postheadericon Federal Legislative Alert: Problematic PUPS Bill Reintroduced for 2013

The following information concerns a very serious piece of legislation totally backed by the animal rightists, HSUS, to control breeding so that breeders such as I will be regulated out of breeding.  None of my top breeder friends will go on with the restrictions which will be imposed on them by the USDA which should be regulating only the commercial kennels.  Please take a moment to read through and then write your congressmen/women.  Meredith

[Friday, March 1, 2013]

Federal “PUPS” legislation (S 395/HR 847), sponsored by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Rep. Jim Gerlach has been reintroduced in the U.S. Congress and assigned to the House and Senate Agriculture committees. The bill is substantially the same as previous versions introduced in 2011 and 2010, which never received committee hearings.

The AKC continues to express grave concerns about this measure. The AKC believes that all dog breeding programs should be undertaken responsibly and does not oppose the concept of regulating high volume breeder-retailers.  However, as currently written, the definitions proposed in this bill are misleading, overly broad, and potentially damaging to small responsible breeders who individually maintain and breed only a few dogs in their homes.

Although the stated purpose of PUPS is to regulate internet sales of puppies, S 395/HR 847 as currently written would require anyone who owns or co-owns even a few female dogs that collectively produce 50 or more puppies offered for sale in a year to be regulated under existing USDA dog "dealer" regulations. These regulations are designed for high-volume commercial kennels that produce puppies for wholesale or research, and require a USDA commercial license, maintenance of specified commercial kennel engineering standards and regular inspections. These requirements are not appropriate for small breeders who may keep only a few dogs in their homes.

AKC’s specific concerns with PUPS include the following:

• Defines “high volume retail breeder” as someone with “an ownership interest in or custody of one or more breeding female dogs”. This definition is overly broad and does not take into account co- and joint ownerships common among dog owners, dog show participants, hunting club members, sporting dog trainers and other hobbyists. This would hurt many small hobby breeders who keep or breed only a few dogs in their homes by subjecting them to commercial standards of regulation as a result of agreements they maintain with other small breeders.

• Defines “high volume retail breeder” as someone with “an ownership interest in or custody of one or more breeding female dogs”.  Because the threshold for regulation is based on the number of dogs bred and sold, any reference to the number of dogs owned or in custody is unnecessary and potentially misleading.

• Defines “breeding female” as an intact female dog aged 4 months or older. This is misleading and implies that a female dog may be bred at 4 months. Female dogs are not sufficiently mature at 4 months of age to be bred and should not be deemed “breeding females”.

• Exercise language should be clarified with respect to the terms “solitary and goal oriented” to ensure that the daily exercise requirements do not preclude training that involves other types of wholesome activity that could fall under this definition (e.g.,  playing fetch, field training for hunting dogs, or the responsible use of treadmills for keeping canine athletes in top physical condition).

• PUPS would exponentially expand the pool of breeders regulated and inspected by the Animal Care Division of the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal, Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS).  However, a May 2010 audit of this program by the USDA’s own Inspector General demonstrated that the existing inspections program is insufficient to carry out current responsibilities. AKC believes these issues and full funding for the current program and enforcement of current laws should be addressed before attempting to exponentially expand the program’s responsibilities and workload.

AKC encourages you to respectfully share these reasonable concerns about the potential damaging consequences of this bill with your member of Congress.
To contact your Congressional representative, visit and enter your zip code in the “Find Your Representative” box at the top of the page.

To contact your two Senators, visit and select your state in the “Find Your Senators” box at the top of the page.

AKC and AKC’s federal representatives will continue to closely monitor and keep you up to date on this measure.

postheadericon A Bit of Politics-Dog Legislation

 I know that we are a bit past the election, but I am more than a bit behind in blogging.  By the time I take care of everything that Al and I used to both take care of, I fall very behind.  Except for the state of Missouri, we were pretty lucky in electing those officials with favorable views on purebred dogs.  In Ohio the big, beefed up “puppy mill bill” never got to the floor for a vote.  Thought you would be interested in reading the following from the Sportsmen’s and Animal Owners Voting Alliance.


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.

SAOVAS 2010 Election Wrap Up

Dear SAOVA Friends,

It’s clear from November 2 exit polls that voters had many issues on their
minds besides animal rights and the current economy headed that list of
election concerns by a large margin. Against that background, sportsmen and
animal owners should be encouraged by the number of victories we scored.

In head-to-head races between candidates SAOVA endorsed and those supported
by the HSUS and its allies, our candidates won 16 out of 26 contests, or
better than 62%.

Some of the SAOVA endorsees who defeated HSUS endorsees include:

John Kasich (OH)

Dan Lungren (CA)

Cory Gardner (CO)

Tim Wahlberg (MI)

Mick Mulvaney (SC)

Roy Blunt (MO)

Pat Toomey (PA)

SAOVA highlights of the election include defeat of John Hall (D-NY), Carol
Shea-Porter (D-NH), and Joe Sestak (D-PA) all of whom received perfect
scores of 100 from Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF), the legislative
arm of HSUS.

Also defeated were the following legislators designated as "Leaders" by
HSUS: Russ Feingold (D-WI); Phil Hare (D-IL); Ron Klein (D-FL); Frank
Kratovil (D-MD); Kendrick Meek (D-FL); James Oberstar (D-MN); John Spratt
(D-SC); and Dina Titus (D-NV).

For over a decade the HSUS and other anti-animal use groups have introduced
federal legislation to amend the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) expanding the
scope of USDA/APHIS inspection and regulation authority to cover retail,
in-home breeders.  HR 5434/S 3424 Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act
(PUPS) is the 111th Congress edition, and an updated PUPS is sure to be on
the animal rights zealots priority list for the 112th Congress.

Voters sent home the following 14 PUPS cosponsors:

Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH)

Joe Sestak (D-PA)

Carol Shea-Porter (D-RI)

Ron Klein (D-FL)

Michael Castle (R-DE)

Patrick Murphy (D-PA)

Paul Hodes (D-NH)

Steve Kagen (D-WI)

Deborah Halvorson (D-IL)

Betsy Markey (D-CO)

Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D-SD)

Parker Griffith (R-AL)

John Hall (D-NY)

Baron Hill (D-IN)

We are in the process of completing a full list of defeated animal rightist
voters on the SAOVA website:

Sportsmen and animal owners won three of five ballot fights.  In Arkansas
the Hunting and Fishing Rights Amendment passed with 83 percent of the vote.
The Right to Hunt and Fish amendment passed in Tennessee with 87 percent of
the vote, and in South Carolina with 89 percent. 

Missouri animal owners lost the battle to defeat Proposition B which would
set new standards and ownership limits on the existing state regulated dog
breeding industry.  Prop B passed with just 51.6% of the votes with HSUS and
their anti-dog breeder allies spending $4.3 million dollars on support

The new Republican majority in the House may afford a more difficult
atmosphere for HSUS and their animal rights inspired legislation.  The
incoming Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-OH), is no stranger to HSUS
and their tactics.  During Ohio’s raging battle on the HSUS 2010 ballot
initiative, Boehner stated, "HSUS is a special interest group that has been
waging war on our agriculture community in recent years in an effort to
impose its extreme animal rights agenda."

However, new House members may be uneducated on such issues. The new
"freshman" legislators, regardless of party, need to hear from us.  They
need to know that our rights with respect to animals and hunting are
important to us, and that we are the authority on animal welfare. HSUS along
with their radical agenda must be exposed.

The animal rightists will continue to move forward always finding new
methods to promote their ideology. They will be increasingly active at the
state and local level, and we will need more and better-organized
opposition. Equally important, SAOVA needs your financial support.

The world not only belongs to those who show up, it’s controlled by the best
informed, most motivated and sufficiently resourced.

Cross posting is encouraged.

Susan Wolf
Sportsmen’s and Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance –

Issue lobbying and working to identify and elect supportive legislators

Visit SAOVA News  <>


postheadericon SB95 in Ohio!!! We need to defend the rights of breeders and pet owners

Ohioans:  Write To Your Senators About SB95 

To all Ohioans, pet owners or breeders, who care about being able to buy a purebred dog from a responsible breeder or to breed purebred dogs of excellent quality:  Well it is here, the committee vote on SB95 may be Wednesday, May 26th.  We will not even see the sub bill until it is introduced on Tuesday to know what has been changed and what is still in the bill.  Please look over the following points, change the wording to yours, and please email the following committee members.  Our future is at stake here!!!  The hearing will take place in the Grant Hearing Room (#110) in the Capitol Building in Columbus.  WE AS A GROUP HAVE BEEN APATHETIC; WE CAN NO LONGER IGNORE THE LEGISLATION BEING ENACTED BY SAYING "IT WILL NOT AFFECT ME."  BELIEVE ME, IT WILL AFFECT ALL OF US.  Please attend the hearing if you can as the animal rightists will be out in force.  Meredith

Dear Senator__________:

Please understand our concerns with the following points of SB95:

1) the sub bill, which we have not seen yet, must eliminate the overbearing standards in previous versions;

2) bond money should be returned if charges are dismissed;

3) allow court appeals to take place in the county where the infraction
allegedly occurred instead of forcing breeders to travel to a special court
in Columbus;

4) drop language allowing the new state agency to approve rescue
adoption fees

5) drop language requiring the owners of intact dogs to buy a regular kennel license if those intact dogs are not to be bred.To my understanding the bill defines two types of kennel licenses: a "dog kennel" or  just "kennel" and a "regulated dog breeding kennel." Under current law, all breeders who produce puppies for sale or hunting in Ohio are required to have a kennel license. The current versions of SB 95 requires that all breeders who produce more than 8 litters and sell more than 60 dogs and puppies apply for a license to operate as a "regulated dog breeding kennel." Breeders who produce fewer litters or sell fewer dogs and puppies fall under the definition of "dog kennel" or "kennel." The language specifying that kennel licenses are for breeders who produce puppies for sale or hunting is being changed so that owners of adult dogs "kept for the purpose of breeding" must have a kennel license. A breeding dog is defined as an intact adult dog. Since it is not possible to prove that an intact adult dog is NOT being kept for the purpose of breeding at some future date, it is reasonable to interpret this language as requiring a kennel license for even a single intact dog, bringing the cost of licensing that dog to five times the amount for licensing an altered dog.  This is really an attempt for to enforce mandatory spay/neuter which is NOT part of this bill.

Senator, please look at these points.  We stand for the rights of the show and hobby breeders who do all they can to improve the health and other points of their breeds; with the economy the way it is and all the anti breeding legislation out there, the true, dedicated breeders are stopping their breeding programs and then all that will be left are the substandard breeders.

Senator Jim Hughes (Chair and Bill Sponsor)
Senate Building
Room #038, Ground Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Phone: (614) 466-5981

Senator Jimmy Stewart (Vice-Chair)
Senate Building
Room #040, Ground Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215

Phone: (614) 466-8076

Senator Teresa Fedor (Ranking Minority Member)
Room #051, Ground Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Phone: (614) 466-5204

Senator John Carey
Senate Building
Room #127, First Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Phone: (614) 466-8156

Senator Timothy Grendell
Senate Building
Room #042, Ground Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Phone: (614) 644-7718

Senator Ray Miller
Senate Building
Room #228, Second Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Phone: (614) 466-5131

Senator Bill Seitz
Senate Building
Room #143, First Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Phone: (614) 466-8068

Senator Nina Turner
Senate Building
Room #226, Second Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Phone: (614) 466-4583

Senator Mark Wagoner
Senate Building
Room #129, First Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Phone: (614) 466-8060



The HSUS continues to attempt to advance its agenda, but hopefully more and more of us are catching on to the fact that do not have the best interest of dogs or any other animals at heart, just its own pocketbooks and its animal rights, not welfare mind you, but rights agenda. The HSUS claims it is working to regulate and perhaps close down “puppy mills.”  Instead it is really working to regulate all breeders including the reputable ethical breeders of purebred dogs whether show dogs, service dogs, pilot dogs, working dogs, and field dogs.  The dogs that breeders do not include in their particular breeding purpose, are available to families as wonderful family dogs. All of my show dogs are also my family dogs as are the dogs of most breeders.  I want to close down the substandard breeders more than anyone as I have seen the abuses and neglect that their dogs suffer.  However, the HSUS wishes to shut down all breeders and ultimately, with PETA, end the ownership of animals. The legislation already passed or being introduced in states and communities has brought with it the violation of the civil rights of individual breeders even to impounding their dogs with trumped up charges. Some of these breeders have never been able to get their dogs back.  Please read the following closely:

from the Sportsmen’s and Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance:

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. It’s all about numbers.

Recently HSUS aired an announcement on their website congratulating
Wisconsin Governor, Jim Doyle, and the state legislature for enacting a law
“to regulate large scale puppy producing operations, known as puppy mills.”
AB 250 regulates anyone who sells more than 25 dogs or 3 litters a year.  In
HSUS language, this separates small-scale breeders from puppy mills.

HSUS continues by stating, “In addition to Wisconsin, bills to regulate
puppy mills were enacted by the 2009 state legislatures in Arizona,
Connecticut, Indiana, Maine, Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and
Washington.”   WRONG!  In their zeal to pat themselves on the back and keep
the momentum alive for potential success in their multi-million dollar
campaign to regulate dog breeders, HSUS forgot how to count!  It seems they
also forgot to check the results as posted on their own website.  Arizona
bill HB2517, sponsored by Rep. Nancy Young Wright (D, 26), failed as did
Nebraska LB677 sponsored by Sen. Ken Haar (District 21).

In an unprecedented drive, HSUS introduced 33 commercial
breeder/regulation/licensing bills across the country from late 2008 thru
2009.  Of these 21 died, 8 passed; 4 are pending – due to either the
legislatures still in session or bills qualifying to be held over for 2010.

Full listing is available on the SAOVA website

Numbers played a huge role in the drafting and promotion of the HSUS
commercial breeder/regulation/licensing bills – a long name to use but I am
loathe to call them “puppy mill” bills even long enough to write this

What is the definition of commercial or large scale dog breeding?  The
answer according to HSUS appears to depend on what the region can be
convinced to believe. To crack down on alleged puppy mills in Washington
State, HSUS determined 10 intact females was the magic number; Tennessee,
Montana Minnesota, and others used 20 as the beginning point for licensing;
North Carolina’s commercial breeder bill was set at 15, and in Illinois HSUS
determined that only by licensing breeders beginning with 3 intact females
would the state be saved from being overrun with puppy mills.  One HSUS
state director recently explained – a hobby breeder is someone with 6 who
breeds only one or two litters a year; anything more than that is a
commercial breeder/puppy mill. 

Another strategy in the HSUS legislation is to limit breeders by placing
caps on ownership.  A 25-dog magic number was proposed in legislation this
year as the limit of breedable dogs one could own in Colorado, Delaware,
Oregon, Massachusetts, and Washington. 

There is no logic to the idea that an owner can care for 25 dogs but not 26,
or even 100.  Ownership caps are nothing more than a limitation of personal
rights and the ability to build a breeding program, run a business, or earn
a living. 


To keep legislation moving, it is always useful to have a crisis at hand.

HSUS claims there are more than 10,000 large, puppy mills housing 200,000 to
400,000 breeding dogs producing up to 4 million puppies a year.  If
Americans add approximately 8 million dogs to their households a year and
HSUS also claims nearly 50% of these come from friends, is HSUS saying the
other 50% come from substandard sources?

In Tennessee before the commercial breeder bill was enacted, HSUS claimed
10,000 puppies were for sale every day in the state.  In North Carolina,
HSUS claims their previous estimate of 200 puppy mills was in error – the
number is actually 400 and growing as the state is becoming home to breeders
fleeing states where regulatory laws have been passed.  Illinois voters were
urged to enact Chloe’s Bill to prevent before the onslaught of puppy mills
could become a blight on the State’s reputation.

The same sound bites are distributed in every state with a pending breeder
bill and the proclaimed crisis of abuse or overpopulation is NOT new.

In “The Humane Society of the U.S.: It’s Not about Animal Shelters” Daniel
Oliver writes:

“HSUS promotes restrictions on pet breeding and ownership that would sharply
limit the supply of pets and ultimately deny many responsible pet owners the
pet of their choice. It maintains that there is a ‘raging pet-overpopulation
crisis . . . an appalling overabundance of dogs and cats caused by human
carelessness and irresponsible breeding.’  Because an estimated 4.5 million
dogs and cats are euthanized each year in the U.S., HSUS has called for the
elimination of large dog breeding kennels and the enactment of mandatory pet
sterilization laws.”

Oliver continues that in 1993, HSUS proposed mandatory pet sterilization
laws and high license fees to deal with alleged pet overpopulation.  HSUS
called on local, county, and state legislators to enact either voluntary or
mandatory dog and cat breeding bans and to initiate mandatory pet
sterilization laws, including a two-year moratorium on all breeding.  For
each puppy or kitten born in violation of the moratorium, the owner or
person possessing the animal would pay a penalty of $100.


To quote Washington, D.C. analyst Steve Kopperud, “The problem we have has
almost doubled because we have allowed the activists to define us; we have
allowed the activists to tell the public what we do and how we do it and
frankly, we’re sitting back and continuing to allow that to happen.”

We are the experts and must take back that role.  We must get our message
back to the public and to our legislators.  We can no longer afford to have
HSUS and animal rightist philosophers frame the issues, labeling us as
exploiters and legislating away our rights.  The battle will begin again in
2010 and we need to be ready. 

Keep up to date on the issues at SAOVA’s new blog:

Susan Wolf

Sportsmen’s and Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance –  <>

postheadericon OHIO VOTE YES ON ISSUE 2



Hopefully, those of you in Ohio will read this in time to vote tomorrow for ISSUE 2. ISSUE 2 puts our Ohio farmers in control of livestock farming in our state rather than have the animal rightists like the Humane Society of the United States (a national organization promoting itself from donations and not doing anything for the welfare of animals) and Peta (determined to end the “enslavement” of companion animals and livestock)  interfere with farming in our state.  When Proposition 2 passed in California, non farmers and animal rightists came in with  regulations that crippled the farming of livestock causing many farmers to leave the state rather than try to change farming methods that would ruin them financially.  Livestock should be raised and slaughtered humanely. Farmers should be in charge of regulating humane standards in which livestock are raised. 


postheadericon More Legislation News and Views


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.
The following article from award-winning outdoor writer, Marc Folco, is well worth reading.  As an additional comment to the writer’s mention of HSUS anti-breeder legislation in the guise of eliminating puppy mills: HSUS is currently losing this state-level battle about 3 to 1; however bills are still pending in 8 states.
Susan Wolf
Sportsmen’s and Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance –
Issue lobbying and working to identify and elect supportive legislators

Open Season: Firing back at the critics

June 21, 2009 6:00 AM

I get hate mail on the average of once a week, and I don’t know why. My column shouldn’t be controversial.
Hunting has been around since the caveman, and guns have been around shortly after the Chinese invented gunpowder — and our Constitution clearly states that U.S. citizens have the right to keep and bear arms if they so choose. So, hunting and owning guns are two of America’s oldest and most time-honored traditions.

Why make them — and my column — a controversy?

After 21 years of dealing with cry-baby anti-hunters and runny-nosed gun-grabbers that whine incessantly about my column, the outdoors lifestyle and the shooting sports, I’ve become thick-skinned. Their barbs don’t penetrate. Some hate mail I answer, some I don’t. Some I answer here.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), based in Washington, threw another of its hissy-fits recently because I wrote about how the wealthy animal rights group has been investigated after soliciting donations to reunite pets with their owners during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. They took in $34 million for that purpose but only spent $7 million on it. So, a whopping $27 million of solicited funds were used for something else.

In his letter to the editor, HSUS’s Michael Markarian skirts that issue and also avoids the notion that the group is pushing to get 41 dog bills enacted in 26 states that are cloaked as eliminating puppy mills, but go to the extreme, as usual. Language in such bills has included mandatory spaying/neutering (or pay $500 per dog per year that is not spayed or neutered), reporting all puppy sales to local authorities and eliminating the practice of humane tethering.

Markarian uses diversion, and says that the group campaigns vigorously against abusive hunting practices. They also (falsely) claim that I defend inhumane practices. Inhumane? By whose standards? Those of animal rights extremists? By their standards, all hunting is inhumane and the group’s underlying agenda is to eliminate all hunting.

HSUS President and CEO Wayne Pacelle has been quoted as saying, “If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would,” as quoted by the Associated Press in Impassioned Agitator, Dec. 30, 1991. “Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting,” as quoted in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, Oct. 8, 1991. And, “Sport hunting — the killing of wild animals as recreation — is fundamentally at odds with the values of a humane, just and caring society,” HSUS Website 2003.

And according to a report from the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA), Pacelle recently criticized in his blog, those who disagree with the group’s agenda, practically accusing them of not being in step with American culture, the report says.

Pacelle suggests that HSUS opponents should, “start adjusting to the evolving ethos in American culture. You’ll get ahead through innovation and adaptation, not stubborn adherence to custom or current business operations.” He also stated that other animal rights groups, “miss the bigger picture, and our interest in reaching mainstream Americans.”

“Mr. Pacelle’s own words pull the curtain back and unveil the real intent of the HSUS,” stated USSA President and CEO Bud Pidgeon. “He admits to attempting to ‘mainstream’ the group — at the same time he criticizes ‘custom.’ There’s only one reason to do this and that is to fundamentally change America to correspond to the HSUS agenda.”

The HSUS is also involved in a lawsuit to stop the delisting of the gray wolf as an endangered species in the Great Lakes states, where the wolf has rebounded to thriving and healthy populations, far exceeding the goals that were established in order to remove it from the list. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — under the both the Bush and Obama Administrations — has determined that the wolf numbers are more than sufficient for it to be delisted. But that’s not good enough for the HSUS and other animal rights groups that are spending money on the lawsuit.

Could it be that the money being donated by people who are duped into believing they are helping doggies and kitties, is being used by these groups to fund those expensive anti-hunting lawsuits which tie up the courts with nonsense? We already know that a lot of the money feathers the nests of high-paid executives at the top of these groups.
Without an animal rights agenda, they’re out of their quarter-million-dollar salaries and would be slinging tofu at a vegan joint. You want veggie fries with that?

Just this week, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is in an uproar because President Obama swatted a fly. So, is swatting a fly (or a mosquito) now considered inhumane and abusive by animal rights’ standards? Are we now to adhere to the animal rights doctrine that mainstream America does not swat dirty, disease-carrying insects?

I see the animal rights brigade as nothing more than a noisy band of half-baked control freaks, led like sheep by cunning executives interested only in job security, who want to dictate how we spend our leisure time, what we eat and how we raise our own private pets. If you don’t like hunting, don’t hunt.

If you don’t like meat, eat weeds. Don’t want puppies, get your dog spayed. But why are they trying to shove their ridiculous agendas down our throats and make controversy out of “truly mainstream” activities that have been “custom” for centuries? It’s a free country, and if I want to hunt, eat meat, raise a litter of puppies and stomp on a bug, I should be able to without worrying about those whiny breast-beaters trying to outlaw it all.

Another recent hate letter was from Floyd, who thought my story about feeling the effects of approaching 50 just plain stunk and he wrote, “Write a book and do an autograph session with your raccoon hat and western jacket. Your description of stink is nothing compared to your articles.”

Well written, Floyd, but I beat you to it. Already working on my book — a collection of short stories, my favorite stinky articles. Hey, I might even name it that. “My Favorite Stinky Articles, by Marc Folco.” It’s got a nice ring to it. And thanks for the idea of wearing a coonskin hat for the book signing. Don’t have a coonskin one though, so I’ll have to wear my full-length coyote hat, made from a coyote that I shot (I’ll let you pet it if you buy a book). I don’t have a western jacket either, so I hope my buckskins will do (I’ll let you play with the fringe if you buy a book).

And if my articles stink so badly, why read them? If I think a writer stinks, I’m not wasting my valuable time reading his/her putrid rubbish from start to finish. I already know that fresh pile of doggie poo the puppy left on the carpet is going to stink, so I’m not going to sniff it.

Another reader was irate because I won a couple of humor awards from the New England Outdoor Writers’ Assoc. for 2008.
“Only you would make a joke out of killing a small defenseless deer — and your ilk rewarded that story on top of it. You and your kind are callous and disgusting,” M.S. said in reference to my story about shooting “teacup whitetails,” one of the award-winners. M.S. went on to say, “You are the most politically incorrect writer I have ever read!”

Well, my stories have won more than a dozen New England and national writing awards (many of them first place), so maybe you’re the one who is lacking a sense of humor. Laughter is the best medicine. Have a dose. Aint we got fun! I do have to agree with one thing. You hit the nail on the head — I am politically incorrect. And proud of it.

I am a man who tells it like it is, whether readers like it or not. I don’t write by anybody’s standards except my own, and those of the newspaper of course, where I can’t slander or use profanity. I wear my heart on my sleeve and say what I feel and think. Anybody who cowers to political correctness is a rump-smoocher in my book.

The end of “My Way,” as sung by Frank Sinatra, says it nicely:

“For what is a man?
What has he got?
If not himself
Then he has not
To say the things he truly feels
And not the words of one who kneels
The record shows
I took the blows
And did it my way.”

Marc Folco is the outdoor writer for The Standard Times. Contact him at

The message above was posted to West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Missouri residents by the Sportsmen’s and Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance (SAOVA) on one of ten regional read only elists.

SAOVA is a nonpartisan volunteer group working to protect Americans from the legislative and political threats of radical animal rightists. It is the only national organization fighting this struggle for both sportsmen and animal owners, natural allies, in these arenas. Visit our website at for this program’s goals, methodology and list signup details.


Pet Owners and Breeders in N. Carolina read below and contact your legislators (listed below) if you want to keep the right to breed and own dogs. THIS IS SERIOUS

NC ALERT: Strict Breeder Bill To Be Heard On Tuesday, June 30!
[Friday, June 26, 2009]
Senate Bill 460, a bill which regulates breeders and infringes on the rights
of responsible dog owners, will be heard in the Senate Finance Committee on
Tuesday, June 30.

All responsible dog breeders and owners in North Carolina are encouraged to
attend the hearing on Tuesday in opposition to the bill. We need to show
strong opposition to SB 460. While attendees will not be able to speak in
opposition, NUMBERS MATTER! If you are unable to attend, please call or
e-mail the members of the committee and ask them to oppose SB 460.

The American Kennel Club is appalled by the conditions in which some dogs
are kept and abhors animal cruelty. However, as the AKC wrote in a letter to
the Finance Committee, Senate Bill 460 is a costly, ineffective bill that
punishes responsible breeders and owners and does nothing to help the dogs
kept in deplorable conditions.

The AKC opposes several other provisions of Senate Bill 460, including:

  a.. A vague definition of commercial breeder. As amended, SB 460 defines
“commercial breeder” as anyone who owns or maintains at least 15 intact
females of any age for the primary purpose of the sale of the offspring.
This definition could include anyone who has bred even a single litter of
puppies, including fanciers and show breeders.
  b.. Inspections of private property at any time. The bill allows law
enforcement and local animal control to search the homes and private
property of anyone who falls under the definition of “commercial breeder” at
any time of day or night.
  c.. Directive for the NC Department of Agriculture to develop standards of
care with no public input. SB 460 calls for the Department of Agriculture to
develop care and condition policies for dogs belonging to commercial
breeders. This does not allow for any input from dog breeders and others who
are experts in animal care.
This bill is unnecessary, as North Carolina already has laws that address
animal cruelty and mistreatment. Senate Bill 460 will do nothing to address
irresponsible breeding and will cost the state over $400,000 a year to
enforce. At a time when the state is facing a projected $3 billion budget
gap, improved enforcement of existing laws would be a better use of North
Carolina taxpayers’ money.

How You Can Help:

·         Attend the Senate Finance Committee hearing on Tuesday, June 30.
The details are as follows:

Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Time: 1:00 p.m.
Location: North Carolina Legislative Office Building
Room 544
16 W. Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina

  a.. Contact the members of the Senate Finance Committee TODAY. Tell the
members of the committee that you oppose this bill, and urge them to oppose
Senate Bill 460. A phone call would be most effective. E-mail is acceptable,
but we ask that you also call.
Click here for basic phone scripts for breeders and fanciers.

The contact information for the committee is as follows:

Senator David Hoyle (Co-Chairman)
Phone: (919) 733-5734

Senator Daniel Clodfelter (Co-Chairman)
Phone: (919) 715-8331

Senator Clark Jenkins (Co-Chairman)
Phone: (919) 715-3040

Senator Larry Shaw (Vice-Chairman)
Phone: (919) 733-9349

Senator Fletcher Hartsell, Jr. (Vice-Chairman)
Phone: (919) 733-7223

Senator Charles Albertson
Phone: (919) 733-5705

Senator Austin Allran
Phone: (919) 733-5876

Senator Tom Apodaca
Phone: (919) 733-5745

Senator Bob Atwater
Phone: (919) 715-3036

Senator Philip Berger
Phone: (919) 733-5708

Senator Charlie Dannelly
Phone: (919) 733-5955

Senator Eleanor Kinnaird
Phone: (919) 733-5804

Senator Floyd McKissick, Jr.
Phone: (919) 733-4599

Senator Joe Sam Queen
Phone: (919) 733-3460

Senator David Rouzer
Phone: (919)733-5748

Senator R.C. Soles, Jr.
Phone: (919) 733-5963

Senator Harris Blake
Phone: (919) 733-4809

Senator Julia Boseman
Phone: (919) 715-2525

Senator Andrew Brock
Phone: (919) 715-0690

Senator Harry Brown
Phone: (919) 715-3034

Senator Don East
Phone: (919) 733-5743

Senator Tony Foriest
Phone: (919) 301-1446

Senator Linda Garrou
Phone: (919) 733-5620

Senator Eddie Goodall
Phone: (919) 733-7659

Senator Steve Goss
Phone: (919) 733-5742

Senator Neal Hunt
Phone: (919) 733-5850

Senator Martin Nesbitt, Jr.
Phone: (919) 715-3001

Senator Jean Preston
Phone: (919) 733-5706

Senator William Purcell
Phone: (919) 733-5953

Senator Tony Rand
Phone: (919) 733-9892

Senator Bob Rucho
Phone: (919) 733-5655

Senator Josh Stein
Phone: (919)715-6400

Senator Richard Stevens
Phone: (919) 733-5653

Senator A.B. Swindell
Phone: (919) 715-3030

Senator Jerry Tillman
Phone: (919) 733-5870

Senator David Weinstein
Phone: (919) 733-5651

Senator Dan Blue
Phone: (919) 833-1931

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


From Bill Hembly, founder of PetPac:

HSUS raises and spends millions of dollars every year on the fight to take away our rights as pet owners. This ABC News story clearly documents ( what were up against in our struggle to stop the anti-pet legislation they support. We know we can’t begin to match their money so we stretch the funds that you donate as far as we can. Once again we are asking for you to make a contribution so we can continue the daily battle. PetPAC has proved that in every instance where we have had an opportunity to expose the real truth we have stopped PETA and HSUS cold.

It is extremely important that we continue the effort to have our voices heard, sign the petition today and take the time let your elected officials know that we, who are pet owners, are responsible, productive members of our communities, and we want to preserve our right of animal ownership without interference from government.

Please got to the following link and click on the button for
“Stop HSUS”. 

    Please take 15 seconds out of your time to sign the PetPac
petition to President Obama stating that you don’t want PETA and the HSUS to speak for you & your rights as pet owners, breeders &
exhibitors.   If you have time please forward to other concerned “dog people”.

    PetPAC: Sign the Petitions! to President Obama telling him that we have our rights as pet owners, breeders and exhibitors.  Go to the PetPac Website:

    Please read the following link regarding the exposure of HSUS .
We need to make the animal community aware of this inappropriate

    PetPAC: Story Exposing HSUS Buried: Read Transcript


Bill Hemby

postheadericon How Far Will the Tail Wag the Dog!

If you wish to know how far our country has come from its original origins as a nation founded on belief in God and for the majority, belief in Christ, please look up the news story on the following link.  I realize fully that we are a pluralistic society with citizens of many faiths or lack of faith, put this news story happened at Georgetown University, A CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY, in Washington D.C. Have we who believe have no rights anymore?  Will every symbol of faith in God be removed lest we offend someone somewhere?  What has happened to us???   


I am also attaching an article written by me published in “The Royal Spaniels” this spring. 



Meredith Johnson-Snyder

After a ten year retirement, I am back to work as a substitute principal in my old urban school system. Kids and the system have not changed much in the last ten years that I have had the freedom to travel chasing my Cavalier dream after retiring after so many years as a school principal. Why am I beginning an article in “The Royal Spaniels” by mentioning my former and now current again work? I am mentioning it because in my first conference with a parent, the parent tried to turn the conference around to blame me and the system for the child’s misbehavior. I had attempted to stop an emotionally disturbed young boy from running out of the school by putting my hands on his coat. The first thing the parent did was accuse me of putting my hands on her child while she refused to consider the child’s behavior. So many times in our society, the small minority of the guilty have gotten away with misbehavior or crime, by accusing the system of violating individual rights rather than apologizing for those acts against the majority of society. In my case the tail has never wagged this old bitch and I put the responsibility right back on the student without allowing the parent to put the school or me on trial for trying to uphold the rights of the rest of the student and staff population for a safe and orderly school. My point is that all to often in many areas of our lives, our society, our government, foreign governments and in our world in general, the desires, rights, or needs of the majority are cancelled out by very vocal minorities who wish to achieve their own agendas whether good for the majority or not. And we allow it to happen because we do not let our united voices be heard!

Take a look at recent past and current events in our country. The majority of Californians are outraged that tax money will be used to support the irresponsibility of the mother of octuplets who made a decision to use fertility treatments and multiple embryo transplants at the same time knowing full well that she could not be fiscally or medically responsible to take care of her six children much less eight more. The taxpayers of California and her fourteen children will pay the price for her own need to have “more children to love” without her considering the welfare of those children. One woman takes advantage of the system and the majority will pay as no one can or wants to deny the needs of her children and have given up trying to let their voices be heard.

Then we have the case of the border patrols in one of our Mexican border states where two of our border patrols shot at two fleeing drug dealing illegals, hitting them in their fleeing rears. So who gets in trouble? The two border patrols representing our government and doing their job go to prison while our government gets sued by the drug dealing criminals—another case of the majority sitting back and allowing injustice to rule. A couple of drug dealing tails certainly wagged the border patrol our legal system’s dogs.

Now to the news of the night which had me reaching for something to throw at the television. The United Nations is once more considering a resolution which would forbid the media from saying anything negative against Islam. Free speech is guaranteed by our Constitution; court battles rage over censorship in this country. Yet, the UN resolution would attempt to put a gag order on journalists or newscasters who might be critical of the Islam extremists who behind their religion to advance their agenda of hate and destruction—certainly not the agenda of Islam! To my knowledge, this resolution does not extend to other religions; it could still be open season on Catholicism, Evangelism, Judaism, and Voodoo to name a few. Atheism is of course still protected and continues to win the war against any kind of religion displays in government buildings, schools, newly minted coins, and, of course, public prayer and religious observances. Since in many Islam nations, religion and the government are the same, the possible UN resolution will thereby prohibit any criticism of Islam governments also. So a small number of nations will wag the UN tail and may get away with it despite what the too polite and politically correct majority may wish.

Now how does all my outraged rambling relate to our world of dogs? The tail in the way of the animal rights movement is definitely wagging the the body of the majority dog lovers and breeders who for some reason have little or no voice in protecting their rights to own and breed dogs. Will the majority do anything to fight back? They may win a battle or two, but are definitely losing against the political machines of the HSUS and PETA who are trampling over the rights of the rest of us.

As we all know, the world of purebred dogs is coming under attack. While we have concentrated on breeding and showing, animal rights groups have positioned themselves to eradicate purebred dogs and, in fact, all domesticated animals in several countries in the world, the UK and the United States being the top targets. Look at what has already happened in Switzerland; look at how fox hunting, a long tradition, has been eliminated in the UK. In the US, several communities and cities have passed breed specific legislation, restricted the number of dogs one can own, limited number of litters bred during a year or legislated no breeding at all, and put breeders under the jurisdiction of dog wardens who can enter a breeder’s home to check records without notice and seize dogs over trumped up charges without the breeder or dog owner having any way to get the dogs back. Every week, more proposed anti breeding and anti dog edicts come to our attention. This week, proposed legislation in Pennsylvania calls for the end of cropping and docking; an owner of a cropped or docked breed must be able to show at any time a certificate that a veterinarian performed the cropping or docking of their dog or face having the dog in question asked seized. New Hampshire has bad legislation in the works; California will be once more introducing mandatory spay/neuter legislation; West Palm Beach, Florida, has forbidden any breeding within its borders causing breeders to move elsewhere; Ohio, my state, will be introducing legislation to control and tax breeding in this new legislation session. The list goes on and on.

The public relations effort of the animal rights groups to demonize the breeders of purebred dogs and the dogs themselves is paying off. The public as well as many celebrities are extolling the virtues of shelter dogs as being healthier than purebreds, but who would really know as there are no health statistics being kept on mixed breeds and no mixed breed clubs tracking health problems. The unsuspecting public is duped into believing that buying a purebred will result in the death of a supposedly “healthier” shelter dog while shelters are sending dogs from one end of our country to another to fill empty shelters and importing puppies and dogs from other countries because in some parts of the country there are not enough shelter dogs to be adopted and shelters support themselves through adoptions. However, PETA and HSUS continue to specialize in successfully influencing public opinion against purebreds and breeders despite so many of us working to improve the lot of shelter dogs and pushing the neutering of the puppies we sell to pet homes.

There are so many anti breeding bills being proposed that one cannot keep up. The HSUS is now going after farmers in Ohio after their success of passing Proposition 2 in California. Farmers will not be able to operate as they have since our ancestors stopped being foragers and began to domesticate animals and grow food. Proposition 2 and the proposed Ohio Bill will drastically change the way farmers treat livestock. It is wrong to treat any animal inhumanely whether in care or slaughter, but animals are not humans as the HSUS would have us to believe. As long as we refuse to organize and fight back by docking (oh, my, did I use that awful red flag word?) all animal rights wagging tails, the interests of the purebred dog world will not be protected and all we may have left are the tails without the dogs.