $134 for a total of $434.
Yagielinskie's lawyer, Mark A. Barket, Pottsville, said his client will appeal the decision in Schuylkill County Court.
Yagielinskie was cited June 10 by Barbara A. Umlauf of Hillside SPCA in Pottsville, who charged him with having seven dogs in an unattended trailer on a Girardville street. Umlauf cited improper shelter, no water, filthy conditions, heat exhaustion, overcrowding and open wounds due to fighting as the basis of the charge.
Umlauf said the trailer the animals were housed in had four compartments and that three dogs were in one, two dogs each in two others and one was empty. The trailer, she said, should not have been used as kennel.
However, Francis J. Cremia, a dog warden with the state Department of Agriculture, said the he saw the custom-built trailer shortly after a June 3 fire at Yagielinskie's kennel in Pitman and gave permission to use it to house his animals.
Cremia said the trailer Yagielinskie was using under state law could be considered both a "primary conveyance" for transporting animals and a "primary enclosure" to be used as a kennel.
When asked by Umlauf if the animals were overcrowded, being three and two dogs in each section, Cremia said they were not.
"Two would be fine but three would be stretching it," he said. "There'd probably be enough room for three."
Cremia said he could not say for certain if any dog laws were broken because the animals would have had to be measured before the amount of space required for each was determined.
Under cross-examination by Barket, Cremia said he saw the trailer two days after the fire and although he gave permission to use it, he was "not thrilled" about taking it to Girardville simply because he feared that barking would be a problem.
Yagielinskie told the court that the day Umlauf and another SPCA worker came to Girardville, the trailer was unattended because he and professional dog trainer Paul E. Thompson, Kentucky, were using the truck to pick up new kennels.
Cremia confirmed that Yagielinskie purchased new kennels and placed the animals in them on the property of his friend, Nevin Maurer, Pitman.
Yagielinskie said that he lost 24 beagles in the fire and that 11 survived. He said the 11 that did survive were with him because nine of them needed constant treatment for burns and other wounds they suffered.
Yagielinskie said the animals received water that morning and that there was no heat exhaustion because the trailer the dogs were in is equipped with battery-operated fans that turn on if the temperature reaches 75 degrees inside.
Veterinarian Amy Swinehart said she examined nine of the animals on June 12 and determined all were healthy.
After the hearing, Yagielinskie said he was upset with the decision.
"Those dogs are all I have left after 30 years," he said. "Some I've owned up to seven generations behind them, their grandfathers and great-grandfathers."
Monday, July 14, 2008
Save a Life!- Adopt a CHILD- Over population is NOT a dog and cat problem
There is a website called: Save a Life! Adopt a Pet. The catchy little phrase they use is "Don't Breed or Buy While Shelter Animals Die".
I can only hope that NONE of these people have had children of their own. Overpopulation is NOT a dog and cat problem. It is a HUMAN problem. Every year new children enter the Child Welfare system. Every year, children who have "aged out" of public assistance end up in JAIL due to our lack adoption into loving homes.
PEOPLE need loving homes. Animal shelters may euthanize unwanted animals at rates that are distressing- but it is MURDER to euthanize unwanted children. Every year more JAILS are erected to house the results of our failed social efforts.
Adoption of humans is fraught with problems. Every year MILLIONS of dollars are spent by THOUSANDS of Americans on fertility treatments while THOUSANDS of children need to be adopted.
Please visit: http://www.childwelfare.com/ and donate your TIME, MONEY and LEGISLATIVE efforts on the REAL overpopulation issue.
I can only hope that NONE of these people have had children of their own. Overpopulation is NOT a dog and cat problem. It is a HUMAN problem. Every year new children enter the Child Welfare system. Every year, children who have "aged out" of public assistance end up in JAIL due to our lack adoption into loving homes.
PEOPLE need loving homes. Animal shelters may euthanize unwanted animals at rates that are distressing- but it is MURDER to euthanize unwanted children. Every year more JAILS are erected to house the results of our failed social efforts.
Adoption of humans is fraught with problems. Every year MILLIONS of dollars are spent by THOUSANDS of Americans on fertility treatments while THOUSANDS of children need to be adopted.
Please visit: http://www.childwelfare.com/ and donate your TIME, MONEY and LEGISLATIVE efforts on the REAL overpopulation issue.
Shelters vs. Puppy Mills- not really that different
While looking at the HUSU website and the "Top 5 Reasons to Adopt" I found the following of interest.
5. You Won't Be Supporting Puppy Mills and Pet Stores
Puppy mills are "factory style" dog-breeding facilities that put profit above the welfare of dogs. Most dogs raised in puppy mills are housed in shockingly poor conditions with improper medical care, and the parents of the puppies are kept in cages to be bred over and over for years, without human companionship and with little hope of ever joining a family. And after they're no longer profitable, breeding dogs are simply discarded—either killed, abandoned or sold at auction.
Puppy mill puppies are sold to unsuspecting consumers in pet stores, over the Internet and through newspaper classified advertisements to whoever is willing to pay for them. Marketed as coming from great breeders, well-rehearsed sales tactics keep money flowing to the puppy mill by ensuring that buyers never get to see where the pups actually come from (a vital step in puppy buying). Many of the puppies have serious behavioral and health problems that might not be apparent for months, including medical problems that can cost thousands of dollars to treat, if they are treatable at all. Unfortunately, a lot of people are not even aware that puppy mills exist, so when they buy a pet from a pet store, online or other retail outlet, they are unwittingly supporting this cruel industry.
By adopting instead of buying a pet, you can be certain you aren't supporting cruel puppy mills with your money. Puppy mills will continue to operate until people stop purchasing their dogs. Instead of buying a dog, visit your local shelter where you will likely to find dozens of healthy, well-socialized puppies and adult dogs—including purebreds—just waiting for that special home—yours. (Source:HUSU website)
True- the money you spend at a shelter will not directly be going to a "puppy mill"- but the "25% purebreds" the HUSU claims to have most likely came from these very "puppy mills" they are against. The claim they make that the shelters have "healthy, well-socialized puppies and adult dogs-including purbreds" may only mean that the shelter euthanized all that didn't meet this statement. Certainly no one adopting from a shelter gets to see where those dogs come from either.
Well socialized, healthy dogs, are not usually the ones people turn in (expect in economic hard times such as these- and usually those economically depressed people didn't spend hundreds of $$ buying a dog from a breeder in the first place).
The last time I went to a shelter (which I do regularly to screen for purebreds of my breed)- the dogs there were all kept in cages without human companionship and with little hope of ever joining a family.... And after they're no longer profitable(adoptable)- are simply killed--- oh wait---that is the same wording as stated in #5 above about "puppy mills". I guess the two are not that different!
While I was at the shelter, a few people were there to adopt. Not once did anyone from the shelter ask them the types of questions that would help them find "the right dog for them". Any dog those people picked out and wanted to adopt was going to be just fine with the shelter staff. Those dogs would go home to "anyone willing to pay for them"--- Again, not much different.
The myriad documented problems of puppy mills include: overbreeding, inbreeding, minimal veterinary care, poor quality of food and shelter, lack of human socialization, overcrowded cages and the killing of unwanted animals (source HUSU site on Puppy Mills)
Our shelter feeds the dogs mostly donated dog food. Sometimes the food is "good food" and sometimes it is "poor quality" food. Most shelters claim to be overcrowed, and most shelters kill unwated animals. Yes, there is a myriad of problems.
I am certainly NOT advocating for "puppy mills" (what is that definition again?)- but I DON'T think that everyone who breeds dogs (purbred, "designer", or otherwise) is a "Puppy Mill". Although there is a page on the HSUS site on how to chose a good breeder, the laws that HSUS are backing will sure make you think that everyone who breeds dogs IS a "puppy mill"
Are shelters good- Yes- are purbred breeders good- Yes to that too! Do your homework and learn all the facts before buying into the AR agenda.
5. You Won't Be Supporting Puppy Mills and Pet Stores
Puppy mills are "factory style" dog-breeding facilities that put profit above the welfare of dogs. Most dogs raised in puppy mills are housed in shockingly poor conditions with improper medical care, and the parents of the puppies are kept in cages to be bred over and over for years, without human companionship and with little hope of ever joining a family. And after they're no longer profitable, breeding dogs are simply discarded—either killed, abandoned or sold at auction.
Puppy mill puppies are sold to unsuspecting consumers in pet stores, over the Internet and through newspaper classified advertisements to whoever is willing to pay for them. Marketed as coming from great breeders, well-rehearsed sales tactics keep money flowing to the puppy mill by ensuring that buyers never get to see where the pups actually come from (a vital step in puppy buying). Many of the puppies have serious behavioral and health problems that might not be apparent for months, including medical problems that can cost thousands of dollars to treat, if they are treatable at all. Unfortunately, a lot of people are not even aware that puppy mills exist, so when they buy a pet from a pet store, online or other retail outlet, they are unwittingly supporting this cruel industry.
By adopting instead of buying a pet, you can be certain you aren't supporting cruel puppy mills with your money. Puppy mills will continue to operate until people stop purchasing their dogs. Instead of buying a dog, visit your local shelter where you will likely to find dozens of healthy, well-socialized puppies and adult dogs—including purebreds—just waiting for that special home—yours. (Source:HUSU website)
True- the money you spend at a shelter will not directly be going to a "puppy mill"- but the "25% purebreds" the HUSU claims to have most likely came from these very "puppy mills" they are against. The claim they make that the shelters have "healthy, well-socialized puppies and adult dogs-including purbreds" may only mean that the shelter euthanized all that didn't meet this statement. Certainly no one adopting from a shelter gets to see where those dogs come from either.
Well socialized, healthy dogs, are not usually the ones people turn in (expect in economic hard times such as these- and usually those economically depressed people didn't spend hundreds of $$ buying a dog from a breeder in the first place).
The last time I went to a shelter (which I do regularly to screen for purebreds of my breed)- the dogs there were all kept in cages without human companionship and with little hope of ever joining a family.... And after they're no longer profitable(adoptable)- are simply killed--- oh wait---that is the same wording as stated in #5 above about "puppy mills". I guess the two are not that different!
While I was at the shelter, a few people were there to adopt. Not once did anyone from the shelter ask them the types of questions that would help them find "the right dog for them". Any dog those people picked out and wanted to adopt was going to be just fine with the shelter staff. Those dogs would go home to "anyone willing to pay for them"--- Again, not much different.
The myriad documented problems of puppy mills include: overbreeding, inbreeding, minimal veterinary care, poor quality of food and shelter, lack of human socialization, overcrowded cages and the killing of unwanted animals (source HUSU site on Puppy Mills)
Our shelter feeds the dogs mostly donated dog food. Sometimes the food is "good food" and sometimes it is "poor quality" food. Most shelters claim to be overcrowed, and most shelters kill unwated animals. Yes, there is a myriad of problems.
I am certainly NOT advocating for "puppy mills" (what is that definition again?)- but I DON'T think that everyone who breeds dogs (purbred, "designer", or otherwise) is a "Puppy Mill". Although there is a page on the HSUS site on how to chose a good breeder, the laws that HSUS are backing will sure make you think that everyone who breeds dogs IS a "puppy mill"
Are shelters good- Yes- are purbred breeders good- Yes to that too! Do your homework and learn all the facts before buying into the AR agenda.
A story from an AR convert.
This story is forwarded with permission of the author.....
Anyone on this list who is for Animal Rights, please at least take a moment to read what I have to say: My name is Rebecca Curtis. If you search through Physician's for Responsible Medicine and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal's archives you will find numerous articles written by me. You will find anti-vivisection speeches that won numerous awards. I am still listed as a member of both. Please understand that I understand your beliefs. I was the cover girl for animal activism for many years. There is a reason I am now on this list and that reason is: I moved to a small farmette in the country where I was going to "save the world" - the shelter had an 80%+ kill rate and I took in a variety of animals. My animals were vetted, vaccinated, tags, fed, and cared for. A "rescue" group that ONLY takes puppies was in need of puppies. I have 5 pregnant dogs (4 of which were registered) that had been given to me by people who couldn't keep them and I
had 3 litters of
puppies, some of which were registered. I told the "rescue" I would give them the unregistered puppies for $50 each (much lower than most adoption fees) to help cover my cost. These puppies had been dewormed, vaccinated, treated for fleas, and some had been treated for coccidiosis and mange. They had been quarantined and vetted and I guarantee I could show you where I had well over a hundred dollars in each puppy. They paid me for those puppies and then came back for more. I wanted more money for the registered puppies I had been given. I had a 9 month old mix breed dog and 3 full grown collie's who were around a year old. I offered them those, but they didn't want them. They became angry that I wouldn't give them more puppies. I had 20 acres divided into pens, kennels, and runs, and also had a 5 bedroom house that was devoted to the puppies. They were all well cared for. After this confrontations and series of puppies disappeared from my yard. I had
to increase the
security and take my puppies inside whenever I left. Two adult dogs were shot and left to die in my front yard one day when I was at the store. They were raced to the vet and didn't make it. I started taking all of my dogs inside when I left. Then animal control started coming out. It turns out that everytime they had a complaint they were required to go by the location. They were coming by 6-7 times a day to say, hi, sorry, but we had another complaint. Finally they had enough of the pressure. Animal control told me to get rid of or hide the majority of my dogs, because they were sick of the complaints. The complaints continued and a warrant was issued for the seizure of my animals. I walked each animal out, gave it's name, it's personality, who it got along with, vaccination records, and registration papers (where applicable). I loaded them in cages telling them they were going for a car ride and keeping the stress as low as possible. The house was
search pictures were
taken and while they flowed through my property I was putting bowls of water into the kennels where my dogs were sitting and telling them it was alright. As they pulled out of the yard I fell to my knees and cried. Everything I ever believe in had been crushed. When it came time to go to court there were over a thousand dollars in "cost of seizure" expenses I was required to pay, my paperwork had been lost, and I was required to pay $10 per dog per day during the trial. By the time the trial was over all of the puppies would be adult dogs raised with little attention in a shelter, they would basically be unadoptable. I had veterinarians, grooms, and other experts lined up to testify on my behalf, but it didn't change the mounting "board" fees and the aging of my puppies. The prosecutor told me she was sorry, she had been told to charge me, but if I would just sign the dogs over and pay the thousand dollars they would drop all charges and return up to
5 adult dogs, but no
puppies. I paid the money and signed the dogs over except for 5 dogs they returned to me (3 unaltered). The 5 dogs I chose were a 6 year old dog with a severe case of hip displasia, a 13 year old dog, a 2 year old dog a friend offered an excellent home to, a 5 year old dog who was terrified of his own shadow and weighed over 200 pound, and a small dog who had been severely abused and still required over $6,000 worth of surgery. I chose the dogs I knew they could never find homes for. With the dogs they kept - three of the registered dogs were turned over to a breeder who made a $1,500 donation and claimed to be the owner of the dogs (they were turned over unaltered with registration papers). The older dogs and 2 dog aggressive dogs were euthanized. The puppies were "adopted" out to new homes at $200 adoption fees. Everything I ever stood for robbed me of my passion and crushed my heart. I've wanted dogs again, but I have been terrified of loosing them
again. They were my
life, my love, and my passion. I've done my homework, I have requested to withdraw my paid life memberships to PETA and Physicians for Responsible medicine (any AR activist will know the type of money I spent to have those) and my requests have been denied. I am still on their lists, but my heart is against them. I saw what they are capable of and they lost one VERY devoted activist. Please take a close look at what these organizations truly do. Not the local shelters, but the large organizations sending you requests for donations, take a close look at what they do. They will rob you of your pets and pat themselves on the back while destroying any of your pets that aren't convenient for them to "adopt" to new homes. I've seen it up close and it is a life changing moment.
Becky
Anyone on this list who is for Animal Rights, please at least take a moment to read what I have to say: My name is Rebecca Curtis. If you search through Physician's for Responsible Medicine and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal's archives you will find numerous articles written by me. You will find anti-vivisection speeches that won numerous awards. I am still listed as a member of both. Please understand that I understand your beliefs. I was the cover girl for animal activism for many years. There is a reason I am now on this list and that reason is: I moved to a small farmette in the country where I was going to "save the world" - the shelter had an 80%+ kill rate and I took in a variety of animals. My animals were vetted, vaccinated, tags, fed, and cared for. A "rescue" group that ONLY takes puppies was in need of puppies. I have 5 pregnant dogs (4 of which were registered) that had been given to me by people who couldn't keep them and I
had 3 litters of
puppies, some of which were registered. I told the "rescue" I would give them the unregistered puppies for $50 each (much lower than most adoption fees) to help cover my cost. These puppies had been dewormed, vaccinated, treated for fleas, and some had been treated for coccidiosis and mange. They had been quarantined and vetted and I guarantee I could show you where I had well over a hundred dollars in each puppy. They paid me for those puppies and then came back for more. I wanted more money for the registered puppies I had been given. I had a 9 month old mix breed dog and 3 full grown collie's who were around a year old. I offered them those, but they didn't want them. They became angry that I wouldn't give them more puppies. I had 20 acres divided into pens, kennels, and runs, and also had a 5 bedroom house that was devoted to the puppies. They were all well cared for. After this confrontations and series of puppies disappeared from my yard. I had
to increase the
security and take my puppies inside whenever I left. Two adult dogs were shot and left to die in my front yard one day when I was at the store. They were raced to the vet and didn't make it. I started taking all of my dogs inside when I left. Then animal control started coming out. It turns out that everytime they had a complaint they were required to go by the location. They were coming by 6-7 times a day to say, hi, sorry, but we had another complaint. Finally they had enough of the pressure. Animal control told me to get rid of or hide the majority of my dogs, because they were sick of the complaints. The complaints continued and a warrant was issued for the seizure of my animals. I walked each animal out, gave it's name, it's personality, who it got along with, vaccination records, and registration papers (where applicable). I loaded them in cages telling them they were going for a car ride and keeping the stress as low as possible. The house was
search pictures were
taken and while they flowed through my property I was putting bowls of water into the kennels where my dogs were sitting and telling them it was alright. As they pulled out of the yard I fell to my knees and cried. Everything I ever believe in had been crushed. When it came time to go to court there were over a thousand dollars in "cost of seizure" expenses I was required to pay, my paperwork had been lost, and I was required to pay $10 per dog per day during the trial. By the time the trial was over all of the puppies would be adult dogs raised with little attention in a shelter, they would basically be unadoptable. I had veterinarians, grooms, and other experts lined up to testify on my behalf, but it didn't change the mounting "board" fees and the aging of my puppies. The prosecutor told me she was sorry, she had been told to charge me, but if I would just sign the dogs over and pay the thousand dollars they would drop all charges and return up to
5 adult dogs, but no
puppies. I paid the money and signed the dogs over except for 5 dogs they returned to me (3 unaltered). The 5 dogs I chose were a 6 year old dog with a severe case of hip displasia, a 13 year old dog, a 2 year old dog a friend offered an excellent home to, a 5 year old dog who was terrified of his own shadow and weighed over 200 pound, and a small dog who had been severely abused and still required over $6,000 worth of surgery. I chose the dogs I knew they could never find homes for. With the dogs they kept - three of the registered dogs were turned over to a breeder who made a $1,500 donation and claimed to be the owner of the dogs (they were turned over unaltered with registration papers). The older dogs and 2 dog aggressive dogs were euthanized. The puppies were "adopted" out to new homes at $200 adoption fees. Everything I ever stood for robbed me of my passion and crushed my heart. I've wanted dogs again, but I have been terrified of loosing them
again. They were my
life, my love, and my passion. I've done my homework, I have requested to withdraw my paid life memberships to PETA and Physicians for Responsible medicine (any AR activist will know the type of money I spent to have those) and my requests have been denied. I am still on their lists, but my heart is against them. I saw what they are capable of and they lost one VERY devoted activist. Please take a close look at what these organizations truly do. Not the local shelters, but the large organizations sending you requests for donations, take a close look at what they do. They will rob you of your pets and pat themselves on the back while destroying any of your pets that aren't convenient for them to "adopt" to new homes. I've seen it up close and it is a life changing moment.
Becky
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)