07.24.11
Posted in Animal Ownership, Guardians? Or Owners?, On the National Front, Pet Laws, Pet Owner Bill of Rights at 4:07 pm by Administrator
TX-RPOA E-News
>From RPOA Texas Outreach and
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance
“Animal welfare, not animal ‘rights’
and, yes, there is a difference.”
Crossposting is encouraged.
July 15, 2011
Excellent article below from The Dog Place: www.thedogplace.org . Thanks,
Diane! Animals are being seized in Texas on a regular basis by law
enforcement officers assisted by local humane societies that house the
animals. Many times offers to help from national purebred dog and cat
rescue groups are refused and the seizures turn into major fundraisers for
the humane societies. If Animal Control knocks on your door, know your
rights as animal owners. Do not let them in without a Search Warrant even
if you feel you’ve nothing to fear.
…………………………………………………
http://www.thedogplace.org/RIGHTS/Illegal-Animal-Seizure-1107_Amble.asp
OR Tiny URL:
http://tinyurl.com/64ap3z7
Your Dog’s Best Friend May Be His Attorney
by Diane Amble I July 12, 2011
Dealing with illegal animal seizures and the consequences; the expert’s
handbook, part 1.
(EXCERPTS), read at URL above for rest of the story!)
Warrantless seizures plague animal owners! If contacted by animal control
authorities SEEK LEGAL COUNSEL IMMEDIATELY to prevent illegal seizure.
In fact, you may want to find a good attorney now.
“Why?” you ask. The answer is by the time the knock comes at your door, it
may be too late to protect your animals and prevent them from being seized.
Often times, seizure of animals results in the injury and death of the
animals by the same authorities that claim to be “rescuing” said animals.
Too many believe that the law protects their rights and their property as we
were taught in Civics and Government class in middle school.
Too many believe that because they provide optimal care for their animals
and live in a nice neighborhood or a rural countryside that they will never
be subjected to the onerous raids one hears about. “Those people” you assume
did not properly care for their animals. We are told “those people” are
hoarders.
The reality is that even people with four animals have been labeled
“hoarders” by rogue raiders. Once they release often contrived raid details
to the press, you will be presumed guilty by the media and the public.
<MORE AT http://tinyurl.com/64ap3z7
Permalink
03.02.11
Posted in Animal Activists, Animal Ownership, Guardians? Or Owners?, On the National Front, Pet Laws, Pet Owner Bill of Rights, What is HSUS?, What is a puppy mill? at 1:05 am by Administrator
The United States was founded under the assumption of liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all. To that extent, we are a multicultural country. We have racial cultures, we have religious cultures, we have sports cultures, we have work cultures. We tend to be accepting of other cultures. One neighbor can be a sports fan and a Lutheran, another a jazz fan and a Catholic – but they still manage to be neighbors and to accept one another’s cultures.
The culture of the dog hobbyist/fancier is not so lucky. The powerful, rich, and mighty Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have decided that our culture – our very lifestyle – is unacceptable.
In 2009, over 140 pieces of anti-dog and anti-breeder legislation were introduced in 37 states. The language in all of these bills was remarkably similar. It isn’t by coincidence! It’s the huge, deep, lobbying pockets of HSUS and its ilk.
Wayne Pacelle, CEO and President of HSUS, has indicated that he has no problem with eliminating domestic animals: “One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding” (Animal People News, May 1993). HSUS has over $130 million in annual revenue and assets of more than $200 million. Yet less than ½ of one percent of donations goes directly to the hands-on care of animals. Most of the rest of that cash, hard-earned by its donors, goes to six-figure payrolls for staffers, salaries for “social media” personnel who are paid to respond to any and all comments about H$U$, and massive lobbying efforts. In fact, the IRS has been tasked with investigating the 501c3 status of the HSUS based on the tremendous amount of lobbying it performs. Wayne Pacelle is an attorney. He is not an animal husbandry expert. He does not even have a pet.
Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA, has said“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. Ms. Newkirk advocates militant action and has been arrested more than 20 times. She is an ardent supporter of the Animal Liberation Front, which is listed by the FBI as a terrorist group.
Who are these people to force their anti-animal, vegan culture on us? Why are we letting this one culture, the culture of those who believe animals should have the same rights as humans, legislate what we do or do not do with the dogs (and other animals) that we own? How can we let them dictate our breeding practices? These two leaders, and most of the staff of their organizations, have no experience in animal husbandry or welfare. Yet they have infiltrated the nation through legislation, the media, and yes, even our grade schools, convincing the public that they have the expertise to determine how many dogs a person should own and who should own them and when to breed them.
None of us likes puppy factories. We know they exist. Yet there are already very adequate animal welfare laws and regulations in place in every state. And while there have been instances in which inspectors have dropped the ball, there is no doubt that the laws do exist – and adding another layer of bureaucracy certainly will do nothing to improve the manpower shortage that caused the inspectors to drop the ball! It would be much more practical and economical to simply consistently enforce the already existing animal welfare laws.
All of us believe in animal welfare. We provide food, water, shelter, veterinary care, and love to our animals. But do they really have rights? Having rights also entails having responsibilities. Taking responsibility involves having morals. Humans have the right to go shopping but we do not have the right to steal while doing so. Dogs don’t have that morality. If it’s there, and it’s edible, they’ll try to steal it. Dogs understand “safe” and “dangerous” – it may be “safe” to lay on the rug and drool while Mom is cooking, but it’s “dangerous” to try to steal food off the table – but there is no morality about it. Dogs don’t have an understanding of incest. Dogs don’t go to the ballot box and vote. Humans do.
Alas, our counterculture cannot and will not leave us alone. Sporting badges that look remarkably like police badges, HSUS staff takes part in “raids” on dog owners and breeders. Raids! The very word evokes visions of war. Pirates raid ships. Armies raid other countries. The word “raid” invokes a level of criminality to those being raided – even if no charges are filed.
There have been well-publicized cases in which reputable breeders have been “raided” and no findings were made, or charges against them were dropped – yet their dogs were seized and in many cases, adopted out, sterilized, or euthanized before the courts had a chance to make their findings. In one case, not only were the dogs confiscated, but so were the owner’s show win photos, title certificates, ribbons, and other mementos. They were not returned.
This is a war. The HSUS and PETA culture have been gathering steam for years, while our culture – the dog culture – has stood by with our collective heads in the sand. We have accepted the term “puppy mill” to encompass anyone who breeds more than a litter a year. Shame on us. We are supposed to be the experts on breeding. How does one gain expertise if we bow down to the anti-animal culture that says breeding dogs is bad? Why have we allowed this anti-animal culture to grow to its current, tremendously frightening level?
Most people would not dream of forcing a vegan to eat meat. If a religious cult of any type began lobbying in the same manner as HSUS and PETA, attempting to force its culture down the throats of Americans, the hue and cry raised by citizens would be deafening.
It’s time we stood up to the anti-animal culture. It’s time every one of us, whether owner, breeder, or exhibitor, took part in the legislative process that threatens to overrun our very culture.
If you don’t like Fords, buy a Chevy. If you don’t like meat, don’t eat it. If you don’t like dogs, don’t go to a dog show. But leave me and my dogs alone.
Permalink
11.27.10
Posted in Animal Activists, Animal Ownership, Guardians? Or Owners?, On the National Front, Pet Laws, Pet Owner Bill of Rights at 1:26 am by Administrator
Ramifications of the Animal Rights Movement – by Amy Peterson
The past several years has seen an alarming increase in animal-rights-oriented legislation being proposed at the local, state, and national levels. Much of this proposed legislation has been aimed at the dog and cat fancy. Numerous “raids” have been launched against breeders – some of which rightly removed animals from onerous situations.
Many people would argue that the courts are designed to protect us from unlawful search and seizure. However, in several well-publicized cases, charges against the breeders/owners in question have been dropped – too late, however, for the breeders/owners. Their dogs have been seized, distributed to shelters, spayed or neutered, and placed in homes – all before any findings of guilt or innocence by the courts. In some cases, animals have died under the care of the animal shelters to which they were sent. In many cases, despite having charges dropped by the court, the animal shelters are still suing the breeders/owners for the cost of care of the dogs that the breeders will never see again.
This is surely theft under the color of law.
As these onerous legislative efforts encompass more and more of the country, even fanciers who own only one or two dogs should be gravely concerned. It is only a matter of time before these laws will be broadened to include the average dog owners. Some of the exercise requirements include stipulations that exercise “cannot be of a repetitive or forced nature.” So those who employ and enjoy leash walking could, theoretically, eventually be violating the terms of the animal rights movement. “Adequate food” is another issue that has been rearing its ugly head. Who determines what comprises “adequate food?” Does the Humane Society of the United States make that determination? Will the BARF diet be outlawed since HSUS considers the dog to only be “casual” carnivore? Will we all be force to feed the Humane Selects food?
And what about “adequate medical care?” Do you want your local animal control or the HSUS to determine what adequate medical care is for your dog? What if your 12-year-old dog has terminal cancer and her quality of life has diminished? Do you want someone else determining whether you should provide treatment for her, or do you want the right to maintain the choice to treat her, or help her cross to the bridge?
The Animal Rights movement is also strongly opposed to “forcing” animals to breed. At what point will it decide that artificial insemination or collecting of semen is cruel, and these practices are outlawed? Or breeders are forced to curtail the selection of a dog and bitch to mate, since the animals have “rights” and should be able to choose their mates for themselves?
And as the Animal Rights movement gains momentum, it is moving into the field of agriculture as well. Animal husbandry is not for the faint of heart, nor is it easy, nor should it be dictated by lawyers and politicians who have probably never stepped foot on a working farm. As the Animal Rights agenda progresses, we should all fear for what will happen when farmers are limited as to the number of cattle or hogs they can own, or how they are allowed to breed them.
Animal welfare is a good thing. Animals should be treated kindly and humanely. But the Animal Rights agenda needs to be thoroughly examined such that innocent people are not harmed nor exploited. Please take the time to read and understand any legislation proposed in your area. Take the time to voice your concerns to your representatives. Animal welfare should be dictated by experts in the field – not single-minded lawyers and lobbyists.
Permalink
07.21.10
Posted in Guardians? Or Owners?, On the National Front, Pet Laws, Pet Owner Bill of Rights, What is HSUS?, What is a puppy mill? at 6:00 pm by Administrator
by Amy Peterson
What is happening to our constitutional rights? Why are we listening to all the arrogant drivel spewed forth by the Animal Rights Agenda? Why is the public so willing to listen to an organization, the Humane Society of the Unites States (HSUS), that is headed by a man (Wayne Pacelle) who does not even own an animal? And why is the American Veterinary Medical Association (AMVA) catering to his outlandish demands?
We individuals who enjoy the human-animal bond, be it dogs, cats, birds, or other; who choose to own, train, and breed companion animals; who recognize that vegan lifestyle is a choice and is not sustainable on this planet; who choose to engage in agricultural animal husbandry, are on the brink of losing our constitutional rights to do so.
I own dogs. I don’t believe in the concept of guardianship. I choose to house my dogs in my home, with me. I choose to treat them as my companions and friends. I have a deep, emotional bond with my canine friends. But in the end, I own them. To imply that a guardianship relationship exists would also be to imply that such guardianship can be revoked, or that a third party may interfere if I am not acting in what that party feels to be the best interests of my dogs. I don’t need that. I don’t want that. I make the decisions that affect my dogs. I provide more than enough love, nutrition, water, care, veterinary care, exercise, sleep, and attention. But I am not their guardian. They are my dogs. They do what I say when I tell them to do it. I own them. I am proud to own them. Decisions I make regarding their health and well-being should be between me and my veterinarian – not some third-party guardian who knows nothing about me, my dogs, or my vet.
I breed dogs. Not very often, likely less than a litter per year. Now, why do I have to say that? Why must I feel the need to be apologetic because I breed dogs? Why must I defend myself as a breeder by saying I “only” breed a litter or less a year? Why must I be ashamed? I’m good at what I do. My breeding program – yes, breeding program – produces – yes, produces – physically and temperamentally sound puppies that make their new owners – yes owners – very happy. I don’t “adopt” my dogs out. I sell them. Yep. There is an exchange of money. Why do we as breeders feel the need to say we “adopt” out our puppies? Simple fact of the matter is that we sell them. To new owners.
I don’t think I need Mr. Pacelle, who does not own an animal, admits that he has no “particular fondness” for them, and has no education in animal husbandry, telling me when I can and cannot breed a litter. I don’t think Mr. Pacelle has the animal husbandry background to tell me which dogs I can let run together, or whether or not it’s ok to let my puppies intermingle with the adults. I think that is my decision to make. And I certainly don’t need Mr. Pacelle using the deep pockets of his money-laundering HSUS to influence the AVMA to adopt his policies. And I ashamed that the AMVA has bowed to his demands.
Can you imagine imposing these requirements on human parents? Just think…find the mathematical square of the sum of the length of the child in inches as measured from the tip of the nose to the base of its butt, plus 6 inches. Divide this product by 144 to calculate the minimum required floor space, in square footage, that must be provided for your child. Or, the clause indicating that the dog’s exercise cannot consist of forced activity (that includes walking on a leash). This might mean, in human terms, that you must provide your child with exercise, but you cannot force him to do so. Yeah, right, you can no longer “force” Johhny to out and play.HSUS is not an animal welfare agency.
Out of a $19-per-month donation, only about 9 cents goes to the direct care of animals in need. HSUS is not affiliated with local humane societies or shelters. They don’t give them money. Most of the donations HSUS receives goes toward six-figure salaries for their management staff, toward their pension plans, and to their lobbying efforts. In fact, there has been a demand for an investigation by the IRS regarding the HSUS 501(c)3 status. The goal of HSUS is to end animal ownership and use – period.
I don’t like puppy factories any more than the next person. I rescue and I foster. I know what’s out there. But I believe there are sufficient regulations already in existence that simply need to be properly enforced. And by the way, when was the last time you read about HSUS visiting a GOOD breeder?
I am a breeder. I am good at what I do. I don’t need politicians and bureaucrats and lobbyists telling me how to properly engage in my hobby and my passion.
Permalink
07.14.10
Posted in Guardians? Or Owners?, Pet Laws, Pet Owner Bill of Rights at 10:19 pm by Administrator
Guarding the Guard Dogs?Are you a dog “owner”—or a dog “guardian”?
By Jon Katz
Last month, In Defense of Animals, a California-based animal rights organization, sent me some materials about its “Guardian Campaign.” A polite letter complimented me on my most recent book, then requested that I use the term “guardian” rather than “owner” in future writings about dogs.
The benefits of relating to animals as guardians rather than as owners would be “far reaching,” wrote IDA president Dr. Elliot Katz (who’s no relation). Changing how we speak would help change how we act. In a world where dogs are protected rather than owned, Katz argued, it would be easier to crack down on animal abuse, end the puppy-mill trade, and stop the killing of animals at shelters.
As a dog lover, owner of a rescue dog, and member of two rescue groups, I’m not convinced there will be concrete benefits from this metaphoric, even Orwellian revolution. How exactly will these semantic changes improve the lot of animals? Why can’t we shut down puppy mills, end some cruel animal research, save the lives of dogs and cats in shelters, prosecute animal abuse, and still call ourselves “owners”?
IDA’s letter proudly pointed out that San Francisco; West Hollywood; Berkeley, Calif.; Boulder, Colo.; Amherst, Mass., and the state of Rhode Island have already enacted ordinances changing owners into guardians. (Some of those jurisdictions have also embraced the animal-rights movement’s other language crusade, changing “pets” into “companion animals.”)
Although IDA cited these cities and state as evidence that the notion of “guardian” is spreading, to me it suggests the opposite: Its successes are confined to left-wing pockets. I’ll be impressed when Kansas City takes up the idea.
Social movements are only as effective as their ability to win popular support. I’m currently living in rural upstate New York, and I showed the IDA packet to Sandra, a sheep farmer who lives down the road with her female partner. She was shocked. “I love my Rottweiler,” Sandra told me. “But I’d love to marry my partner and I can’t. I have to say I’m a bit uncomfortable with dogs having more rights than I do. Me first.” Sandra had just filed legal papers to have her partner declared her legal guardian in the event of serious illness. She said she was not about to do the same for her dog.
I reminded Sandra that animal rights don’t really come at the expense of human rights—there’s no reason both species can’t have some protection. But her reservations are important. Easing animal suffering is inarguably worthwhile; turning animals into a kind of human is another matter.
And such a transformation seems the goal of some animal activists. My IDA packet contained a testimonial from a Michael Mountain of the Best Friends Animal Sanctuary. “People of other genders, races and even age groups were once treated as property in this country,” Mountain wrote. “Now, it is time for ‘people’ of other species to be accorded the same simple dignity of being recognized, not as someone else’s property but as beings in their own right.”
Mountain couldn’t have made the point more dramatically—or offensively. I don’t care to jump in with a moral value system that equates my beloved border collies with human slaves. Nothing about this comparison helps animals. It distorts their true natures and diminishes ours.
The guardian campaign is a vivid example of the growing tendency to blur the boundaries between us and our pets. Many Americans have already stopped seeing their dogs and cats as animals. They’re family members, emotional support systems, metaphors for issues from our own pasts, aids for healing and growth, children with fur.
Seeing them the way we see ourselves—as having human thoughts and needs, human rights—is another kind of abuse and exploitation. It is cruel to crate a child, but it’s often helpful and soothing to crate a dog. No human would want to spend five minutes in a kennel, yet good kennels, much maligned by deeply attached pet owners, are often the safest and best places to leave dogs when we leave home.
Seeing dogs as piteous, deprived, abused, and needy can lead us to treat them unwisely. Vets cite overfeeding and the resultant epidemic obesity as a major killer of dogs and cats in America. Yet I can’t count how many times I’ve heard somebody say, “I feed him because I just can’t bear to starve him.” Or “I just can’t resist when he begs for food. He’s so cute.” Any vet or animal nutritionist would tell these people that they’re doing as much harm to their cute little beggars by overfeeding them as they would by kicking them.
People who see their dogs as humanlike often struggle to train them properly, especially if they believe they were abused or mistreated. Owners sometimes think their dogs have already suffered so much that they couldn’t possibly inflict any more criticism. Yet it’s that very firm, effective training that would make those dogs happier and more secure. And what about the growing number of owners who find neutering cruel or unbearable, because they would find it so? Refusing to neuter may put their own pet or someone else’s in danger—causing aggression, running away, and unwanted litters. Or the pet owners who make their dogs hyper by believing they need to “play” continuously, like overprogrammed boomer children? They drag them to unruly play groups, toss Frisbees and balls night and day, haul them to an endless round of organized activities—but fail to teach them how to be calm.
The humanlike view of dogs affects the decision about when to euthanize a sick or elderly pet. I recently attended two veterinary conventions where scores of vets told me their biggest recent problem is people who see their pets as so human that they simply cannot end their lives or suffering, no matter the cost or the pain.
There is no evidence that dogs have the kind of complex emotional lives and value systems that we do. It’s one reason why we love them so much, in fact. They are neither “good” nor “bad.” They don’t hold grudges, act in petty ways, or seek revenge. They read our moods, but not our minds. If they did, we’d start loving them as we love other humans—which could mean a lot less than we love them now.
Dogs are not “people” of another species. They are another species. To train and care for them properly, to show them how to live in our complex world, requires first and foremost that we understand that. I owe my dogs much—more than I can say—but they are not my “companions”—as if we voluntarily chose to hang out together but none of us has authority over the others. I bought and/or acquired them. I own them. I am profoundly responsible for their care and well being.
Guardianship, a word always applied to human beings, implies equality—the highest and perhaps most noble of all goals in this democratic nation. Ownership implies responsibility. Americans who own dogs need to be more responsible for them, literally and emotionally—not more equal to them.
The drama of the modern dog is that he is segregated from society—from work, children, public places—and then blamed for not knowing how to live in our world. The things he wants to do—have sex, roll in gross stuff, roam freely, squabble with other dogs, chew shoes, pee on every other tree—are either illegal or frowned upon. His challenge isn’t to become a free and equal person in the best traditions of our society but to learn how to live in the alien world of people.
Guardianship suggests dogs have a right to live their own lives as they wish. This is impossible in our dog-unfriendly world. Ownership implies a human duty to help the dog adjust to this difficult, inhospitable place.
”Dog owner” is a proud title. It suits me fine.
Permalink
02.27.10
Posted in Guardians? Or Owners? at 11:48 pm by Administrator
Declassifying animals as property
http://www.spanieljournal.com/46lbaughan.html
Permalink
