01.15.12
Posted in Animal Activists, Animal Ownership, On the National Front, Pet Laws, What is HSUS? at 7:58 pm by Administrator
It’s been more than a decade since I brought my first Elkhound home. I wanted a dog. I wanted a dog to bond with, to play with, to be a companion, to love. As time progressed, I became enamored with doing obedience, rally, agility, and got involved in conformation.
I was very naïve. I bought a show dog, and then another. I decided I wanted to be a breeder. I didn’t know then that “breeder” was a dirty word. I wanted other people to enjoy this breed. I wanted a hobby that I could grow old with, and that would keep me young. I wanted many things, but I did not anticipate becoming, in the public’s eye, a “criminal.”
If someone would have told me, more than a decade ago, that I would be spending hours and hours fighting anti-dog, anti-breeder legislation at the local, state, and federal levels, I would have laughed in their face. Had I known that I might be subject to harassment, the threat of unannounced inspections of my very home, be faced with ever-increasing licensing fees, been faced with legislation that might include bank references and criminal background checks just to enjoy my hobby, I might never have entered the dog world.
No hobby that I know of has been subject to the harassment that dog breeders have. I know of no other hobby where one must be looking over their shoulder at all times, worried that they might be violating a law simply because a dog’s nails might be longer than what subjective laws might consider long, or for having a piece of tartar on an old dog’s tooth. I never in the world would have thought that my dogs’ veterinary care might be subject to legislation. I didn’t anticipate having to dot my I’s and cross my t’s when it came to recording my dogs’ expenses. And never in the world did I ever believe that fingers would be pointed or that “breeder” would become a dirty word.
Where did this all start? Well, after more than a decade of research and experience, most of this harassment has been initiated by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). HSUS has, through its lobbying efforts and its misleading advertising, been trying to criminalize dog, cat, rabbit, hamster, bunny – you name it – breeding for decades. And the rigid legislation that HSUS helps to write has one chilling effect – to eliminate the home hobby breeder.
I’m a “to each his own” kind of person. Personally, I like dogs. And cats. And bunnies. I also like to eat meat, dress in cotton, and wear leather shoes. If someone else doesn’t like that – such as HSUS and PETA – well, that’s ok with me, but leave me alone to make my choices. HSUS has sunk its talons into the home hobby breeders, and they are going after agriculture – part of our great country’s very existence.
HSUS is in direct violation of the Federal Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. Of it’s $19 per month donation, only 1 percent of that goes to direct help for animals. The rest of its vast assets are tied up in lobbying efforts, padding its own pension plans, and disproportionate salaries for its executive staff. This corporate bigot must be stopped before we all lose our rights…to breed companion animals, to eat the food we enjoy, and to keep the Government out of our homes.
Please join me in petitioning the White House to investigate HSUS for noncompliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 by logging on to https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/investigate-humane-society-united-states-non-compliance-lobbying-disclosure-act-1995/42RtSR6W.
Every vote helps.
Permalink
12.13.11
Posted in Animal Activists, Animal Ownership, On the National Front, Pet Laws at 5:51 pm by Administrator
http://www.agcouncil.com/content/missouri-farm-group-steps-its-battle-against-hsus
Submitted by agc on Thu, 11/17/2011 – 16:10
A determined Missouri agriculture group is stepping up its continuing battle with HSUS (Humane Society of the United States), one of the nation’s wealthiest and most powerful animal rights organizations. Missouri Farmers Care already has prevailed in one key fight, and produced a video to tell the story.
“The People vs. HSUS” tells the story of Proposition B, an HSUS-backed ballot measure narrowly approved by Missouri voters in November 2010.
Although Proposition B was promoted by HSUS as a “puppy mill” regulatory bill, its definition of “pet” could have applied to any “domesticated animal that lives in or near the house.” Missouri livestock producers smelled a rat, and opposed the proposal aggressively, but it passed with 51.7 percent of the vote.
So Missouri Farmers Care decided to fight back. Early in 2011, Missouri Farmers Care began a campaign to repeal the most onerous provisions of Proposition B. The organization created a coalition of veterinarians, farmers, farm-friendly lawmakers and reasonable animal welfare groups. Their goal was to address legitimate animal care concerns without imposing unnecessary and costly regulation on responsible animal breeders.
Not surprisingly, the HSUS strongly opposed the effort at compromise, but ultimately to no avail. On April 18, 2011, Senate Bill 113 was signed into law, restoring the right of animal breeders to decide how many animals to raise and freeing them from excessive and unneeded regulation.
Missouri Farmers Care hasn’t stopped there, however. On November 10, the organization challenged the U.S. Department of Agriculture to stop “colluding” with HSUS in planning a scientific forum on animal welfare.
“There is no sensible reason for the federal Department of Agriculture to coordinate with an expressly anti-agriculture organization like HSUS,” Missouri Farmers Care Chairman Don Nikodim said. “To use taxpayer dollars to give HSUS a public forum for their radical animal-rights agenda under the guise of a scientific forum undermines the very farmers that the USDA is supposed to be helping.”
Editors Note: Missouri Farmers Care accepts donations to support its efforts in the fight for responsible animal care and against animal rights extremism.
Permalink
Posted in Animal Activists, Animal Ownership, On the National Front, Pet Laws, Pet Owner Bill of Rights at 5:40 pm by Administrator
Few groups have mastered the art of deceit as well as the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), one of the most dangerous and dishonest organizations in the country.
HSUS is an extreme animal rights group operating under a guise of credibility, making them a far more formidable foe than PETA or any other animal activist organization. They achieved their biggest victory yet with the passage of Prop 2 in California, which has jeopardized the livelihood of farmers across the Golden State. HSUS is following this success by promoting similar ballot measures in other states, including Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and South Dakota. Their inevitable goal is to eliminate animal agriculture by outlawing commonly used agricultural practices that have been designed to keep livestock safe and healthy. Further legislative victories by HSUS will result in a significantly more expensive and less safe food supply for American consumers.
Not only is HSUS trying to ruin agriculture, it is also misleading the public into donating money to them at the expense of the good people who run our nation’s animal shelters. HSUS is in no way affiliated with local animal shelters, including those called “Humane Societies.” Thousands of people have donated money to HSUS believing they help stray animals find homes, but they do no such thing. When animal shelters ask for financial assistance from HSUS, they turn a deaf ear.
HSUS markets itself as a mainstream, moderate organization, but in reality, it represents the most radical and cunning minds of the animal rights movement. Don’t let what happened to California happen to your home state. Don’t let money meant for your local animal shelter fund extremism. Spread the truth about HSUS and urge your lawmakers to vote against its fanatical animal rights agenda.
Donate to your LOCAL animal shelter or your breed rescue.
Permalink
Posted in AKC, Animal Activists, Animal Ownership, On the National Front, Pet Laws, Pet Owner Bill of Rights at 5:30 pm by Administrator
While many of us concerned about canine legislation have been focusing our efforts on local and regional battles, an insidious bill has been gaining momentum at the federal level. Known as the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety (PUPS) Act, this bill does nothing to ensure adequate breeding/housing for dogs, but is a strictly numbers-based act, heavily backed by the very deep pockets of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and is targeted directly at quality breeders.
Introduced in the federal House by Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-PA) in 2/11 as House Bill 835 and mirrored in the Senate by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) as Senate Bill 707, this draconian bill has gained silent momentum and now has 141 co-sponsors in the federal House of Representatives.
Supposedly targeted at high-volume breeders, this bill has ramifications for even those who may not have a single breeding female on their property. One must remember that bills such as this target not just Norwegian Elkhound breeders, but also breeders of more popular breeds. As such, this bill targets NOT the high-volume, substandard breeders, but the kennels of quality who hold our breed standards dear. The breeders who have, throughout the years, produced dogs of exceptional quality and who do so by maintaining co-ownerships on quality bitches whom they have bred.
The PUPS act defines a high-volume breeder as one who has “an ownership interest in one or more breeding female dogs and sales by any means of more than 50 offspring of these breeding female dogs in any 1-year period.
Sounds like a lot, right? But let us dissect this.
Under PUPS, any female 4 months or older is considered a breeding female. How many 4-month-old bitches are breedable? Nine to 10 months is normal for first heat.
“Ownership interest” is not defined. Co-ownerships could be included – EVEN if the bitch does not reside on your property. And what is “ownership interest”? Do you have a clause in your contract to receive a pick puppy from a breeding? That’s an ownership interest. Does your contract include a clause that says if the dog cannot be kept, it should be returned to the breeder? Ownership interest. Does your contract indicate that you have a say in the potential sire? Ownership interest.
This bill is targeted at our best and brightest breeders. Over the course of many years, master breeders have placed, on co-ownerships, or with other “ownership interests”, many quality bitches. Perhaps not in our breed, which has low numbers, but in other breeds, it would not be unheard of to have - say – 8 bitches from the ages of 2 to 8 producing that “magic number” of 50 puppies. And the master breeder –by virtue of having an “ownership interest” in these bitches, magically becomes a high-volume breeder – even if there is not a “breeding” female on the premises!
Another term used in the PUPS bill is “sells or offers to sell” via any means…internet, phone, newspaper, it doesn’t matter. Anyone with a website might fall under this definition.
There are numerous other problems with the bill, including engineering requirements that most of us can’t meet if we home-raise our puppies, “primary enclosures” that are out of reach of most homraised pups, exercise requirements that are not “repetitive” or “goal-based” , impacts on the rescue community,
This bill would require licensing and inspection of law-abiding citizens, in many cases opening our homes up to “inspection”. It would make criminals out of ordinary folk, forcing us to PROVE our innocence – in a country that says we are innocent until proven guilty.
This bill is based on numbers, and not on the quality of care. Yes, there are substandard breeders, and they are to be abhorred. But they are far outnumbered by caring, dedicated breeders. This bill.provides NO funding for the additional burden of inspecting and licensing caring breeders. USDA and our powers-that-be should be concentrating on enforcing the laws that currently exist – NOT on making criminals out of innocent people.
Please contact your representative and express your opinion. Don’t think someone else will do it…YOU need to!
Permalink
10.26.11
Posted in AKC, Animal Activists, Animal Ownership, Pet Laws, Pet Owner Bill of Rights, Showing and Owner Handling at 10:09 pm by Administrator
What will become of the dog fancy in the future? As other, more eloquent writers have noted, we have the “perfect storm” brewing that could mean the end of purebred dogs as we know it.
Years ago, quality dog breeders were viewed with respect and admiration. Large, elegant, fully-staffed kennels boasted fit, healthy, and happy dogs. The proprietors of these kennels were considered to be knowledgeable, responsible dog men and women.
Enter the Animal Rights Agenda. Suddenly, dog breeders as a whole became evil puppy millers, out to make a buck, indifferent to a dog’s health and happiness. Pet limit laws, bandied about by the Animal Rights agenda, were put into motion, severely limiting a breeder’s ability to continue producing the happy, healthy, sound dogs that had been so sought after in the past. Fearful of being branded a “puppy mill,” established kennels curtailed their breeding operations, downsized, and as a result, made puppies of quality less available to the general public. Even so, the Animal Rights Agenda continues to seek to restrict the breeding of purebred dogs even further, using their very deep pockets (a result of misguided donor support) to lobby legislators to pass their anti-breeding agenda. In many areas of the country, restrictions on breeding are so burdensome and costly that only the very wealthy or the very corporate breeders continue to breed dogs.
The American Kennel Club, perhaps in an attempt to reverse the declining number of dog registrations (which is likely a direct result of the onslaught by the Animal Rights Agenda) designed the Breeder of Merit program. This program was intended to offset those breeders who strive to produce healthy puppies from those who do not provide health testing or gain breed or working titles on their dogs. Breeders of Merit must agree to provide health testing as recommended by their Parent Clubs on all dogs used in their breeding program, and must have a history of obtaining breed or working titles on their dogs. In addition, Breeders of Merit must be “demonstrate a commitment to ensuring 100% of the puppies produced are AKC registered.”
The response to this program has been mixed, with some breeders not willing to be identified as Breeders of Merit simply because of the threat from the Animal Rights Agenda; others signed on willingly thinking the distinction might assist in the fight against the Animal Rights Agenda. Unfortunately, after many breeders achieved the Breeder of Merit distinction, AKC chose to increase its litter registration fees, locking Breeders of Merit into a nearly 100% increase in their registration fees.
The fancy is quickly becoming a privilege accorded to only those wealthy enough to afford it. The Animal Rights Agenda continues to push for ridiculous legislation that would force unrealistic engineering standards on small breeders, continues to lobby for additional licensing for breeders, and continues to paint all breeders into the same dim light as the substandard breeders (who do exist, but not in the enormous numbers touted by the Animal Rights Agenda). Those few hardy breeders who intend to continue with their passion find that compliance with the ridiculous engineering standards and the cost of multiple licenses (city, county, state, breeding, foster, rescue) has become prohibitive. The cost of showing a dog to its championship, essential to an excellent breeding program, has far exceeded what the average family is able to spend. And now litter registrations will become prohibitively expensive.
Truly, the dog fancy is fast becoming a sport that only the wealthy can afford. At a recent regional specialty, the youngest active breeder was 40. This, unfortunately, makes sense, in that young couples or individuals just starting out on their own don’t have the financial resources to take part in the fancy. Space requirements implemented by many municipalities are out of reach for many people (such as the requirement for at least an acre of land in order to have a kennel of 3 dogs – even if they are Chihuahuas). Multiple licensing requirements (city, county, state, federal, and in some cases, foster home licenses), and unfathomable housing requirements (which are so prohibitive that the raising of a litter in the home is impractical – and in the home is where they SHOULD be raised) all contribute to the nearly insurmountable expenses involved in the breeding of dogs. And even the AKC, our friend and ally, has shifted the burden of expense onto us, the responsible breeders, by implementing higher registration fees.
The Internet has made the names and locations of breeders readily available to the Animal Rights Agenda. While the Internet is a valuable tool, it has also been shown to work against the dog fancy – including rescue groups. In fact, this author overheard a conversation in which a community officer told a shelter worker that he wanted to use Facebook to track down people who he could ticket for having dogs “running at large” – in other words, he wanted to use “lost” postings on Facebook to issue citations to people who have lost their dogs. In Wisconsin, a dog that was posted multiple times by a rescue as adoptable was “counted” in their total each time it was listed, and as a result the rescue organization was fined for not complying with their local limit laws.
The sport of purebred dogs has reached a precipitous fork. We who hold our hobby and fancy dear to us must make a choice. We either run away from this awful storm, or we batten down our hatches and prepare to fight it.
We need to welcome and nurture new breeders into our fold. We need to communicate with our registry when their increased fees threaten our own financial ability to continue to breed and show our dogs. And we need to fight the Animal Rights Agenda, as a united front. Not as piecemeal, “oh, someone else will do it.” We need to fight it as an army united in our quest to continue our hobby and passion.
We should not feel the need to unload our dog food in the dark of night lest we be branded puppy mills. We should not feel the need to defend our decision to have a litter of puppies. We should not hang our heads in shame when someone asks us if we are breeders.
We should not apologize for who we are and what we do.
Permalink
07.24.11
Posted in Animal Activists, Animal Ownership at 5:55 pm by Administrator
In 2010, more than half the US population (62%, or 71 million households) owned at least one pet, and the US population spent almost 48 billion dollars on pet care.
Most pet owners in the US have heard of HSUS, PeTA, and other animal organizations. Their names are household words. But are they pet-friendly? Here are some quotes from our animal rights organizations:
My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture. — J.P. Goodwin while executive director of the Coalition Against the Fur Trade (As quoted on AR-Views, an animal rights Internet discussion group).
It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership. — Elliot Katz, President, In Defense of Animals, “In Defense of Animals,” Spring 1997.
Liberating our language by eliminating the word ‘pet’ is the first step … In an ideal society where all exploitation and oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA’s policy to oppose the keeping of animals as ‘pets.’ — New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance, “Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!” Good Dog! February 1991, p.20.
I don’t use the word “pet.” I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer “companion animal.” For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance — Ingrid Newkirk, PETA’s President, quoted in The Harper’s Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.
We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. …One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding — Wayne Pacelle – Former National Director of Fund for Animals.
How dare we, as pet owners, lobbyists, and politicians bow down to these words! Humans and animals have had a mutually compatible relationship for eons. In the process of human history, we have selected animals for traits that were beneficial to us. The elkhound helped the Vikings hunt moose – thus staving off hunger for humans. The shepherding dogs tended our livestock against wolves – thus staving off hunger for humans. The arctic dogs provided transportation in desolate areas of the world – thus staving off hunger for humans. Every breed of dog has been bred for a purpose. The haughty arrogance of the Animal Rights movement fails to acknowledge that our various species – including domesticated livestock – are a part of human history – a history that should and MUST be preserved. Conscientious breeders are truly historians, preserving a part of our human history. In the process, they also produce companion animals who love and adore them, and are loved back.
I hope every pet owner, breeder, lobbyist, and politician will realize that the Animal Rights movement means just that….ANIMAL RIGHTS MEANS NO ANIMALS LEFT.
Permalink
Posted in Animal Activists at 4:46 pm by Administrator
July 7, 2011
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_animal_rights_extremists_nearing_victory_in_california.html
http://tinyurl.com/432kgco
July 7, 2011
The Animal Rights Extremists Nearing Victory in California
By Diane Amble
It is becoming clearer with each passing day that something is terribly,
terribly wrong in California. Gradually, unnoticed by most, California
is slowly deteriorating over time like a grand old mansion with a
steadily crumbling foundation. The California Dream is slowly dying and
what seems to be rising from the ashes is a nightmare. Why? How did
this happen? The answer is quite simple. Deliberate and strategic
social and political engineering by motivated special interest groups.
These groups seek to force their agendas upon us via carefully crafted
and legislated mandates.
The most powerful, dangerous, and influential of these groups are found
in the realms of environmental activism (green groups) and animal
rights. Homeland Security has identified in an official national
security report that these groups constitute one of the most dangerous
terrorist threats to America on a par with Muslim jihadists. While we
have been busily pursuing our livelihoods and enjoying our families and
animals, these dangerous groups have been stealthily working behind the
scenes to gain more and more political power and influence over us all.
Permalink
05.17.11
Posted in Animal Activists, Animal Ownership, Pet Laws, What is a puppy mill? at 7:59 pm by Administrator
NEW TRENDS IN ANTI-DOG LEGISLATION
By Amy Peterson
Having faced strong opposition across the nation from the animal-loving public to whom animal ownership is dear, the anti-animal forces – or the Animal Rights agenda – has adapted to our opposition and is changing tactics.
New breeder limit laws being introduced include the concept of co-ownership, regardless of where the dog may actually reside. Here is an example of how this could affect any breeder having co-ownership of a couple of dogs: Breeder A lives in a jurisdiction in which “high volume laws” limit her to a total of 20 puppies annually. She co-owns a bitch with Breeder B and Breeder C. Breeder A has a litter of 7 puppies. Breeder B has a litter of 8 puppies the same year, and Breeder C produces a litter of 7 puppies as well. Now Breeder A, who co-owns the two bitches, will suddenly become a “high volume breeder” simply because of her ownership interest in the bitches owned by Breeder B and Breeder C, subjecting her to the “high volume breeder” regulations of her state, which could include unreasonably expensive and intrusive licensing (such as a criminal background check, bank references, professional references), bringing her “breeding facilities” in line with state regulations (regardless of the fact that she whelps her litter in the house), and subjecting her home to state inspections.
A newer tactic is the “hoarder” bill. These bills seek to criminalize the act of “hoarding.” Seemingly a harmless bill, right? After all, no one thinks well of an “animal hoarder.” However, those bills that have been introduced have very low thresholds – 7 animals in one state, 5 animals in another – as the threshold at which you are a criminal “hoarder”, unless, of course you buy a state license. There is no distinction across species, so this would include cats, ferrets, guinea pigs, hamsters, rabbits…Penalties range from simple misdemeanors to felonies. Included are vague phrases such as “inadequate care” and “is unable to recognize their actions.” What is inadequate care? Is it an older dog that is losing teeth because of age? Would your friendly ACO find that a sebaceous cyst on a dog proves “inadequate care?” What if you are feeding a BARF diet and the ACO doesn’t feel it is adequate nutrition? And what if you simply disagree with the ACO about the living conditions of your dogs? Will they find that you are “unable to recognize” your actions? What about a family with 2 dogs, a cat, and a son who has a ferret and a daughter with a guinea pig? Are these people hoarders?
Regardless of how good a piece of proposed legislation may appear based on its title or summary, it is in the best interests of all dog owners, breeders, and lovers to delve into the bill and truly understand what it is they are legislation.
AKC maintains a legislative tracking page at http://www.akc.org/news/sections/legislative_alerts.cfm. Please take the time to visit and see what legislation may be affecting your state, as well as AKC’s position on the legislation. And, more importantly, please contact your legislators expressing your concern – your voice can make a difference.
Permalink
05.08.11
Posted in Animal Activists, Animal Ownership, On the National Front, Pet Laws, Pet Owner Bill of Rights at 1:04 am by Administrator
This is frightening in its ramifications for dog owners
Cecil County, MD May Consider “Exhibitor Licensing” May 10
From AKC Government Relations:
May 6, 2011
The Cecil County (MD) Board of County Commissioners will likely discuss numerous changes to its kennel and licensing laws during its 2012 budget public hearing on May 10, 2011. While it is not certain that a final vote will be taken on these changes on Tuesday, it is important that the commission hear that residents are concerned with the proposal.
Background:
Current law requires a kennel license for anyone “engaged in the business of breeding, buying, selling, boarding, grooming or training” five or more “customary household pets” over four months of age.
A proposal released in February would significantly broaden these requirements by requiring those that meet this definition to obtain an annual commercial kennel license, an individual license for every dog they own, and a business
License. Commercial kennels must schedule annual inspections with the Animal Care & Control Authority, the Department of Environmental Health and the Department of Permits and Inspections.
These kennels may be given a special exemption to exist in certain residential zones, provided they comply with numerous requirements, including having a minimum of 5 acres if the dogs are kept outside, or 2 acres if the dogs are kept in a soundproof building.
Among other provisions, the proposal would also require a higher individual dog license fee for owners of intact dogs.
Licensing/Inspections for Dog Sport Participants?
Since February, a task force has been assigned to examine this proposal and present amendments to the commission. The AKC has learned that these amendments may include changing the definition of “commercial kennel” to those who breed two or more litters and buy or sell any dogs for compensation.
Furthermore, these amendments may propose a “hobby kennel” license for anyone who keeps dogs for hunting, tracking, participating in dog shows, performance events, or field or obedience trials. Even if dogs are not being bred and sold, those meeting this definition would be required to obtain an annual hobby kennel license and individual licenses for every dog they own, obtain site approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, develop a program of veterinary care and exercise for dogs and display them in a prominent location, and submit to annual inspections prior to renewing the license.
Both commercial and hobby kennels may also be subject to unannounced inspections at any time.
Permalink
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
