City curbs dog rescuers
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_12387736?source=email
By Dana Bartholomew dana.bartholomew@dailynews.com 818-713-3730 I
Staff Writer
Updated: 05/16/2009 11:56:45 PM PDT
The pooches can cost up to $750. Only they're not breeder dogs but
pound hounds rescued for $40 or less from city animal shelters.
Los Angeles officials have accused private rescuers of cherry-picking
their finest Fidos at cut-rate fees, then selling them for profit.
But allegations surrounding a new city ordinance to ban the practice
have provoked howls from
animal rescue groups who say their veterinary and boarding costs far
exceed returns from marked-up adoptions.
"It's outrageous. I'm so ... mad there's smoke coming out of my ears,"
said Pnina Gersten of Sherman Oaks, who finds shelter animals for many
nonprofit animal rescue agencies. "They do not sell dogs. Everyone is
in the red. You cannot make money off of this. It's impossible."
"It's insane, ridiculous," added Melya Kaplan of Voice for the Animals
in Venice, which charges $150 per dog after spending an average of
$500 per canine. "I don't know of any rescuer making any money and
going to the Bahamas."
The outcry followed a May 8 vote by the City Council to restrict
nonprofit rescue groups from selling shelter animals obtained at
discount rates for more than their cost of upkeep.
The ordinance also allows annual audits of city-approved rescue
agencies.
The city was prepared to give such rescue groups first choice of
mostly dogs and cats - with fees waived for selected agencies. But out
of concerns about gifts of public property, officials opted to
maintain rules that allow residents to choose animals on the first day
they are available, after which those rescue groups - called New Hope
Partners - can rescue the pets in their two-week life at six city
shelters.
Higher adoption prices
The public now pays the city up to $91 to adopt a dog and $68 for a
cat. While more than 80 approved rescue groups now pay only the $40
spay-neuter fee, according to a new fee schedule, many then post
substantially higher adoption prices.
One rescue partner, Beagles and Buddies, demanded donations from $150
to $750 per dog, "depending on the age and the breed," according to
its Web site. The El Monte agency did not return calls last week.
More typical private rescue adoption fees from mutts to purebreds
range from $200 to $500 per dog.
"There was a concern that there might be some bad players who might
take the animals and sell them," Councilman Richard Alarc n said last
week. "I believe that if a nonprofit organization is getting a
donation for the dog that exceeds the cost of its administration ...
it might appear to be a giveaway of public funds.
"We wanted the animals to be distributed fairly."
The decision to limit pet profiteering followed a letter from a former
rescuer that pressed the city to amend its plan to grant rescuers
first dibs on the most desirable animals - then re-sell them at higher
cost.
Phyllis Daugherty had also supplied city officials with a list of
approved rescue groups and their posted adoption fees.
"I had no idea that this would make this uproar," said Daugherty,
director of Animal Issues Movement and a former city employee. "I just
assumed that everyone knew they were selling them to recover the cost.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
HSUS is not giving money to dogs- they give money to Politicians
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta8GdABQPHA
WSB-TV Aftermath: The Knives Are Out At HSUS
By ESaunders AR-HR.com
It has been an interesting weekend since the May 14th release of the WSB-TV investigation of the Humane Society of the United States' fundraising practises and the use of those funds. The reaction of the Humane Society of the United States executive team and employees has been dramatic, if not over the top.
Apparently the HSUS executive has not been content to stop with the rumored unleashing the HSUS legal team on WSB-TV. This is a rumor supported by the swift removal of both the text, viewer comments and video from the WSB-TV website by the afternoon of Friday, May 15th and the subsequent removal of the text article from Google's cache system by Saturday, May 16th. The speed of this has been startling considering that images in Google's cache can linger for days, weeks and even years in some cases. This process can be accelerated by website owner request.
Since May 14th, the number of personal attacks by both the HSUS executive and employees has been escalating and even some of their own supporters have not been safe from the spatter. Consider the following:
a.. The article posted on "Civil Eats" by the Senior Director of the HSUS factory farming campaign, Paul Shapiro. Aptly titled, "Lose Pretty or Win Ugly", Mr. Shapiro proceeds to launch a series of attacks that could as easily describe HSUS tactics as the opponents named in the article. The comment, "When it comes to campaigning, CCF isn't exactly known for its fidelity to the truth." is particularly ironic after the admissions of HSUS Georgia Director Cheryl McAuliffe that most of her job entails activist planning and lobbying. With her further admission that all finances are controlled from Washington headquarters, it seems unlikely that Georgia is the only state with this proportion of political activity. It is even more ironic considering the HSUS ran an online fundraising campaign using the following soliciting statement beside the donation check box
a.. Yes! I want to make a special gift to help The Humane Society of the United States care for the dogs seized in the Michael Vick case and to support other vital animal protection programs. (Click here to see the image) As I have written before, HSUS was not the agency caring for the dogs but instead it was the organization Bad Rap in association with the ASPCA, while HSUS was recommending the Michael Vick dogs be euthanized.
a.. HSUS Chief Operating Officer Michael Markarian and HSUS Internet Brand Manager Carie Lewis were actively forwarding the article "CCF Continues to Decieve Journalists, Public" from the blog, Digging Through The Dirt through the social networks via Twitter (pdf of image available in case Twitter post disappears) yet never acknowledge that the CCF statistics are independently confirmed through this website. This raises the question, if the CCF data is accurate (which it is) then why does HSUS continue to claim deception? The "Digging Through the Dirt" Blog even accused CCF of attacking HSUS with Craigslist postings. However, there is one problem with this accusation. Its not CCF, which I know for a fact. No, it isn't me either but I'm going to leave it at that for now.
b.. HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle has attacked the Center for Consumer Freedom's status as a 501(c) 3 tax-exempt charity despite the evidence provided by WSB-TV which throws the HSUS' own 501(c) 3 tax-exempt staus into doubt.
c.. Andy Vance and I were called the "Limbaugh and Coulter of the meat industry" by HSUS employee Barbara Henderson. This was by far the mildest and most entertaining of the attacks to date for a couple of reasons. (1) I'm not certain that the meat industry really knows or cares much about either AR-HR.com or myself. (2) Didn't Rush Limbaugh just do a couple of public service announcements for the Humane Society of the United States that he has taken ALOT of heat for? It probably isn't good policy to use a celebrity supporter's name as an insult attempt, even in jest.
WSB-TV may have pulled their very brave report from public viewing, but the awareness this story has raised has certainly struck a nerve up to the highest levels of the Humane Society of the United States. If there was nothing to the story or the questions it has raised, why are they waging a war of personal attacks instead of simply laying out the numbers and the data? Equally interesting is the question, "Why are the HSUS executive leveling accusations that match the HSUS as closely, if not more closely, than those they are attacking?"
Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders http://AR-HR.com
All rights reserved
WSB-TV Aftermath: The Knives Are Out At HSUS
By ESaunders AR-HR.com
It has been an interesting weekend since the May 14th release of the WSB-TV investigation of the Humane Society of the United States' fundraising practises and the use of those funds. The reaction of the Humane Society of the United States executive team and employees has been dramatic, if not over the top.
Apparently the HSUS executive has not been content to stop with the rumored unleashing the HSUS legal team on WSB-TV. This is a rumor supported by the swift removal of both the text, viewer comments and video from the WSB-TV website by the afternoon of Friday, May 15th and the subsequent removal of the text article from Google's cache system by Saturday, May 16th. The speed of this has been startling considering that images in Google's cache can linger for days, weeks and even years in some cases. This process can be accelerated by website owner request.
Since May 14th, the number of personal attacks by both the HSUS executive and employees has been escalating and even some of their own supporters have not been safe from the spatter. Consider the following:
a.. The article posted on "Civil Eats" by the Senior Director of the HSUS factory farming campaign, Paul Shapiro. Aptly titled, "Lose Pretty or Win Ugly", Mr. Shapiro proceeds to launch a series of attacks that could as easily describe HSUS tactics as the opponents named in the article. The comment, "When it comes to campaigning, CCF isn't exactly known for its fidelity to the truth." is particularly ironic after the admissions of HSUS Georgia Director Cheryl McAuliffe that most of her job entails activist planning and lobbying. With her further admission that all finances are controlled from Washington headquarters, it seems unlikely that Georgia is the only state with this proportion of political activity. It is even more ironic considering the HSUS ran an online fundraising campaign using the following soliciting statement beside the donation check box
a.. Yes! I want to make a special gift to help The Humane Society of the United States care for the dogs seized in the Michael Vick case and to support other vital animal protection programs. (Click here to see the image) As I have written before, HSUS was not the agency caring for the dogs but instead it was the organization Bad Rap in association with the ASPCA, while HSUS was recommending the Michael Vick dogs be euthanized.
a.. HSUS Chief Operating Officer Michael Markarian and HSUS Internet Brand Manager Carie Lewis were actively forwarding the article "CCF Continues to Decieve Journalists, Public" from the blog, Digging Through The Dirt through the social networks via Twitter (pdf of image available in case Twitter post disappears) yet never acknowledge that the CCF statistics are independently confirmed through this website. This raises the question, if the CCF data is accurate (which it is) then why does HSUS continue to claim deception? The "Digging Through the Dirt" Blog even accused CCF of attacking HSUS with Craigslist postings. However, there is one problem with this accusation. Its not CCF, which I know for a fact. No, it isn't me either but I'm going to leave it at that for now.
b.. HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle has attacked the Center for Consumer Freedom's status as a 501(c) 3 tax-exempt charity despite the evidence provided by WSB-TV which throws the HSUS' own 501(c) 3 tax-exempt staus into doubt.
c.. Andy Vance and I were called the "Limbaugh and Coulter of the meat industry" by HSUS employee Barbara Henderson. This was by far the mildest and most entertaining of the attacks to date for a couple of reasons. (1) I'm not certain that the meat industry really knows or cares much about either AR-HR.com or myself. (2) Didn't Rush Limbaugh just do a couple of public service announcements for the Humane Society of the United States that he has taken ALOT of heat for? It probably isn't good policy to use a celebrity supporter's name as an insult attempt, even in jest.
WSB-TV may have pulled their very brave report from public viewing, but the awareness this story has raised has certainly struck a nerve up to the highest levels of the Humane Society of the United States. If there was nothing to the story or the questions it has raised, why are they waging a war of personal attacks instead of simply laying out the numbers and the data? Equally interesting is the question, "Why are the HSUS executive leveling accusations that match the HSUS as closely, if not more closely, than those they are attacking?"
Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders http://AR-HR.com
All rights reserved
IL- Dog Owners Divided by HSUS Bag of Dirty Tricks
Illinois Dog Owners Divided
By HSUS Bag Of Dirty Tricks
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@conline.net
This article is archived at: http://eaglerock814.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=39
SPRINGFIELD, IL
There is very little good that we can say about the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the political arm of the radical animal rights movement. However, we must credit HSUS with being very politically astute, as their leaders, lobbyists and supporters have demonstrated dramatically in Illinois over the past two months.
Illinois dog owners had successfully stopped two pieces of onerous animal rights legislation, which would have repressively regulated all kennels including very small-scale hobby breeders, destroyed constitutional protections of due process under the law, fair and equal treatment under the law and the right to own and enjoy private property, and criminalized docking tails based on emotion and myth and in ignorance of the facts.
A strong outpouring of dog owners'opposition caused these bad bills to be bottled up in committee, and they didn't have enough votes to be passed.
At that point, HSUS was beaten. Dog owners had successfully fought for and protected their rights by stating the facts and telling the truth.
In Illinois, the truth is that existent laws are very stringent and have completely addressed every kennel problem that has been found for many years, and that tail docking is a safe and almost painless procedure that benefits many dogs.
Then, HSUS pulled out its favorite bag of political dirty tricks in order to divide dog owners and send a mixed message to the Legislature. A few organizations representing dog owners fell for these tricks, and the HSUS plot against our rights was given new life.
It was a classic sucker play. The treachery of some dog owners' groups accomplished what HSUS wanted to accomplish, but had failed to do.
The turncoat dog owners agreed to negotiate and support (or not oppose, which amounts to the same thing) the creation of a task force to study the need for new laws. The task force is based on wholly fictitious premises (please see our report from last week at http://eaglerock814.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=38) and is stacked to give animal rights fanatics as much as a 10-5 voting edge that dooms dog owners to a loss of their rights through bad legislation in the future. HSUS succeeded in convincing some dog owners groups to sign their own death warrants.
In last week's report , we urged dog owners to take action to assure that the resolution creating the task force was under the jurisdiction of the House Agriculture and Conservation Committee, which understands animal issues. Through your help, we succeeded, and the resolution was assigned to the Agriculture and Conservation Committee, where it will get the most knowledgeable and unbiased consideration.
Now, we have to restore unity and undo the divisiveness created by HSUS.
HSUS targets six groups of dog owners in their tactics to divide and conquer:
1. Dog owners who are fearful and timid, and think that "compromise" is the only way to preserve even a pathetic vestige of their rights. It is a current example of the "better red than dead" mindset during the Cold War. These people lack the courage to fight for their rights and are willing to deal them away in exchange for some diluted form of survival
2. Dog owners who want to be seen as "part of the process," and seek out "leadership" roles in order to stroke their egos with illusions of self-importance.
3. Dog owner who have an inherent faith in "the system," but who fail to realize that animal rights groups and Illinois "machine" politicians like Rep. John A. Fritchey and Sen. Dan Kotowski (the sponsors of the legislation who are HSUS tools) are experts at unfairly manipulating the system to get what they want.
4. Dog owners who are elitists in some sense, such as show people who think people who raise companion animals are inferior, or field trialers who think people who raise hunting dogs are second-class citizens.
5. Selfish dog owners who care only about protecting their own interests, and would sell out anyone else in order to save their own hides.
6. And dog owners who accept parts of the animal rights agenda, such as opposition to "puppy mills," and are not able to see the true goals of HSUS, which are to gradually eliminate all ownership of animals in America. These peop le have bought into the HSUS propaganda, even though it completely contradicts the facts.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly believes that the vast majority of dog and kennel owners are the good guys. We are the people who love dogs, breed dogs that are healthy, genetically sound and have great temperaments, and who have done 99% of the hard work to make the lives of dogs in America better than at any time in history.
We will never agree to any legislation that takes away or compromises our rights to continue to do what's best for the welfare of our dogs.
Thus, we are urging all Illinois dog owners to help us to restore unity in the face of the HSUS onslaught that has divided dog owners. Our unity was damaged when some groups decided to negotiate with HSUS, and the sham task force Senate resolution (SJR 56) was the result.
We are asking all Illinois dog owners to do four things now:
1. Do not support or contribute money to any organization that will participate on the task force, hires lobbyists to negotiate with HSUS or which supports the concept of a task force. It is absurd to have a task force based on the fraud of solving nonexistent problems. The only result will be to steal the rights of dog owners through a Devil's compromise in some form.
2. If you belong to a club or organization representing dog owners on the local, state or national level, please contact its officers immediately and ask them to withdraw all support for the task force or negotiations with HSUS. Instead, ask them to have their lobbyists concentrate only on informing the senators and representatives of the facts and encouraging them to vote against HSUS-anointed legislation.
3. Immediately contact members of the House Agriculture and Conservation Committee and ask them to oppose SJR 56. Please clearly state your reasons why. Here is a link for contact information for all members of the House Agriculture and Conservation Committee: http://www.ilga.gov/house/committees/members.asp?CommitteeID=626&GA=96 4. Please contact your own state representative and ask him or her to refuse to concur with SJR 56, and state your reasons. Here is a link to contact information: http://www.ilga.gov/house/default.asp.
5. And please join at least one organization that is fighting for your rights.
If enough Illinois dog owners take these actions, we can restore unity and defeat HSUS-inspired legislation. If you fail to act now, your rights to own and enjoy your dogs are doomed.
Our unity was broken when four dog owners'groups in Illinois hired or supported lobbyists to negotiate with HSUS and agents of Rep. John A. Fritchey and Sen. Dan Kotowski. Negotiations were held every Thursday for more than a month, and are ongoing on a more informal "hidden backroom" level. The result was the creation of the task force, which was the HSUS "Plan B"strategy.
We want to emphasize that most of the groups supporting lobbyists who negotiated with HSUS are among the good guys, who believe in and defend the rights of dog owners. These are good people who are on our side, but we simply think they were manipulated by HSUS into agreeing to the task force. In particular, we admire lobbyist George Fleischli of the Illinois Association of Outdoor Resources, who is helping Illinois Brittany owners and field trial clubs.
Please do not attack good people simply because they make an occasional mistake. They deserve our continued support and loyalty.
Instead, please ask them to join our efforts to restore unity and stop SJR 56 in its tracks. We need their help.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life. The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org . Our email is asda@csonline.net .
By HSUS Bag Of Dirty Tricks
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@conline.net
This article is archived at: http://eaglerock814.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=39
SPRINGFIELD, IL
There is very little good that we can say about the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the political arm of the radical animal rights movement. However, we must credit HSUS with being very politically astute, as their leaders, lobbyists and supporters have demonstrated dramatically in Illinois over the past two months.
Illinois dog owners had successfully stopped two pieces of onerous animal rights legislation, which would have repressively regulated all kennels including very small-scale hobby breeders, destroyed constitutional protections of due process under the law, fair and equal treatment under the law and the right to own and enjoy private property, and criminalized docking tails based on emotion and myth and in ignorance of the facts.
A strong outpouring of dog owners'opposition caused these bad bills to be bottled up in committee, and they didn't have enough votes to be passed.
At that point, HSUS was beaten. Dog owners had successfully fought for and protected their rights by stating the facts and telling the truth.
In Illinois, the truth is that existent laws are very stringent and have completely addressed every kennel problem that has been found for many years, and that tail docking is a safe and almost painless procedure that benefits many dogs.
Then, HSUS pulled out its favorite bag of political dirty tricks in order to divide dog owners and send a mixed message to the Legislature. A few organizations representing dog owners fell for these tricks, and the HSUS plot against our rights was given new life.
It was a classic sucker play. The treachery of some dog owners' groups accomplished what HSUS wanted to accomplish, but had failed to do.
The turncoat dog owners agreed to negotiate and support (or not oppose, which amounts to the same thing) the creation of a task force to study the need for new laws. The task force is based on wholly fictitious premises (please see our report from last week at http://eaglerock814.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=38) and is stacked to give animal rights fanatics as much as a 10-5 voting edge that dooms dog owners to a loss of their rights through bad legislation in the future. HSUS succeeded in convincing some dog owners groups to sign their own death warrants.
In last week's report , we urged dog owners to take action to assure that the resolution creating the task force was under the jurisdiction of the House Agriculture and Conservation Committee, which understands animal issues. Through your help, we succeeded, and the resolution was assigned to the Agriculture and Conservation Committee, where it will get the most knowledgeable and unbiased consideration.
Now, we have to restore unity and undo the divisiveness created by HSUS.
HSUS targets six groups of dog owners in their tactics to divide and conquer:
1. Dog owners who are fearful and timid, and think that "compromise" is the only way to preserve even a pathetic vestige of their rights. It is a current example of the "better red than dead" mindset during the Cold War. These people lack the courage to fight for their rights and are willing to deal them away in exchange for some diluted form of survival
2. Dog owners who want to be seen as "part of the process," and seek out "leadership" roles in order to stroke their egos with illusions of self-importance.
3. Dog owner who have an inherent faith in "the system," but who fail to realize that animal rights groups and Illinois "machine" politicians like Rep. John A. Fritchey and Sen. Dan Kotowski (the sponsors of the legislation who are HSUS tools) are experts at unfairly manipulating the system to get what they want.
4. Dog owners who are elitists in some sense, such as show people who think people who raise companion animals are inferior, or field trialers who think people who raise hunting dogs are second-class citizens.
5. Selfish dog owners who care only about protecting their own interests, and would sell out anyone else in order to save their own hides.
6. And dog owners who accept parts of the animal rights agenda, such as opposition to "puppy mills," and are not able to see the true goals of HSUS, which are to gradually eliminate all ownership of animals in America. These peop le have bought into the HSUS propaganda, even though it completely contradicts the facts.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly believes that the vast majority of dog and kennel owners are the good guys. We are the people who love dogs, breed dogs that are healthy, genetically sound and have great temperaments, and who have done 99% of the hard work to make the lives of dogs in America better than at any time in history.
We will never agree to any legislation that takes away or compromises our rights to continue to do what's best for the welfare of our dogs.
Thus, we are urging all Illinois dog owners to help us to restore unity in the face of the HSUS onslaught that has divided dog owners. Our unity was damaged when some groups decided to negotiate with HSUS, and the sham task force Senate resolution (SJR 56) was the result.
We are asking all Illinois dog owners to do four things now:
1. Do not support or contribute money to any organization that will participate on the task force, hires lobbyists to negotiate with HSUS or which supports the concept of a task force. It is absurd to have a task force based on the fraud of solving nonexistent problems. The only result will be to steal the rights of dog owners through a Devil's compromise in some form.
2. If you belong to a club or organization representing dog owners on the local, state or national level, please contact its officers immediately and ask them to withdraw all support for the task force or negotiations with HSUS. Instead, ask them to have their lobbyists concentrate only on informing the senators and representatives of the facts and encouraging them to vote against HSUS-anointed legislation.
3. Immediately contact members of the House Agriculture and Conservation Committee and ask them to oppose SJR 56. Please clearly state your reasons why. Here is a link for contact information for all members of the House Agriculture and Conservation Committee: http://www.ilga.gov/house/committees/members.asp?CommitteeID=626&GA=96 4. Please contact your own state representative and ask him or her to refuse to concur with SJR 56, and state your reasons. Here is a link to contact information: http://www.ilga.gov/house/default.asp.
5. And please join at least one organization that is fighting for your rights.
If enough Illinois dog owners take these actions, we can restore unity and defeat HSUS-inspired legislation. If you fail to act now, your rights to own and enjoy your dogs are doomed.
Our unity was broken when four dog owners'groups in Illinois hired or supported lobbyists to negotiate with HSUS and agents of Rep. John A. Fritchey and Sen. Dan Kotowski. Negotiations were held every Thursday for more than a month, and are ongoing on a more informal "hidden backroom" level. The result was the creation of the task force, which was the HSUS "Plan B"strategy.
We want to emphasize that most of the groups supporting lobbyists who negotiated with HSUS are among the good guys, who believe in and defend the rights of dog owners. These are good people who are on our side, but we simply think they were manipulated by HSUS into agreeing to the task force. In particular, we admire lobbyist George Fleischli of the Illinois Association of Outdoor Resources, who is helping Illinois Brittany owners and field trial clubs.
Please do not attack good people simply because they make an occasional mistake. They deserve our continued support and loyalty.
Instead, please ask them to join our efforts to restore unity and stop SJR 56 in its tracks. We need their help.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life. The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org . Our email is asda@csonline.net .
Thursday, May 14, 2009
TX- HB 3180 "Puppymill Bill"
May 13, 2009
There's a lot of confusion regarding what's happening at the Texas State Legislature. RPOA can't broadcast all we're doing but will send alerts when we need your help with clear instructions. FORGET ABOUT HB 2310.
Call and tell your senator you are passionate about your animals and will not vote for him if he votes for HB 3180 nor will you financially support him/her in the future!
The bill that has been received in the Senate is HB 3180 and that is the bill we MUST DEFEAT. The Engrossed Version of HB 3180 that passed on the House Floor is on the state's website:
www.capitol.state.tx.us
As you know from past experience, all rules can be suspended and this bill could be passed in record time. So get on the horn! We can still kill this bill if each of you contact your senator and explain that this bill is not about "puppymills" at all.
It takes 21 Senate votes to get it to a Floor Vote. That is out of 31 senators. So let's get busy. We can do this! Just a couple more weeks to go.
Ask your senator how he or she is going to vote and let us know. It's a good idea to start contacting Governor Rick Perry -- just in case.
Find out who represents you: http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/
Some talking points are below:
HB 3180, the misnamed "Puppymill Bill," by Thompson
* Will our senators stand up to the political powers in Austin to do what is right or will they let pet owners down as the House did? Do they own pets now and hope to own pets in the future?
* If every dog and cat in Texas is sterilized (as mandated in Senator Van de Putte's bill) and breeders face overly restrictive regulations (as in Representative Thompson's bill), where will pets come from in the future?
* Animal owners all over the country have their eyes on Texas to see how our legislators vote this session on anti-pet bills.
* HB 3180 is being sold as a "Puppymill" Bill and it is not. It regulates anyone that sells a dog or cat in the state whether they bred it or not, even rescuers. This is a big misconception.
* This is a radical national legislative agenda from Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) who have no connection to local humane societies. HSUS is an "animal rights" organization opposed to all use of animals for food, clothing, medical research, entertainment, including pet "ownership," preferring to call us pet "guardians.
* This bill will not stop anything as there are already strict animal cruelty laws in Texas and USDA regulates brokers and commercial breeders who sell to pet shops. Raids are made and animals seized on a regular basis in substandard facilities.
* HSUS uses sad pictures to sell all their legislation which is never written as publicized. The general public has no idea what is in this bill. They will find out eventually.
* Chapter 803. Dog and Cat Dealers; Subchapter A. General Provisions; Sec. 803.002. Definitions. In this chapter: (6) "Dealer means a person who is required to collect sales tax for the sale of animals to a retail purchaser. The term does not include a humane society or local animal control authority."
If this were a public health and safety issue as claimed, humane societies and animal controls should have to be classified as "dealers" also.
* "Commercial Breeder is defined as a person who possesses adult intact female animals that produce 20 or more litters in one calendar year and is engaged in the business of breeding animals for sale."
This will be a bureaucratic nightmare to enforce.
* The bill sets up a whole new expensive state bureaucracy for regulations and enforcement in a time of economic downturn all across the country.
* "Registered Breeder Inspector means an individual employed and certified by the department to conduct investigations and inspections under this chapter."
This can be "animal rights" zealots like those who dressed as Klansmen and demonstrated at the Westminster Dog Show or the PETA members who demonstrate at every zoo, rodeo and circus protesting the use of animals.
Do we want these radical extremists coming into our homes for inspections and investigations?
I don't think so!
RPOA Texas Outreach (501C4 Nonprofit)
www.rpoatexasoutreach.org
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (501C3 Nonprofit)
www.responsiblepetowners.org
There's a lot of confusion regarding what's happening at the Texas State Legislature. RPOA can't broadcast all we're doing but will send alerts when we need your help with clear instructions. FORGET ABOUT HB 2310.
Call and tell your senator you are passionate about your animals and will not vote for him if he votes for HB 3180 nor will you financially support him/her in the future!
The bill that has been received in the Senate is HB 3180 and that is the bill we MUST DEFEAT. The Engrossed Version of HB 3180 that passed on the House Floor is on the state's website:
www.capitol.state.tx.us
As you know from past experience, all rules can be suspended and this bill could be passed in record time. So get on the horn! We can still kill this bill if each of you contact your senator and explain that this bill is not about "puppymills" at all.
It takes 21 Senate votes to get it to a Floor Vote. That is out of 31 senators. So let's get busy. We can do this! Just a couple more weeks to go.
Ask your senator how he or she is going to vote and let us know. It's a good idea to start contacting Governor Rick Perry -- just in case.
Find out who represents you: http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/
Some talking points are below:
HB 3180, the misnamed "Puppymill Bill," by Thompson
* Will our senators stand up to the political powers in Austin to do what is right or will they let pet owners down as the House did? Do they own pets now and hope to own pets in the future?
* If every dog and cat in Texas is sterilized (as mandated in Senator Van de Putte's bill) and breeders face overly restrictive regulations (as in Representative Thompson's bill), where will pets come from in the future?
* Animal owners all over the country have their eyes on Texas to see how our legislators vote this session on anti-pet bills.
* HB 3180 is being sold as a "Puppymill" Bill and it is not. It regulates anyone that sells a dog or cat in the state whether they bred it or not, even rescuers. This is a big misconception.
* This is a radical national legislative agenda from Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) who have no connection to local humane societies. HSUS is an "animal rights" organization opposed to all use of animals for food, clothing, medical research, entertainment, including pet "ownership," preferring to call us pet "guardians.
* This bill will not stop anything as there are already strict animal cruelty laws in Texas and USDA regulates brokers and commercial breeders who sell to pet shops. Raids are made and animals seized on a regular basis in substandard facilities.
* HSUS uses sad pictures to sell all their legislation which is never written as publicized. The general public has no idea what is in this bill. They will find out eventually.
* Chapter 803. Dog and Cat Dealers; Subchapter A. General Provisions; Sec. 803.002. Definitions. In this chapter: (6) "Dealer means a person who is required to collect sales tax for the sale of animals to a retail purchaser. The term does not include a humane society or local animal control authority."
If this were a public health and safety issue as claimed, humane societies and animal controls should have to be classified as "dealers" also.
* "Commercial Breeder is defined as a person who possesses adult intact female animals that produce 20 or more litters in one calendar year and is engaged in the business of breeding animals for sale."
This will be a bureaucratic nightmare to enforce.
* The bill sets up a whole new expensive state bureaucracy for regulations and enforcement in a time of economic downturn all across the country.
* "Registered Breeder Inspector means an individual employed and certified by the department to conduct investigations and inspections under this chapter."
This can be "animal rights" zealots like those who dressed as Klansmen and demonstrated at the Westminster Dog Show or the PETA members who demonstrate at every zoo, rodeo and circus protesting the use of animals.
Do we want these radical extremists coming into our homes for inspections and investigations?
I don't think so!
RPOA Texas Outreach (501C4 Nonprofit)
www.rpoatexasoutreach.org
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (501C3 Nonprofit)
www.responsiblepetowners.org
IL- Proposed 5 dog limit in City
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/05/chicago-alderman-lets-have-a-five-dog-limit-in-city.html
Originally posted: May 13, 2009
Chicago alderman: Let's have a five dog limit in city
Posted by Dan Mihalopoulos at 6:50 p.m.
Chicago pet owners would not be allowed to have more than five dogs in their homes under a new City Council proposal.
Ald. Ray Suarez (31st) introduced the ordinance to cap pooch occupancy at today's council meeting. He said a majority of aldermen---27 out of 50---quickly indicated their support.
"There are a lot of people who can't enjoy their backyards because of irresponsible dog owners," he said.
The proposal was prompted, Suarez said, by a recent case of 11 dogs at one house in his Northwest Side ward. The alderman alleged that the stench of doggie doo-doo made neighbors barking mad.
"It smells really bad, especially in the summer," Suarez said.
He quickly added that he didn't want to be labeled anti-canine for his latest legislative effort. "We have a dog who is like a member of the family," he explained.
The ordinance will be debated by the council's License Committee. A date for that public hearing has not yet been set.
Originally posted: May 13, 2009
Chicago alderman: Let's have a five dog limit in city
Posted by Dan Mihalopoulos at 6:50 p.m.
Chicago pet owners would not be allowed to have more than five dogs in their homes under a new City Council proposal.
Ald. Ray Suarez (31st) introduced the ordinance to cap pooch occupancy at today's council meeting. He said a majority of aldermen---27 out of 50---quickly indicated their support.
"There are a lot of people who can't enjoy their backyards because of irresponsible dog owners," he said.
The proposal was prompted, Suarez said, by a recent case of 11 dogs at one house in his Northwest Side ward. The alderman alleged that the stench of doggie doo-doo made neighbors barking mad.
"It smells really bad, especially in the summer," Suarez said.
He quickly added that he didn't want to be labeled anti-canine for his latest legislative effort. "We have a dog who is like a member of the family," he explained.
The ordinance will be debated by the council's License Committee. A date for that public hearing has not yet been set.
Monday, May 11, 2009
TX- Breeder Regulatory Legislation is now very close to becoming LawBecause of procedural maneuvering in the Texas Legislature, harsh
Because of procedural maneuvering in the Texas Legislature, harsh
breeder regulatory legislation is now very close to becoming law in the
Lone Star State. It is vital that all concerned responsible dog
breeders and owners in Texas take immediate action in opposition to this
bill.
On Wednesday, May 6, Senator Tommy Williams of The Woodlands had House
Bill 2310 considered, which originally concerned the powers and duties
of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. HB 2310 already
passed the House of Representatives, and was being considered by the
full Senate. Then, while the bill was being considered, Senator John
Whitmire of Houston, the chief sponsor of Senate Bill 1910, which seeks
to impose harsh regulations and limits on responsible dog breeders but
had until now received little attention from the Texas Senate, moved to
amend CSHB 2310, adding the same harsh breeder regulatory language to
this bill. The amendment was accepted. In short order, the Senate's
rules were suspended, allowing the full Senate to put the newly-amended
HB 2310 up for a final vote. The Senate voted unanimously in favor of HB
2310. (Click here for the Texas Senate Journal's entry detailing the
actions taken on HB 2310.)
These procedural moves effectively prevented concerned Texans from
exercising their right to speak out about this legislation. Now, the
bill will be sent back to the Texas House of Representatives for final
approval, also known as concurrence. AT THIS CRITICAL JUNCTURE, IT IS
VITAL THAT ALL RESPONSIBLE DOG BREEDERS AND OWNERS IN TEXAS FLOOD THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WITH LETTERS, CALLS, AND E-MAILS OF OPPOSITION.
URGE THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE TO NOT CONCUR WITH THE SENATE'S AMENDMENTS
TO HB 2310. ADDITIONALLY, ALL CONCERNED TEXANS SHOULD CONTACT GOVERNOR
PERRY AND EXPRESS THEIR RESPECTFUL YET STRONG OPPOSITION TO HB 2310 AND
THE PROCEDURAL MANEUVERING THAT DENIED TEXANS THEIR RIGHT TO BE HEARD.
If enacted, the amended HB 2310 will negatively affect many responsible
breeders in Texas. The AKC opposes these changes including the following
provisions:
* Defining "commercial breeder" as a person who possesses 11 or
more adult intact female animals and is engaged in the business of
breeding animals for direct or indirect sale or for exchange in return
for consideration.
* Requiring licensure of anyone considered a commercial breeder.
* Limiting commercial breeders from possessing more than 50 adult
intact female animals in a facility at any time.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
It is imperative that all concerned Texans immediately contact their
member of the House of Representatives. Urge them to not concur with
the Senate's amendments to HB 2310. To find your Representative, go to
http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/ and enter your information.
Contact Governor Rick Perry in opposition to this bill now.
Respectfully yet strongly let him know that you oppose HB 2310, and
insist that he veto this bill.
> Office of the Governor Rick Perry
> Mailing Address:
> P.O. Box 12428
> Austin, Texas 78711-2428
>
> Delivery Address:
> State Insurance Building
> 1100 San Jacinto
> Austin, Texas 78701
>
> Citizen's Opinion Hotline [for Texas callers]: (800) 252-9600
>
> Fax: (512) 463-1849
>
> To e-mail Governor Perry's office, go to
> http://governor.state.tx.us/contact/, click "I am registering my
> opinion", click "Submit", complete the information on the following
> page, and click "Submit".
breeder regulatory legislation is now very close to becoming law in the
Lone Star State. It is vital that all concerned responsible dog
breeders and owners in Texas take immediate action in opposition to this
bill.
On Wednesday, May 6, Senator Tommy Williams of The Woodlands had House
Bill 2310 considered, which originally concerned the powers and duties
of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. HB 2310 already
passed the House of Representatives, and was being considered by the
full Senate. Then, while the bill was being considered, Senator John
Whitmire of Houston, the chief sponsor of Senate Bill 1910, which seeks
to impose harsh regulations and limits on responsible dog breeders but
had until now received little attention from the Texas Senate, moved to
amend CSHB 2310, adding the same harsh breeder regulatory language to
this bill. The amendment was accepted. In short order, the Senate's
rules were suspended, allowing the full Senate to put the newly-amended
HB 2310 up for a final vote. The Senate voted unanimously in favor of HB
2310. (Click here for the Texas Senate Journal's entry detailing the
actions taken on HB 2310.)
These procedural moves effectively prevented concerned Texans from
exercising their right to speak out about this legislation. Now, the
bill will be sent back to the Texas House of Representatives for final
approval, also known as concurrence. AT THIS CRITICAL JUNCTURE, IT IS
VITAL THAT ALL RESPONSIBLE DOG BREEDERS AND OWNERS IN TEXAS FLOOD THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WITH LETTERS, CALLS, AND E-MAILS OF OPPOSITION.
URGE THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE TO NOT CONCUR WITH THE SENATE'S AMENDMENTS
TO HB 2310. ADDITIONALLY, ALL CONCERNED TEXANS SHOULD CONTACT GOVERNOR
PERRY AND EXPRESS THEIR RESPECTFUL YET STRONG OPPOSITION TO HB 2310 AND
THE PROCEDURAL MANEUVERING THAT DENIED TEXANS THEIR RIGHT TO BE HEARD.
If enacted, the amended HB 2310 will negatively affect many responsible
breeders in Texas. The AKC opposes these changes including the following
provisions:
* Defining "commercial breeder" as a person who possesses 11 or
more adult intact female animals and is engaged in the business of
breeding animals for direct or indirect sale or for exchange in return
for consideration.
* Requiring licensure of anyone considered a commercial breeder.
* Limiting commercial breeders from possessing more than 50 adult
intact female animals in a facility at any time.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
It is imperative that all concerned Texans immediately contact their
member of the House of Representatives. Urge them to not concur with
the Senate's amendments to HB 2310. To find your Representative, go to
http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/ and enter your information.
Contact Governor Rick Perry in opposition to this bill now.
Respectfully yet strongly let him know that you oppose HB 2310, and
insist that he veto this bill.
> Office of the Governor Rick Perry
> Mailing Address:
> P.O. Box 12428
> Austin, Texas 78711-2428
>
> Delivery Address:
> State Insurance Building
> 1100 San Jacinto
> Austin, Texas 78701
>
> Citizen's Opinion Hotline [for Texas callers]: (800) 252-9600
>
> Fax: (512) 463-1849
>
> To e-mail Governor Perry's office, go to
> http://governor.state.tx.us/contact/, click "I am registering my
> opinion", click "Submit", complete the information on the following
> page, and click "Submit".
It's Where the Obama's Didn't Purchase Their Pup That Matters
It's Where the Obama's Didn't Purchase Their Pup That Matters
By Steve Dale
No, they didn't get a shelter dog. So what?
The First Family's First Puppy is as pure bred as they come, a Portuguese Water Dog named Bo, a gift from Senator Ted Kennedy's family, who have three Portuguese Water Dogs of their own.
By accepting 6-month old Bo, who had been returned to the breeder by another family, you'd think animal rights (AR) groups would be pleased with the President's choice Instead, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and the Humane Society of the United States were sharply critical of Obama because he didn't adopt a shelter dog, as if somehow dogs in shelters are suffering only because Obama chose a dog from a breeder.
To be absolutely clear - adopting a shelter animal is one way ordinary people can do something extraordinary, it's relatively inexpensive and you may potentially be saving a life. It's a great thing to adopt a shelter animal. However, I'm sick and tired of the AR groups blaming responsible breeders for the ills of animal shelters, as if they are somehow to blame for too many animals being given up and too few being adopted.
When I began writing this column nearly 15 years ago, most people considered shelter dogs and cats damaged goods, and were reluctant to adopt. That false perception is no longer accepted as fact. Shelter adoptions are up, and in many places way up. In fact, today, some communities even have shortages of adoptable dogs, so they 'import' them from other cities, counties or states where there's an abundance in packed shelters. Meanwhile, spay/neuters are up, and overpopulation is down in many parts of America. A complex web of caring volunteers rescue pure-bred dogs and pedigreed cats, yanking them from shelters (freeing space there for others), and bringing those rescued into home environments to be adopted.
When you subtract the dogs and cats considered unadoptable for behavior and/or health reasons, we're doing better than ever when it comes to adoptions. Still, YES YES YES - absolutely too many animals languish and die in shelters. I'm not disregarding that tragic fact.
Unfortunately, animal rights (AR) organizations have blasted Obama for not choosing a shelter dog. Obama's not alone. Joe Biden was attacked for purchasing a pure bred German Shepherd dog. In fact, according to these extreme AR groups, anyone who purchases a pure bred dog or pedigreed cat from a breeder is considered to be directly responsible animals dying in shelters. That leap of faith is simply wrong.
Pets purchased from conscientious breeders rarely land in shelters because, according to most contracts they must be spayed or neutered, and if anything goes wrong those pets are supposed to be returned to the breeder. That's exactly what happened to the Obama puppy that unfortunately turned out to be a poor fit for his first home. He was returned to the breeder, rather than dumped at the door of a shelter. If somehow, some way that puppy did land in a shelter, Portuguese Water Dog Rescue would have saved him.
In fact, the AR groups have it backwards - responsible breeders are a part of the solution, not a part of the problem. The problems begin with the idiots who breed animals for all the wrong reasons, they don't belong to a breed club or consider genetics in their haphazard breeding; they simply hope to make a buck.
Totally at fault are the pet stores (whose supplies are from puppy mills and commercial warehouses) selling to anyone who has cash (credible breeders are discerning and interview perspective buyers).
Most of all, according to data, here are reasons animals most often land in shelters: it's owners who can't deal with a behavior problem and can't find or don't bother to seek suitable help; relocate but without taking the pet; people who rent an apartment or buy a condo where pets aren't allowed but are soon discovered so the pet losses; or increasingly they simply can no longer afford to maintain the pet. Increasingly, lots of dogs are confiscated from gangs and other 'bad guys.'
Dealing with all these issues is what we should all be working on - not worrying about the breeders who are acting responsibly.
If the AR groups literally had their way - based on their own statements - there would be no breeding whatsoever. Their mantra is to advocate all breeders go away and that each and every animal is "Bob Barkerized" (spayed or neutered). If that were to literally happen, Maine Coon cats would soon be as endangered as the Cheetah; and American Cocker Spaniels or, for that matter, Portuguese Water Dogs would be as threatened as the African Wild Dog.
Made to feel guilty, and pushed to do positive PR, the Obama's will make a contribution the Washington (D.C.) Humane Society. That's nice. But the Obama's have nothing to feel guilty about. If you purchase a dog from a pet store or a reckless breeder, now you should feel guilty. But that is not what the Obama's did. In fact, they didn't make any purchase since Bo was a gift from the Kennedy family. Rescuing an animal from a shelter is good, but so is choosing a loving and responsible breeder - these two choices are not mutually exclusive.
By Steve Dale
No, they didn't get a shelter dog. So what?
The First Family's First Puppy is as pure bred as they come, a Portuguese Water Dog named Bo, a gift from Senator Ted Kennedy's family, who have three Portuguese Water Dogs of their own.
By accepting 6-month old Bo, who had been returned to the breeder by another family, you'd think animal rights (AR) groups would be pleased with the President's choice Instead, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and the Humane Society of the United States were sharply critical of Obama because he didn't adopt a shelter dog, as if somehow dogs in shelters are suffering only because Obama chose a dog from a breeder.
To be absolutely clear - adopting a shelter animal is one way ordinary people can do something extraordinary, it's relatively inexpensive and you may potentially be saving a life. It's a great thing to adopt a shelter animal. However, I'm sick and tired of the AR groups blaming responsible breeders for the ills of animal shelters, as if they are somehow to blame for too many animals being given up and too few being adopted.
When I began writing this column nearly 15 years ago, most people considered shelter dogs and cats damaged goods, and were reluctant to adopt. That false perception is no longer accepted as fact. Shelter adoptions are up, and in many places way up. In fact, today, some communities even have shortages of adoptable dogs, so they 'import' them from other cities, counties or states where there's an abundance in packed shelters. Meanwhile, spay/neuters are up, and overpopulation is down in many parts of America. A complex web of caring volunteers rescue pure-bred dogs and pedigreed cats, yanking them from shelters (freeing space there for others), and bringing those rescued into home environments to be adopted.
When you subtract the dogs and cats considered unadoptable for behavior and/or health reasons, we're doing better than ever when it comes to adoptions. Still, YES YES YES - absolutely too many animals languish and die in shelters. I'm not disregarding that tragic fact.
Unfortunately, animal rights (AR) organizations have blasted Obama for not choosing a shelter dog. Obama's not alone. Joe Biden was attacked for purchasing a pure bred German Shepherd dog. In fact, according to these extreme AR groups, anyone who purchases a pure bred dog or pedigreed cat from a breeder is considered to be directly responsible animals dying in shelters. That leap of faith is simply wrong.
Pets purchased from conscientious breeders rarely land in shelters because, according to most contracts they must be spayed or neutered, and if anything goes wrong those pets are supposed to be returned to the breeder. That's exactly what happened to the Obama puppy that unfortunately turned out to be a poor fit for his first home. He was returned to the breeder, rather than dumped at the door of a shelter. If somehow, some way that puppy did land in a shelter, Portuguese Water Dog Rescue would have saved him.
In fact, the AR groups have it backwards - responsible breeders are a part of the solution, not a part of the problem. The problems begin with the idiots who breed animals for all the wrong reasons, they don't belong to a breed club or consider genetics in their haphazard breeding; they simply hope to make a buck.
Totally at fault are the pet stores (whose supplies are from puppy mills and commercial warehouses) selling to anyone who has cash (credible breeders are discerning and interview perspective buyers).
Most of all, according to data, here are reasons animals most often land in shelters: it's owners who can't deal with a behavior problem and can't find or don't bother to seek suitable help; relocate but without taking the pet; people who rent an apartment or buy a condo where pets aren't allowed but are soon discovered so the pet losses; or increasingly they simply can no longer afford to maintain the pet. Increasingly, lots of dogs are confiscated from gangs and other 'bad guys.'
Dealing with all these issues is what we should all be working on - not worrying about the breeders who are acting responsibly.
If the AR groups literally had their way - based on their own statements - there would be no breeding whatsoever. Their mantra is to advocate all breeders go away and that each and every animal is "Bob Barkerized" (spayed or neutered). If that were to literally happen, Maine Coon cats would soon be as endangered as the Cheetah; and American Cocker Spaniels or, for that matter, Portuguese Water Dogs would be as threatened as the African Wild Dog.
Made to feel guilty, and pushed to do positive PR, the Obama's will make a contribution the Washington (D.C.) Humane Society. That's nice. But the Obama's have nothing to feel guilty about. If you purchase a dog from a pet store or a reckless breeder, now you should feel guilty. But that is not what the Obama's did. In fact, they didn't make any purchase since Bo was a gift from the Kennedy family. Rescuing an animal from a shelter is good, but so is choosing a loving and responsible breeder - these two choices are not mutually exclusive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)