Archive for the ‘Law & Legislation’ Category

 

From a fellow breeder who is as worried as I am about the animal rights agenda and all the anti dog and anti breeding legislation being introduced or passed:

“One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.” Wayne Pacelle, CEO, Humane Society of the United States.

Please do not donate money to an organization that aims at eliminating all animal use in our country. They are NOT a Humane Society; they do not own or operate ONE pet shelter in the US, and they are NOT a national organization that “oversees” our hard-working local shelters. 

 

The HSUS has nothing to do with animal welfare except where it must show up to prove that it is all for animal welfare for publicity sake.  The donations sent to the HSUS are spent on lobbying for its own agenda which has to do with, in Pacelle’a own words: “the extinction of domestic animals.”  I don’t know about you, but I do not think I would like to spend my remaining years without the companionship and devotion of my dogs and cat (or my horse now that I am riding again).  I do not know how I would do without a dog to love.   Meredith              

“Freedom  is never more than one generation away from extinction.. We  didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must  be fought  for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our  children and our children’s children what it was once like  in the United States where men were free.” —–Ronald Reagan  
  

From the AKC:

Monday, October 12, 2009]

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has vetoed Assembly Bill 241 which would have prohibited any person or entity from having 50 or more intact dogs or cats. He returned the bill with the following veto message:

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 241 without my signature. This measure would make it a crime for any person or entity to own or control more than 50 unsterilized adult dogs or cats for breeding or raising for sale as pets. I support measures designed to prevent animal cruelty and that punish persons engaged in the abuse of animals. However, this measure simply goes too far in an attempt to address the serious problem of puppy mills. An arbitrary cap on the number of animals any entity can possess throughout the state will not end unlawful, inhumane breeding practices. Instead this measure has the potential to criminalize the lawful activities of reputable breeders, pet stores, kennels, and charitable organizations engaged in raising service and assistance dogs.

For these reasons, I am unable to sign this bill.

The American Kennel Club Government Relations department opposed this bill throughout the legislative process, sending letters to the author and committee members, as well as alerting our California breeders to the impacts of AB 241. A letter was sent to Governor Schwarzenegger requesting a veto and we are pleased that he saw the same problems with this bill that we did. AKC sincerely thanks all the clubs, responsible pet owners and breeders who took the time to educate their legislators and Governor Schwarzenegger about the potential impacts of this bill.

 

In the continued war against those who would take our rights to own and breed dogs away, the Louisville Kennel Club sued Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government against the legislation which would affect dog shows, owning dogs, breeding dogs, and all dog related activities.  Those that owned altered dogs did not have to obey the requirements imposed on unaltered. A few years ago many of us were afraid to show at the Louisville Kennel Dog shows in March fearing that our dogs would be targeted. The following is from the AKC website:

Tuesday, October 06, 2009

Late Friday, United States District Court Judge Charles R. Simpson, III, of the Western District of Kentucky issued his decision in the case of the Louisville Kennel Club, Inc. v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government. A significant victory for the Louisville Kennel Club, the judge’s decision features two key rulings that may also prove to be of great importance for dog owners nationwide.

First, Judge Simpson held that there was no rational basis why owners of unaltered dogs should be treated differently than the owners of altered dogs. This declared the part of the ordinance that required owners of unaltered dogs to get the Director’s written approval for those dogs’ enclosures (owners of altered dogs did not have such a requirement) as an unconstitutional violation of Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process.

Reiterating another court’s earlier decision that recognized that dogs are personal property, the judge further held Louisville’s seizure bond requirement as an unconstitutional violation of procedural due process rules. This requirement, which required anyone accused of animal cruelty to post bond for the care of their seized animals, would have resulted in the forfeiture of animals if they were not able to pay for the bond regardless of whether or not they were later determined to be innocent.

“We congratulate the Louisville Kennel Club and their co-plaintiffs on their leadership in opposing the Louisville ordinance,” said Dennis Sprung, President and CEO of the American Kennel Club. “We are confident that this decision will encourage communities to consider the interests of responsible dog breeders and owners when making changes to their animal ordinances.”

Keep up with all dog related legislation at the AKC website: AKC.org

For more information, contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.

 

FAX OR CALL THE LEGISLATORS LISTED BELOW AFTER YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN BY JOHN YATES OF THE AMERICAN SPORTING DOG ALLIANCE.  HELP US FIGHT THE ANIMAL RIGHTISTS WHO WISH TO END DOG BREEDING AND ULTIMATELY DOG OWNERSHIP.

The Proposed Legislation Would Destroy   Almost Every Ohio Kennel

      Hearing Today – Act Now Or Lose It All

      by JOHN YATES
      American sporting Dog Alliance

http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org

      asda@csonline.net

      This report is archived at http://eaglerock814.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=47

      COLUMBUS, OH – A critical committee hearing is scheduled for TODAY (June 24, 2009) on legislation that we believe would make it impossible for anyone to raise dogs in Ohio. The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee will take testimony on House Bill 124 beginning at 9:30 a.m. in Room 018 of the State Capitol Building. We have heard unofficial reports that testimony on another bill may push back the hearing on HB 124 until after Noon, but this cannot be confirmed officially.

      We cannot be too emphatic about the devastating nature of HB 124 and its impact on people who raise dogs in Ohio. It is very radical animal rights legislation straight from the heart of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), which is the political mouthpiece for this movement to gradually eliminate all animal ownership in America.

      If dog owners do not act decisively and in large numbers, they will have only themselves to blame if this terrible legislation is passed into law. Immediate action is required to save the dogs that you love. No excuse is good enough for failing to act now.

      Some people may think we are exaggerating and using scare tactics. We are not, and we will prove it in this report. First, we will summarize the major provisions in HB 124, and then we will provide a direct link to the actual text of this legislation so that people can read it for themselves and prove that everything we are saying is true.

      Ohio dog owners have every reason to be scared – very scared! And they have every reason to be very angry because this legislation denies innocent dog owners the basic rights and legal processes that are guaranteed to someone charged with murder or rape.

      You will no longer truly own your dogs if this legislation passes. They will become, in essence, wards of the state.

      Here are some of the major provisions of HB 124 and its companion bill, Senate Bill 95:

        a.. A Kennel Authority would be created to write regulations, administer the law and control virtually everything done by dog owners. The Authority’s politically appointed Board of Directors would be heavily weighted toward animal rights activists. Only one person who raises dogs and one person representing pet stores would be on the Board. There is no legislative or judicial oversight over the decisions of this board.

        a.. This committee would be given a free hand to design and implement all of the rules for kennel licensing, inspections and paperwork, as well as all construction, maintenance and management requirements..

        a.. The board will require every kennel owner and “any other person” who sells even one dog to obtain a tax vendor number. You must pay sales tax for selling even one dog or puppy.

        a.. Each applicant for any kind of kennel license will be subjected to a criminal background check by the state Attorney General.

        a.. Every license applicant must post insurance or a bond to cover the state’s cost of enforcing the law at the kennel.

        a.. The Board is given a completely blank check to write “any other requirements and procedures” to define and enforce the law. People with animal rights beliefs will have total control over the lives of dog owners.

        a.. Anyone who buys, offers to sell, sells or gives away nine or more dogs a year is intensely regulated and licensed as a dealer, which is called a “dog intermediary” in the legislation. Anyone who sells even one dog or puppy to a pet store also is considered a dealer.

        a.. Anyone who raises more than nine litters of puppies a year, or has 40 puppies a year, must be licensed as a “breeding kennel” and subject to extremely intense regulation. For some breeds, only four litters a year could produce 40 puppies. A “breeding dog” is defined as any dog that is not spayed or neutered, regardless of the dog’s actual purpose in a kennel.

        a.. Anyone from out of state who sells a dog or puppy to an Ohio resident must document the entire history of the dog, and provide a veterinary health certificate. This will make it very difficult for Ohioans to obtain a dog from another state.

        a.. Tail docking, ear cropping and dewclaw removal (or the removal of any other claw) can be done only by a veterinarian. Owners no longer could dock tails of newborn puppies, as has been standard practice for centuries. Owners also could be prosecuted if a dog accidentally rips off a claw, such as when hunting.

        a.. Kennel owners would no longer be allowed to treat even minor ailments or injuries, possibly even including parasites, which are now defined as a disease. All treatments must be done by a veterinarian.

        a.. No one can sell a dog at any public place, which would include field trials, dog shows and other canine gatherings. All sales must be at the kennel facility.

        a.. The state is required to inspect “any facility.upon request of a member of the public” or a public or quasi-public official. That means that animal rights activists can demand and get state inspections of the home and property of anyone who has dogs, without making or proving any allegation of a violation, and without producing proof of any kind. This will lead to continual and frightening harassment of law-abiding dogs owners by animal rights groups, and the state must respond to all requests for inspections, even if they are obviously bogus.

        a.. Inspectors are given absolute and incontestable power to enter and inspect “any public or private property” to see if a violation of the law has occurred. There is no requirement for a search warrant or probable cause (a warrant is an option method, but is not required). Anyone who refuses to allow an inspection, or hinders it, can be assessed for the entire cost to the state to investigate and prosecute, including wages and expenses for an unlimited number of state officials.

        a.. Any dog may be impounded if the state has probable cause to believe any violation of the law has occurred, but probable cause is not required to presented before a court, as is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. A hearing before the state agency is set within five days, and the dogs could be permanently forfeited to face adoption or euthanasia. A dog owner cannot appeal to a local court, but can appeal only to the Environmental Division of the Franklin County Municipal Court, and the kennel owner must post a bond. The state agency thus becomes the cop, prosecutor, judge and jury.

        a.. Civil penalties ranging up to $15,000 can be imposed administratively (with no appeal) for violations, and separate penalties can be assigned for every dog in violation for every day it is in violation. Thus, a dog owner can be destroyed financially without ever getting his or her day in court, even for minor or accidental infractions.

        a.. The state “shall deny” a license to any person who has violated any part of the law or any rule, and that includes paperwork deficiencies, accidental mistakes and minor technical errors.

        a.. The state “shall deny” a license to anyone who “does not have the expertise or capacity to comply” with the law or regulations. That gives the state absolute power to judge the qualifications of anyone to own a dog, and no objective standards are defined. The decision is entirely subjective. There is no appeal. This also means that most poor and working class people could be denied licensure simply because they don’t have enough money to meet all of the state’s insatiable demands. This is a very real issue in today’s troubled economy, and Ohio is among the states hardest hit by the current deep recession.

        a.. No puppy under 12 weeks of age can be sold unless the litter is registered with the state. This essentially creates a database of every dog in Ohio, which many dog owners think will be used someday to mandate pet sterilization or ban certain breeds of dogs.

        a.. The law provides exacting specifications for kennel sizes, construction and temperature control, and allows the Board to create even more stringent regulations. These rules effectively prohibit a dog owner from raising puppies inside his or her own home, and also effectively ban outdoor housing in the winter for most breeds of dogs (it may exclude hunting and sled dogs, but there is some ambiguity in the language) if the water cannot be kept unfrozen 24 hours a day. The use of crates to train dogs kept in a home also is effectively banned.

        a.. Except for dogs that are continuously confined to a kennel, any dog that is found without a collar and license tag (even inside the owner’s home) can be seized, sold or killed. This would appear to include puppies, as the word “dog” is not defined.

        a.. No person or group who is licensed as a dog rescue would be allowed to breed any dogs or raise any puppies. This would destroy the breed rescue network in Ohio, as most of the participants actually raise the breed they are helping to rescue.

        a.. And reams of time-consuming paperwork and compliance documentations would be required, and minor omissions or errors could cause a license to be denied or revoked.

      It is the belief of the American Sporting Dog Alliance that the terms of HB 124 that are outlined above will combine to force almost every kennel in Ohio to close its doors. The combination of stringent rules, unreasonable liabilities and draconian enforcement measures will either result in kennels being closed by the state, or kennel owners being scared and intimidated into quitting to avoid the probability that the state would destroy their lives.

      Please do not take our word for it. We want you to read this legislation yourself and form your own conclusions.

      Here is a direct link to the actual text of HB 124: http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=128_HB_124 . Please read it.

      The American Sporting Dog Alliance regards this bill as an unconscionable perversion of the American concept of justice that shows utter disdain for the Bill of Rights, individual privacy or the concept of private property.

      What You Can Do About It

      Ohio dog owners are up against an array of powerful forces from the animal rights movement. They are well organized and well funded, and have been preparing for this legislation for many years.

      To stop this legislation will require an outpouring of clear opposition from several thousand Ohio dog owners, and the time for it to happen is now.

      If dog owners do not act in large numbers, there is a high probability that this terrible and destructive legislation will be passed into law.

      Please be scared. Please be angry. Please be scared and angry enough to fight back as if your life depends on it – and it does.

      Here is what you can do:

      Contact the chairman of the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, Rep. John Domenick (D-95) and the Minority Chair, Rep. Jeff Wagner (R-81). Faxes and written letters are the best, but this should also include a phone call or email immediately, because the hearing is tomorrow. Emails alone probably are less effective, but far better than nothing.

      Here is contact information for Rep. Domenick:

      Address:
      77 S. High St
      12th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215-6111
      Phone: (614) 466-3735
      Fax: (614) 719-6995
      Email: district95@ohr.state.oh.us

      Here is contact information for Rep. Wegner:

      Address:
      77 S. High St
      10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215-6111
      Phone: (614) 466-1374
      Fax: (614) 719-6981
      Email: district81@ohr.state.oh.us

 

ILLINOIS

One More Brick in the Wall:

 Success in Illinois (HB 198 and SB 53)

By ESaunders AR-HR.com

It’s a good day. Due to a united effort from Veterinarians, the AKC, Pet Owners & Pet Breeders, IL House Bill 198 & Senate Bill 53 has been defeated, for now.  As cited on the HSUS webpage for these bills.

“Due to pressure from the Illinois Veterinary Medical Association, the American Kennel Club and puppy mill producers in Illinois, legislation (H.B. 198/S.B. 53) to crack down on puppy mills in the state was not brought up for a vote. We will continue working to crack down on puppy mills.”

It is unfortunate that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) could not gracefully accept that the proposed legislation was rejected by the people of Illinois.  Attributing the bills’ defeat to ‘puppy mill producers’ is sour grapes & an attempt to stain the reputation of the AKC, Illinois veterinarians, pet owners, trainers, responsible breeders and families involved.  In the face of an practiced & expensive lobbying campaign by the HSUS, the mostly volunteer effort held the day through sheer blood, sweat and tears to protect the rights of pet owners and breeders with respect to
the pets they hold so dear.

The effort is far from over.  Similar unnecessary bills are preoccupying legislators’ time across the US.  Time that could be better spent focusing on the colossal economic issues facing the US and the world right now.

But today, we hold forth a cheer for the little guys.  The people who are dedicated to truly understanding dogs and sharing their lives.  Tomorrow they still have dogs to feed, care for and love while they tell their legislators to get back to work and enforce the multitude of laws already on the books to deal with animal protection matters.

http://ar-hr.com/2009/04/13/one-more-brick-in-the-wall-success-in-illinois-hb-198-and-sb-53/

 

 

Well, the battles are on!  Please do what you can in your state and your community to stop the spread of anti dog and anti breeding legislation.  Please pay close attention to what is going on in Washington as the animal rights groups now feel that they have a direct line to the new administration and are eagerly helping to form a legislative coalition to press the animal rights agenda. 

a small victory :

From the AKC website: http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id782

Update: Mandatory Spay/Neuter Language Removed from Florida Bill! [Tuesday, March 24, 2009]

This morning, the Florida House Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Committee adopted a “strike-all” amendment to House Bill 451, which would have required the mandatory spay/neuter of all dogs four months of age with little exception. The Florida Association of Kennel Clubs reports that the amendment, offered by HB 451’s sponsor, Representative Scott Randolph, has removed all mandatory spay/neuter language, and instead provides local government officials the option of using a $5 surcharge currently added to animal control citations to help pay for low-cost spay/neuter programs.The American Kennel Club commends the Florida Association of Kennel Clubs and the many concerned Florida residents who took action in opposition to the original version of HB 451. Their tireless efforts have ensured that the rights and liberties of responsible dog breeders and owners in Florida will continue to be honored. The American Kennel Club also thanks Representative Randolph for listening to the grave concerns of the AKC and the thousands of Floridians who expressed their strong opposition to mandatory spay/neuter. The AKC Government Relations Department is pleased to have assisted the Florida Association of Kennel Clubs by issuing several legislative alerts with contact information and sample letters; e-mailing thousands of AKC club members, officers, delegates, judges, and legislative liaisons; reporting developments to tens of thousands of alert recipients; and contacting legislators with anti-MSN policy arguments.

 

. . . And now the horrors of the proposed Texas bills.  Please send the following to anyone you know who can help defeat this legislation in Texas.  How has the tail began wagging the dog in the great state of Texas???

Forwarded with permission.

Texans need to pay attention here, and PLEASE send on to all persons, organizations, and clubs in Texas who might help in fighting these bills!

Around 15 dog / pet-related bills have been filed this legislative session. Zandra Anderson is an attorney who has worked with dog folks in Dallas and other locations, and who was a leader in the fight last legislative session. She is currently working on briefs against several of the proposed bills and is planning to testify in opposition to the bills. The bills currently in focus follow.

Mandatory Spay Neuter–HB 4277 / SB 1845 (all dogs and cats over 6 mos. old must be altered unless they are showed in competition or used for breeding;  intact permit of $300 per animal) The only people who are targeted by this law are those people who own and contain their dogs. Stray, un-owned dogs (and cats) that breed indiscriminately are fair game for local animal control to impound if they have at large laws. If there is a statewide edict that all dogs and cats have to be sterilized and the breeder bill will legislate responsible breeding to extinction, then where are we supposed to get our next pets? Perhaps we can start importing them even in greater numbers from outside the state.There are many valid reasons people have intact animals. In addition to show dogs, genetics is the key component in hunting dogs. Our state is known for hunting so this law adversely affects one of the state’s most popular sports.Working dogs, tracking dogs, guard dogs, search and rescue dogs are often kept intact to be able to continue a line of elite dogs in these various fields.

A statewide mandatory spay neuter law is misplaced. Any such laws should be entertained on a local level. What state agency will police whether or not our animals are altered? There are no state animal control officers, so there is no agency to enforce this law. This is a decision that should be left up to local governments. It would be an added expense to the state that is not discussed in any fiscal note and would be an astronomical expense considering that over 60% of Americans own a cat or a dog (American Pet Products Manufacturer’s Association–APPMA).·

Voluntary spay neuter initiatives are effective and over the past twenty-five years, altering pets has been on a significant rise. Currently, 75% of owned dogs and 87% of owned cats are altered (APPMA).Despite what humane organizations publicize about pet overpopulation when they are trying to drive donations, euthanasia has decreased over the last twenty-five years regardless that pet ownership has soared. The Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy collected data indicating that in 1973 there were 65 million cats and dogs in the U.S. and that 13 million, or 20%, were euthanized. The Humane Society of the U.S. estimates that 3-4 million dogs and cats are euthanized in the country currently. As of last year, there were 163.1 million cats and dogs in our country (APPMA). Therefore, approximately 1.8% – 2.4% of cats and dogs are euthanized last year. Euthanasia rates are on the steady decline, so voluntary spay neuter initiatives are working and will continue to work particularly if low cost/no cost spay neuter is available.

More animals will die in shelters because many releasing agencies cannot afford to spay and neuter the animals they release.This bill will adversely affect animal control facilities being able to release intact dogs to rescue organizations despite the rescues willingness to alter the animals under their programs. The bill clearly states that the releasing agency cannot release an animal for adoption unless they are fixed, so a strict interpretation would not allow them to release intact animals to rescue. This will be devastating for the animals and shelters alike.

Only 10% of Americans obtain their pets from humane organizations or shelters (APPMA). Euthanasia rates in our state could be diminished if more people who wanted a pet could be convinced to get one from their local shelter or humane organization.No one wants to see even one healthy animal needlessly put down, but this bill will increase euthanasia rates. In every city that has tried mandatory spay neuter, the euthanasia rates have increased. Enforcement of mandatory spay neuter laws in cities that have them are usually prejudicially aimed at citizens who can least afford to fight back. Instead of unfairly going after economically disadvantaged citizens, why not offer them low cost or no cost spay neuter? Every time a spay neuter mobile unit goes into these areas, they are filled to capacity of people wanting to get their animals altered. People could use this help especially during these challenging economic times.

There is absolutely no reason the government should make it their business what an animal owner chooses to do with an owner’s animals. My dog, my choice. The government needs to quit micromanaging the lives of its citizens and their animals.

Breeder Bill–HB 3180/ SB 1910 (10 or less intact breeding females is a hobby breeder, 11 or more is a commercial breeder; includes hobby breeder as a dealer; harsh laws for dealers regarding the sale of puppies; has a lemon law for puppies.

This bill is convoluted to say the least. It is so complex that is not really enforceable. This bill seeks to allow the Department the right to have a vet, animal control or a humane society agent do the inspections of the breeder facilities. Animal control knows nothing about breeding. Humane societies know nothing about breeding. Putting people in charge of inspections who have no training or knowledge in breeding can be very problematic, and be ripe for abuse.

Humane societies should not be used by the government for these inspections. They are not governmental agencies and for the government to abdicate responsibility to some humane organization is giving way too much power to these groups. Many humane organizations have philosophies that are opposed to breeding, so then to allow them to do inspections of breeding facilities is unfair and ripe for abuse. To allow humane organizations to inspect the facilities creates the same conflict as exists in our cruelty seizures. The very humane organizations who are doing the investigating are the ones who will get the animals if they are seized from the breeder. This is like the wolves guarding the sheep and is fertile for abuse. Many times they are the same humane organizations who fight for mandatory spay neuter laws and who warn against buying from breeders. These are not the people you want investigating breeders who they are typically philosophically opposed to from the outset. The cruel conditions of a puppy mill cannot be condoned, but this bill is not really a puppy mill bill as touted. This bill affects all commercial breeders including the ones who do a good job (not puppy mills), and affects the hobby breeders regarding their sale of animals. Hobby breeders do not have their facility inspected per this bill, but they will have their sales scrutinized.·

Hobby breeders (those with ten or less intact females capable of breeding) are not the target of all the laws controlling a commercial breeder’s “facility.” However, they are included in the definition of a dealer which includes a person who is required to collect sales tax for sale of a puppy or kitten to the public.

There are onerous conditions placed on dealers under Subchapter G which addresses the retail sale of dogs or cats. This section applies to dealers which includes the hobby breeder. There is a requirement that dealers provide detailed disclosures about the animal being sold, a retention requirement of records pertaining to the animal, a requirement to deliver registration documents to purchaser, and requires a veterinarian examine the animal prior to sale. Dealers are subject to what are initially lemon laws for the sale of puppies and kittens. They have to essentially guarantee that the animal is free of genetic or hereditary problems, and is free from any health problems. These requirements are very complex and far reaching.

Dangerous Dog Bill–HB 1982 (makes your dog dangerous if he barks in your own yard and anyone says they are in fear; makes owners dogs 40# and more keep them in secure enclosures meant for Dangerous Dogs, no off lead)

Pit Bull Handling Bill– HB 925 (makes it illegal for anyone 15 or younger to handle or care for an APBT (American Pit Bull Terrier), AmStaff, Staffie Bull or any pit bull type dog, including mixes)

HB 2001 Tethering (would not allow your dog to be in your yard unless attended; no tethering allowed no matter how done)

 

 

 

 

Insanity in New Hampshire

The New Hampshire legislation is among the most restrictive  anti-hobbyist bills we have ever seen. It was presented in the House Environment and Agriculture committee today for a hearing. Dog owners were not informed of the hearing, and the results have not been made available. The legislation is scheduled to move out of committee following an executive session on February 19.

      House Bill 337 would:

      · Allow New Hampshire residents to sell only one dog or cat a year.

      · Allow a maximum of no more than two additional sales by a special
      permit, for $25 apiece. No one could receive more than two special
      permits.

      · Impose fines of $50 to $200 would be imposed. All permit fee
      revenues and fines would be placed in a special fund for spaying and
      neutering pets.

      · Only large commercial kennels are exempt.(what is the definition
      and why can large kennels be approved over the hobby breeder?)

Here is a link to the actual text of the legislation:

http://www.gencourt .state.nh. us/legislation/ 2009/HB0337. html.
           

The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all New Hampshire dog owners to immediately contact each member of this committee and express strong opposition. It is critical to do this quickly, before the February 19 executive session.

Here is a link to the names of each member of the committee:

http://www.gencourt .state.nh. us/house/ committees/ committeedetails .aspx?code=H06
     
Clicking on a name will bring up a page with contact information for phone,surface mail, fax and email.

            PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS

 

Thank you to all who have called, emailed, or sent cards during my husband’s surgery.  Al continues to improve.  He came home Monday night and immediately began to bring in firewood from the front porch then told me to stop “harping” at him when I went ballistic.  He insists on driving which, of course, I will not let him do. He gets even by front seat passenger driving and nagging me with every turn I take until I am ready to drop him off in the middle of the interstate.   He is back to normal and I am grateful, not for the return of his curmudgeon attitude, but that he is well enough to be himself!

Legislation

With the new legislative year, anti breeding legislation is cropping up in several states with more proposed bills on their way. The Animal rights activists are on the move. HSUS and PETA feel that they have an “in” with President Obama as Ophra, Peta’s person of the year, certainly does have in with our new president.  The campaign to disillusion the public from buying a purebred from a breeder and to go to a shelter to get a pet continues to invest in high end publicity.

I believe fully in giving shelter dogs a home; every dog and cat, for that matter, deserves a caring, loving home. However, the claim that purebreds have horrible health problems is one more PR tactic of the animal rights activists.  Yes, purebreds do have health problems; veterinarians can identify purebred breeds and note the problems. Some breeds tend toward specific problems. Each breed’s national breed club, such as the American Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club, funds research for the health problems in the breed. The American Kennel Club also funds research.  Through DNA testing there are real efforts to identify the gene behind specific health problems so that those health problems may ultimately be treated or eliminated. The problem with the claim that mixed breeds do not have health problems is that statistics on their health problems are not done.  Believe me, mixed breeds do have health problems and in a later entry I will use an article that clearly outlines the purebred health vs. mixed breed health controversy.

HSUS and Peta have huge budgets for advertising, not for seeing to the actual welfare of animals, but to the “rights” of animals. Both organizations would like to see the ownership or “the enslavement” of animals ended and the guardianship of animals implemented, giving animals the same rights as humans.  I am all for humane treatment of all living beings, except for perhaps the horrible Japanese beetles that eat my roses every year, but as much as I love animals, I do not feel that they should be personified and still believe God created them to serve mankind in the many wonderful ways that they do.

The following article by Kendra Bobulsky, legislation liaison for the Golden Retriever Club of Central Ohio, compares animal rights to animal welfare and hopefully will shed some light on current developments:

I promised an article on the difference between Animal Rights, the radical anti-pet ownership movement, and Animal Welfare, where individuals fight for the health and well being of animals using grounded and intelligent means and arguments.

Animal Rights sounds like a great idea. Most of us care deeply about the safety and health of all animals. We may differ on our views of hunting, raising animals for slaughter, the use of traditional livestock management techniques such as battery cages, but no one wants to see abused, abandoned, or neglected animals hurting with no one to fight for them.

Animal Rights groups claim to fight for these animals, unfortunately they also want to eliminate hunting, meat consumption, animal breeding of any kind, and in fact, the ultimate goal of these organizations is to eliminate domesticated animal ownership entirely. They feel any use of animals, even as loved family companions, is torturing and objectifying the animals. Some organizations, such as PETA and Green Peace have, on occasion, shown their true colors, utilizing anarchist tactics to fight for Animal Rights. Thankfully the average American understands the radical nature of these groups.

Unfortunately some groups have hidden their ultimate agenda and have successfully marketed themselves as organizations that truly want to help animals and their owners. The Humane Society of The United States is the largest organization of this kind. Most Americans confuse them with local humane societies that actually rescue and re-home domesticated animals. HSUS is NOT a rescue organization. All monies going to HSUS go directly to their massive political fund, masking their true agenda in an overwhelming media campaign, manipulating caring individuals in government and across America, all the while using this ill obtained support to chip away at the rights of animal owners everywhere.

Many of the issues supported by HSUS seem well intentioned, but each political move is part of a calculated agenda that has chipped away at the rights of animal owners and we are now looking at bills that could cause irreparable damage to pure bred dog sports, including breeding restrictions, dramatically increased costs for breeders and kennel owners, collar regulations, and increased government oversight that will only hurt those of us who want to follow the rules, ignoring any problem dog owners who are supposedly the targets of these pieces of legislation.

Animal Welfare supports the animals and the owners. It uses fairness and intelligence to support rescue efforts, responsible breeding practices, and good legislation that will benefits animals and owners.

Please take the time to understand the difference. Please take the time to support Animal Welfare. Please take the time to educate others about the dramatic but hidden difference between these two movements.

The Animal Welfare Council has some more information at:

http://www.animalwelfarecouncil.com/html/aw/rights.php.

Kendra Bobulski

GRCCO Legislative Liaison.

AND MORE IN ILLINOIS:

The Sportsmen’s and Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance (SAOVA) is a nationwide, nonpartisan group of volunteers seeking to elect politicians  who will vote to protect the

The Sportsmen’s and Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance (SAOVA) is a nationwide, nonpartisan group of volunteers seeking to elect politicians who will protect the rights of sportsmen, pet owners and farmers concerned  about protecting their traditions, avocations and livelihoods from anti-hunting, anti-breeding, animal guardianship advocate.

For more information and to study the archives of this active group go to:

saova.org
 

A SAOVA message to sportsmen, pet owners and farmers concerned  about protecting their traditions, avocations and livelihoods from anti-hunting, anti-breeding, animal guardianship advocates. Forwarding and cross posting, with attribution, encouraged.<P><HR></P>Illinois Breeder Licensing HB 198/SB 53 Call to Action

February 11, 2009

SAOVA Friends,

HB 198 was scheduled to be heard by the Business/Occupational Licenses Committee on February 10th. However, the bill was never addressed in Committee.  It will remain on the Committee’s agenda and will be rescheduled at the request of Rep. Fritchey.  The bill will devastate responsible breeding in the state and hundreds of Illinois dog breeders have already voiced their opposition to HB 198. We must continue to increase the pace until the voices of opposition number in the thousands. 

Contact for HB 198 Sponsors:

Representative Angelo Saviano (R, 77)
217-782-3374 / 217-557-7211 FAX
skip@skipsaviano.com

Representative Deborah Mell (D, 40)
217-782-8117 / 217-558-6369 FAX
Deb@debmell.org

Representative Jack D. Franks (D, 63)
217-782-1717 / 217-557-2118
jack@jackfranks.org

Representative Daniel J. Burke (D, 22)
217-782-1117 / 217-782-0927 FAX
dburke@housedem.state.il.us

Representative Greg Harris (D, 13)
217-782-3835 / 217-557-6470 FAX
greg@gregharris.org

Representative Michael J. Zalewski (D, 21)
217-782-5280 / 217-557-1934
repzalewski@gmail.com

Representative Keith Farnham (D, 43)
(217) 782-8020
krfarnham@comcast.net

Representative Lou Lang (D, 16)
217-782-1252 / 217-782-9903 FAX
RepLouLang@aol.com

Representative Harry Osterman (D, 14)
217-782-8088 / 217-782-6592 FAX
HJO17@aol.com

Representative Sandy Cole (R, 62)
217-782-7320 / 217-782-1275 FAX
sandycole@comcast.net

Representative Jack McGuire (D, 86)
217-782-8090 / 217-557-6465 FAX
Jmcguire86@sbcglobal.net

Representative Al Riley (D, 38)
217-558-1007 / 217-557-1664 FAX
Rep.Riley38@sbcglobal.net

Representative Linda Chapa LaVia (D, 83)
217-558-1002 / 217-782-0927 FAX
Chapa-laviali@liga.gov

Correction: Rep. Luis Arroyo remains a cosponsor. Contact info:
(217) 782-0480 / (217) 557-9609 FAX
Repdistrict3@gmail.com 

Use the form letter available for download at the SAOVA website http://www.saova.org/Illinois.html. The form letter leaves room to add a talking point of your own for personalization.  Please sign and fax the form to all Cosponsors.  Send the form to friends and family and request their help. 

Find your own Representative http://www.ilga.gov/house/default.asp  and send your opposition to HB 198.
Use the link on the SAOVA website to email all Licensed Activities Committee Members at one time and oppose the Senate version, SB 53.

Join SAOVA, Illinois State Veterinary Association, Association of Illinois Pet Owners, American Sporting Dog Alliance, United Kennel Club, and the American Kennel Club in opposition to HB 198/SB53. Please send a copy of your organization’s opposition letter to saova@earthlink.net or fax to 866-291-2343 to be added to the growing opposition list!

And in Oklahoma: Please take note:

February 1, 2009

HB 1332:  Pending legislation that will require that anyone who is a
breeder, person, firm, corporation or other association that qualifies and
is certified as a breeder, dealer, animal rescue, out-of-state
dealer/breeder, shelter, or retail pet store that sells, gives away, or
transfers a cumulative total of twenty-five or more animals of any age in
any one (1) calendar year directly to a consumer, co-breeder, retail pet
store, to a person for research purposes, or to any person acting as a
broker who has accepted animals for transfer to a third party and is
licensed pursuant to the Oklahoma Pet Quality Assurance and Protection
Act.[1]

.        Includes all animal rescue organizations that utilize foster homes
if they accumulate more than 25 animals.

.        Stipulates that out of state breeders cannot transport in OK
without a state license.  Under the provisions this would include out of
state breeders that exhibit at dog/cat shows within the state of OK.[2]

.        Calls for the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture to develop and
implement regulation pertaining to this bill.  There is nothing that
requires representation from stakeholders or public input.

.        The bill will duplicate federal regulations and laws already in
place.  Would it not be beneficial and fiscally responsible to support the
federal agency and help to enforce laws already in place?

.        The bill proposes to assess fees and fines as the revenue source to
implement and sustain the activities of this law.  It calls for a fund
specific to the activities of this law which opens the door for donations
from individuals and nonprofits.  The state will incur the fiscal
responsibility to ensure that funds are available.[3]  The state’s
fundraising methods are to impose higher taxes.  With the expected shortfall
in state revenue is this the time to impose more tax burden on Oklahoma’s
individuals and families?

.        Gives any peace officer the authority to enter the premises of an
individual or facility. There is nothing that states peace officers will be
trained or must be accompanied by trained personnel.  

.        This bill allows members of law enforcement to enter onto property
without cause.[4]

.        Penalties include liens against the licensee’s personal property
for failure to meet fines.

.        Responsible breeders follow ethics guidelines and existing federal
laws.  The provisions of HB 1332 will encourage substandard breeders to
burrow further underground.

.        The bill does not list an element for consumer protection.
Consumers should be educated and hold a reasonable portion of the
responsibility when purchasing pets.

Summary:  HB 1332 is a continuation of last year’s attempts to impose
punitive measures that duplicate federal efforts.  This bill will have a
negative impact on responsible breeders with valid USDA licenses, those that
visit our state for recreation and legitimate organizations that provide a
valuable rescue services to animals.  The bill will have a negative fiscal
impact on tax payers and consumers while infringing upon the rights of law
bidding Oklahomans.

While OAIA encourages animal advocates to look for solutions to community
pet issues HB 1332 as written cannot solve the issues of producing healthy
pets for consumers and eliminating substandard breeding practices.

*********************************************************************************************

We are in a fight for our rights to own and breed dogs. Please take note and write your Senator and Congressman about protecting our rights please. Check the proposed legislation in your community, city, county, and state and let your opinions be known.

Until next time . . .

 

California has defeated AB 1634 which would have changed the face of breeding dogs in the State.  It was a hard battle, but the voices of sanity won.  Now there are two more pending cases that must be defeated.  In Chicago, there is a mandatory spay/neuter law being proposed in the city.  It must be defeated; if you live in Chicago, please check out this looming legislation and let your voices be heard against it.  In Michigan, newly proposed legislation would again attempt to control and curtail breeding, but as in Chicago and California would hit the reputable breeders the hardest.  Ohio has such legislation also being proposed but there has been enough pressure on the State Legislature, that the two bills, HB223 and SB173, have not yet been passed.

Let’s look at the new developments in Michigan:

From the AKC:

Michigan Breeder Bill Introduced [Thursday, September 04, 2008]

Yesterday, Representative Bill Caul of Mt. Pleasant introduced Michigan House

Bill 6395, which proposes to strictly regulate virtually all responsible dog

breeders. It is imperative that all concerned responsible dog breeders in

Michigan contact the members of the House Agriculture Committee, which currently

has cognizance of the bill, and their elected Representatives and express their

vehement opposition to this bill.

The American Kennel Club opposes the concept of breeding permits, breeding bans,

or mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and

enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not

restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities

seriously.

If adopted, HB 6395 would:

* Define anyone who sells or offers for sale more than two dogs per

year, or more than one litter of dogs per year, as a “pet seller.”

* Mandate that those who qualify as pet sellers to acquire an

annual pet seller license from their county animal control shelter at

a cost of $200/year.

* Require an applicant for a pet seller license to submit his or

her fingerprints with a license application for a criminal history

and FBI background check.

* Give discretion to county animal control shelters to deny

applications for pet seller licenses, regardless of outcome of

background investigation.

* Call for pet sellers to comply with administrative rules

regarding housing that will be financially detrimental to responsible

breeders who operate out of their homes.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

Michigan residents should contact the members of the House Agriculture Committee

listed below and their elected Representatives and express their strong

opposition to this onerous legislation.

Michigan House Agriculture Committee:

Representative Jeff Mayes, Chairman

S1285 House Office Building

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Fax: 517-373-8881

Phone: 517-373-0158

jeffmayes@house.mi.gov

Representative Barb Byrum, Majority Vice-Chair

S1086 House Office Building

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Fax: 517-373-9430

Phone: 517-373-0587

barbbyrum@house.mi.gov

Representative Kathy Angerer

S0989 House Office Building

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Fax: 517-373-7757

Phone: 517-373-1792

kathyangerer@house.mi.gov

Representative Terry L. Brown

S1188 House Office Building

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Fax: 517-373-9852

Phone: 517-373-0476

terrybrown@house.mi.gov

Representative Kathleen Law

S0787 House Office Building

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Fax: 517-373-5922

Phone: 517-373-0855

kathleenlaw@house.mi.gov

Representative Gabe Leland

S0689 House Office Building

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Fax: 517-373-5985

Phone: 517-373-6990

gabeleland@house.mi.gov

Representative Joel Sheltrown

S1387 House Office Building

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Fax: 517-373-5495

Phone: 517-373-3817

joelsheltrown@house.mi.gov

Representative Howard Walker

S1388 House Office Building

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Fax: 517-373-9420

Phone: 517-373-1766

howardwalker@house.mi.gov

Representative Neal Nitz

N1097 House Office Building

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Fax: 517-373-5918

Phone: 517-373-1796

nealnitz@house.mi.gov

Representative Richard Ball

S1189 House Office Building

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Fax: 517-373-7937

Phone: 517-373-0841

richardball@house.mi.gov

Representative Arlan B. Meekhof

N1193 House Office Building

P.O. Box 30014

Lansing, MI 48909-7514

Fax: 517-373-9830

Phone: 517-373-0838

arlanbmeekhof@house.mi.gov

To find your Michigan State Representative, go to

http://house.michigan.gov/find_a_rep.asp

For more information, contact AKC’s Government Relations Department

at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.

 

 

 

 

We have just found out that California bill SB1634 has a serious chance of becoming law unless we unite and write our own state senators and all California senators.  You can Google each state’s government legislators and get the name of senators and their contact information.  Please join in the fight against this bill.  You may read below from a legislation list just what is at stake.  Do not email, but fax  your opposition to this bill please.  If legislation like this passes, and it is pending in many communities and states, dog breeding will become a thing of the past and Peta will be well on its way to achieve its manifesto–end the ownership of animals.  Without companion animals, I do not want to live in this world. 

> Urgent AB 1634 Update
>
> I have just learned from our contacts inside the Sacramento State Capitol,
> AB 1634 will not be heard in Senate Appropriations Committee on Monday,
> July
> 14th.  AB 1634 will be sent directly to the Senate Floor without a vote in
> Senate Appropriations.  This has just been confirmed by the Senate
> Appropriations Committee.  This procedure is called 28.8.  Its when the
> Appropriations Chairman decides there are no appreciable costs to a bill,
> he
> can determine it isn’t necessary to hear the bill in his committee, thus
> sending it directly on to the entire senate.  AB 1634 also has been
> removed
> from the Appropriations agenda file.
>
> PetPAC is now asking everyone to direct their letters to 1) your State
> Senator; 2) to every California State Senator.  Contrary to what any other
> group is telling you, I urge you to not delay.
>
> Send in your letters NOW.  Contact your State Senator.   You can write
> them
> about every bad aspect of AB 1634.  You can tell them it will cost local
> governments millions of dollars. There is no Due Process; There is No
> Appeal
> Process; AB 1634 makes it a crime to own an intact dog or cat.  This will
> affect thousands of dog and cat owners in California;  AB 1634 will affect
> tourism in California; AB 1634 will affect law enforcement K9 units,
> working
> dogs and herding dogs in agriculture. There are no exemptions.  This is a
> punishment looking for a crime.
>
> Please don’t delay.  As California goes, so goes the nation.
>