postheadericon From Susan Wolf, Sportsmen’s & Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance

We should never underestimate the resolve of animal rights organizations to bring an end to animal ownership and breeding as we know it today.  I trust all our readers have been following the progress of the APHIS proposed rule for regulating retail pet sellers.  The rule is widely promoted by HSUS, ASPCA, PETA, ALDF and others as merely closing a loophole in the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and a means to run puppy mills out of business.  Never forget that in the eyes of these radical groups and their brainwashed followers we are all irresponsible puppy mills.  More than two decades ago, HSUS developed campaign materials promoting a moratorium on breeding cats and dogs and guidelines for mandatory spay/neuter laws. PETA stated long ago, “There is no such thing as a responsible breeder”; and went on to say, “Simply put, for every puppy or kitten who is deliberately produced by any breeder, an animal in an animal shelter dies.”   

This week the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) weighed in on the APHIS rule.  Their submitted comment should be a wakeup call to anyone who holds the illusion that any part of this rule is necessary or that a compromise should be negotiated.  

After the tried and true AR-speak statement that “puppy mills produce an estimated two to four million puppies each year often in deplorable and inhumane conditions”, ALDF proceeds to support the rule as a beginning and highlight their ideas for additional steps needed.  To summarize, ALDF opposed any expanded exemption from three to four breeding females for dog, cat, and small animal breeders; requested automatic license suspensions for repeat offenders; requested automatic confiscation of distressed animals. 

Finally, ALDF requests the AWA be amended by Congress to allow private right of action for enforcement with fee shifting provision. ALDF suggests to APHIS that allowing third parties to file suit against violators would enhance enforcement process and at the same time remove some of the agency’s cost burden.  The ALDF comment can be viewed online at the Federal Register.

The comment period for the proposed APHIS rule regulating retail sellers has been extended until August 15.  If you value your right to own and breed dogs without federal restrictions, please continue to submit comments and encourage clubs and businesses to do the same. 

Again, encourage organizations and businesses to join the SAOVA Opposition List. To add your organization’s name, send an email signed by an officer of the organization stating opposition to: Susan Wolf  Please include organization’s address.

Cross posting is encouraged. 

Susan Wolf
Sportsmen’s & Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance
Working to Identify and Elect Supportive Legislators


A reminder to help stop the pending legislation (USDA/APHIS) which will badly affect all small and hobby breeders.  You can help:

**By August 13, please sign the AKC petition by control+click to follow link

**By August 15, 2012 Submit Written Comments to APHIS at:   control+click to follow link below!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003-0001


To my friends especially those who have enjoyed our Cavaliers over the years:

There is a ruling being considered to lump small and hobby breeders who do not make any living from breeding dogs with commercial breeders.  This r**By August 13, please sign the AKC petition by control+click

**By August 15, 2012 Submit Written Comments to APHIS at:   control+click to follow link below!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003-0001ule, if adopted by the USDA, would in effect stop ethical and reputable breeders like me from breeding and/or you from purchasing a purebred dog. It would not help stop the commercial and very substandard breeders from operating as there would not be enough USDA manpower to inspect and control.  The rule would limit a small and hobby breeder to keeping only four breeding bitches where they be just puppies, retired unsprayed girls, co owned girls not even living on the property, and girls currently in the breeding program.  At this point, Rattlebridge has only two girls to breed with three puppies waiting to hopefully be shown and/or bred but with no firm plans to do so.  Show breeders “run on” or keep puppies up to two years or more waiting to see if they will make the show ring, pass all health checks, and be worthy of breeding.  Puppies will count in the total of four. I am facing the end of my breeding/showing passion, but I would hate to see younger and very ethical breeders stopped from breeding. The Humane Society of the United States is pushing USDA/APHIS (the name of the actual legislation); the bottom line of the HSUS agenda is the elimination of all pet ownership. Please look at my blog to see entries concerning HSUS and animal rights activists. Please help:

As usual I am late getting the word out but action is needed, but in short:

**By August 13, please sign the AKC petition by control+click

**By August 15, 2012 Submit Written Comments to APHIS at:   control+click to follow link below!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003-0001

Explanation of United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA)/ Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS):




Submit Written Comments to APHIS by August 15, 2012 at:   control+click to follow link below!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003-0001

The newly proposed rule of USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) jeopardizes your right to breed, sell and purchase purebred dogs.  If adopted, it will adversely affect, directly or indirectly, virtually all breeders, show exhibitors and purchasers of purebred dogs.

Under the proposed Rule, all pet breeders with as few as five “breeding females” who sell an animal over the Internet or by phone or mail will be subject to rigorous federal licensing, inspection and animal care requirements under the Animal Welfare Act.  Non-commercialized “hobby” breeders of purebred dogs were never intended to be regulated by this federal statute.  APHIS’ proposed Rule will strip hobby breeders of their current exemption from stringent federal licensing requirements on the pretext of closing an alleged “loophole” for Internet pet sales.

Contrary to APHIS’ claim, the proposed Rule will not eliminate unscrupulous breeders or “puppy mills” with abusive practices who are driven by financial profit.  Instead, it will force many responsible breeders, such as show or hobby breeders of purebred dogs who turn no profit, to downsize their breeding programs or close shop. 

The federal animal care standards imposed by the APHIS  Rules, which were originally designed for laboratory animals, are virtually impossible to meet in a home-based kennel environment.  If adopted, the proposed Rule will subject hobby breeders to unreasonable costs and invasive home inspection requirements which ultimately will drive many responsible hobby breeders out of business.  Do we need more Governmental regulation because of actual abuses, or is the APHIS proposal another veiled attempt by animal rights’ activists to eliminate pet breeding entirely?

View the proposed APHIS Rule at:  control+click to follow link!docketDetail;dct=FR%252BPR%252BN%252BO%252BSR%252BPS;rpp=25;po=0;D=APHIS-2011-0003


The AKC shares the USDA’s concerns about substandard internet pet retailers. However, the current proposal is overly broad, difficult to enforce, and does little to address the actual wellbeing of animals sold.

The AKC believes that the USDA’s “one size fits all” proposal is not in the best interest of all dogs, responsible breeders, or puppy buyers. It is unreasonable and virtually impossible for many small hobby breeders to comply with the strict kennel engineering standards that were designed for large commercial operations. It would create unreasonable hardships that could threaten genetic diversity, the future of a vast number of responsible small hobby breeders, and the very existence of some rare breeds.

It would require all who own more than four “breeding females” and sell even one animal “sight unseen” to be regulated as a commercial breeder and be subject to federal commercial breeder licensing, regulation and inspections. The term “breeding female” is not defined, so it is unclear how USDA or even breeders themselves would determine who falls under these regulations. The term also includes multiple species (including cats, dogs, and other small mammals). This means, for example, that a person would not have to own more than four intact female dogs to be regulated for the sale of a single puppy sight unseen.

In many cases, geographic distance makes it difficult for a purchaser to personally visit or pick up a puppy at a breeder’s facility. Such scenarios are particularly common for breeders and fanciers of rare breeds and others who may be purchasing a second pet from the same breeder or already have an established relationship with a breeder. Requiring such individuals to comply with regulations designed for large commercial breeder/dealer facilities may not be appropriate.

The Regulatory Impact Analysis provided in the proposed rule vastly underestimates both the number of individuals who will be impacted and the expense to occasional breeders to establish commercial-level facilities. The comment period for the U.S. Department of Agriculture proposed rule that would categorize many small/hobby breeders as commercial breeders and subject them to unnecessary licensing, regulation and inspections will close on August 15.

It is imperative that any breeder or owner who is concerned about this proposal provide comments to the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) before August 15.



Step 1:   Submit Written Comments to APHIS by August 15, 2012 at:   control+click to follow link below

Docket No. APHIS–2011–0003

Regulatory Analysis and Development

PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8

4700 River Road, Unit 118

Riverdale, MD 20737–1238

**Your written Comments are an important step to stop the proposed APHIS Rule.

APHIS is required to accept and respond to all timely submitted comments.  Multiple comments on different points may be submitted.  All comments should urge APHIS to withdraw its proposed Rule.

Note:  When the rulemaking portal is opened, there are two options for electronic  comment submission:

(1) Typing of comments in the box – which imposes a 20-minute time limit/

2,000 character limit.  If this option is used to submit comments of less than 2,000 characters, we recommend that you paste comments prepared in separate draft form into the box to avoid the time limit; or

(2) Attachment of comments prepared in separate document format via

the “upload” option.

The “attachment of document” option is recommended, as there

Is no time or character limitation.

Suggestions for comments and sample letters can be found at:

Step 2:  Sign the AKC Petition opposing the proposed APHIS Rule by  August 13, 2012. (see below for AKC Concerns)

Signing AKC’s Petition is quick and easy.  Read more here and sign the AKC Petition at

Step 3:  Contact Your Federal Legislators

Congress determines the levels of funding for USDA and APHIS.  Let your Congressional Representatives know that you oppose APHIS’ proposed Rule and that the proposal would drive many responsible hobby breeders out of business, without solving the problem of unregulated rogue, unscrupulous breeders.  The proposed Rule would also adversely affect the economy and result in loss of job opportunities.  Breeders of purebred dogs and related dog events  substantially contribute to the economy and create jobs.  For example, in 2011, AKC sanctioned dog events alone generated over $1 Billion dollars in national revenue.

“The Cavalry Group,” activists to alert the public against unnecessary and downright bad legislation has developed a sample letter and contact form to simply this process.  Follow these links and take action with your federal legislators now:

To contact your congressional representatives clink here:

Step 4: Contact USDA Secretary Vilsack

2012 is a major election year.  The head of USDA, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, who is appointed by the President, should be informed that putting pet breeders out of business is not the way to turn this economy around.  The Cavalry Group has prepared a sample letter and contact form to assist with submission of your comments to Secretary Vilsack.  Follow this link and send a letter today:

We also urge you to sign AKC’s petition to Protect Responsible Small Breeders.

Further questions may be directed to AKC GR at (919) 816-3720 or

postheadericon This is the HSUS we know!


The Real Truth about This “Beloved” Organization—NOT!





Please pass this information along to whomever you know that is not yet a
member of IFDCO (Illinois Federation of Dog Clubs and Owners) so that they
will be informed of this action on the part of our state. I never thought I
would live so long to see "armed" escorts needed for dog breeders! Even
those breeders who do not need to be licensed need to have meticulous
records available in case of an investigation. I also question about the
sales tax license being for "general merchandise" . If anyone has a CPA or
tax attorney who can decipher the IL sales tax code please let me know.
IFDCO asked three different CPA’s about this when it first surfaced a few
months ago and received three different answers. The only common advice for
breeders was to keep good records.

While this is news for Illinois, those of you in other states need to be
prepared as well, it’s only a matter of time before this kind of activity
hits your state. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy that our revenue
departments and criminal
investigation units have so much extra time on their hands they can afford
to drive to every dog breeder to "investigate" and collect sales tax. Craft
fairs, garage sales and lemonade stands will be next for an armed visit.

Michele Kasten

Belle City Kennel Club
Schipperke Club of America
Illiana Schipperke Club
Schipperke Club of Greater St. Louis
GSD Club of Southern Illinois
Midwest Schipperke Rescue
Schipperke Club of Greater St. Louis, President and Rescue Chair
President and Co-Founder, Midwest Schipperke Rescue


Permission to cross post:


It has happened here in Illinois. A Senior Investigator and her armed
escort from the Illinois Department of Revenue Bureau of Criminal Investigations
has shown up on the door steps of a person who holds a Kennel License in
Illinois demanding to see their dog sales records and accusing them of
criminal wrongdoing. The investigator knew exactly how many dogs this
person had sold in the past 36 months. What they didn’t know is that most of the
dogs sold by this individual were sold to out of state clients, so no sales
tax needed be collected on over 75% of their dog sales. This is not a puppy
mill operation. This is a breeder of over 30 years who has quality dogs,
shows dogs, and has a boarding kennel. They are just like you or I. The
Investigator forced this individual to show up in Springfield, obtain a
sales tax license for the sale of general merchandise and then proceeded to
go thru their records from the Department of Agriculture for the past 3
years. By the end of the day, they had to pay all back sales taxes, fines
and interest on their fines.

We had heard last year that the Illinois Department of Revenue had
requested a list of all individuals who were licensed as dog breeders in
the state from the Department of Agriculture – I guess it is true. This person
was made an example. They were told that they were being made an example
and others would soon follow.

A person at the Department of Revenue told this individual that they had
been instructed to bleed anyone to get money as the state is so broke.

What can you do? If someone knocks on your door and shows you a business
card or a badge, have them wait outside and you should call your accountant
and or your lawyer. Don’t do anything without legal representation. Think
about only selling your dogs out of state – so that no sales tax needs to
be collected. Once they knock on your door, the statue of limitations is 3
years that they can request your records.

Steve Hayden
President, IFDCO

postheadericon The Real HSUS Agenda


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  

postheadericon A Huge Win for Our Side: Yea Arnold!

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.

postheadericon One Big Win for Our Side!


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:

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




The Proposed Legislation Would Destroy   Almost Every Ohio Kennel

      Hearing Today – Act Now Or Lose It All

      by JOHN YATES
      American sporting Dog Alliance

      This report is archived at

      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: . 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:

      77 S. High St
      12th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215-6111
      Phone: (614) 466-3735
      Fax: (614) 719-6995

      Here is contact information for Rep. Wegner:

      77 S. High St
      10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215-6111
      Phone: (614) 466-1374
      Fax: (614) 719-6981

postheadericon VICTORY IN ILLINOIS



One More Brick in the Wall:

 Success in Illinois (HB 198 and SB 53)

By ESaunders

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.


postheadericon And the Legislation Beat Goes On


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:

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)