02.09.12
Posted in AKC, On the National Front, Pet Laws, What is HSUS? at 12:53 am by Administrator
Please consider sending this to AKC. Dog breeding is in danger. Edit as necessary. Send to lxp@akc.org.
“Recently the Humane Society of the United States announced the formation of its Dog Breeders Advisory Council. This council is purportedly comprised of “responsible breeders” and was formed to work with the HSUS to help the public to identify responsible breeders and to avoid supporting puppy mills. Additionally, members provide input and advice on public policy decisions.
I (we) urge AKC to employ immediate action to counteract this latest HSUS tactic that is clearly directed at eliminating hobby breeders. This very alarming move by the HSUS has the imminent potential to narrow the public’s perception of a responsible breeder to a very prejudicial, HSUS-controlled definition. It further opens the door of opportunity for HSUS to include in new proposed legislation such constraints as the issuance of “breeding licenses” only to HSUS-approved breeders.
It is imperative that HSUS not be considered by the public as experts on the intricacies of raising the purebred dog. I (we) respectfully request that AKC take immediate action to counteract this new threat to the art, science, and constitutional right to breed dogs.”
Permalink
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
07.24.11
Posted in Animal Ownership, On the National Front, Pet Laws, Pet Owner Bill of Rights at 4:38 pm by Administrator
|
— On Mon, 7/11/11, AKC’s Government Relations Department <mba@akc.org> wrote:
From: AKC’s Government Relations Department <mba@akc.org>
Subject: MA Update: Committee to Consider Requiring Licensing for Dog Events on July 19
To: apete1962@yahoo.com
Date: Monday, July 11, 2011, 3:25 PM
July 11, 2011
A Massachusetts legislative committee is scheduled to consider House Bill 1023 on July 19 – a bill that would significantly change the definition of kennel to encompass training facilities or any dog event with more than 12 dogs. All those meeting the new criteria would be required to comply with all state and local licensing and other regulations currently reserved just for large kennels.
It is essential that the committee members hear from responsible dog owners, exhibitors, trainers, and breeders who either reside in the Commonwealth or participate in Massachusetts dog events:
- Attend the committee hearing on July 19. The meeting information is as follows:
Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure
Date: July 19, 2011
Time: 1:00 p.m.
Location: Massachusetts State House, Room A-2
**If you plan to attend, please contact the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners so they can know how many plan to testify and can provide you with any last-minute information:
The AKC will continue to closely monitor this legislation. For questions or more information, contact the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs & Responsible Dog Owners at the e-mail addresses listed above, or the AKC Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720 or doglaw@akc.org. If you would rather not receive future communications from The American Kennel Club, let us know by clicking here.
The American Kennel Club, 8051 Arco Corporate Dr. Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27617 United States
|
Permalink
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
Posted in Animal Ownership, On the National Front, Pet Laws at 3:57 pm by Administrator
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/21/38327.htm
Woman Says Dog Police Acted Like Gangsters
By REUBEN KRAMER
PHILADELPHIA (CN) – A breeder of basset hounds claims gun-toting officers from the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals broke her heart and “decimated” her pack of dogs, seizing 12 of them after illegally searching the dogs’ heated barn without a warrant, and threatening to “return with television cameras.”
Wendy Willard sued the PSPCA and two of its officers, George Bengal and Tara Loller, on constitutional charges in Federal Court.
Willard, a retired public school teacher, Ivy League graduate and volunteer for conservancy organizations, says she “has loved and worked with sporting hounds for more than 40 years.”
Willard says she is an “internationally recognized” breeder of dogs known as the “Murder Hollow Bassets.” An Internet search this morning turned up a trove of comments on the case from dog groups.
In her 26-page complaint, Willard says she has spent tens of thousands of dollars to care for her dogs, $30,000 on the heated barn she built for them, and has raised 17 litters of “highly regarded hounds.”
Willard’s attorney Emily Bell told Courthouse News that Willard, a cause célèbre in some dog-breeding circles, is “a really lovely woman who has endured some pretty terrible things” at the hands of the PSPCA. Bell is an attorney with Clymer, Musser, Brown & Conrad, of Lancaster, Pa.
The Murder Hollow Bassets get their name from a grisly 19th-century triple homicide that occurred near the dead-end, single-lane, wooded private road where Willard lives.
Until July 27, 2009, Willard lived in her home with a pair of older hounds and another 21 dogs lived in the $30,000 heated barn she built for them on her 2-acre Philadelphia property, which includes “100-foot runs and an exercise area,” according to her complaint.
But Willard says her world was turned upside-down that summer day when a group of gun-toting PSPCA officers paid an unannounced visit and asked for permission to enter the barn.
“When Miss Willard refused them permission to search without a warrant, the officers and wardens temporarily left her property,” but not before an officer “threatened Miss Willard that if she did not consent to a warrantless search of her property, the group … could return with television cameras,” according to the complaint.
“Rather than seek a warrant, the officers and wardens, however, simply entered the adjoining property of her neighbor, crossing from that property’s grassy area to trespass onto the wooded area on Miss Willard’s property,” according to the complaint.
Willard says the manager of the 340-acre preserve next door had told the PSPCA officers they were trespassing, but the officers responded “that they did not care and that as PSPCA agents they would go wherever they pleased and do whatever they wanted.”
“From their trespassing vantage point, the wardens and officers observed the fenced-in area behind Miss Willard’s barn and spied on Miss Willard as she went about her daily chore of cleaning her dogs’ exercise runs,” the complaint states.
Warrants were subsequently issued “in spite of the fact that the officers and wardens had observed no criminal activity from an area in which they were not authorized to be,” Willard says.
The crew returned at about 5 p.m., handed Willard a search warrant, and raided her dogs.
“Miss Willard’s hounds had sensed danger and begun to bark,” the complaint states. Willard says the PSPCA crew searched and photographed her barn, and a fleet of eight law-enforcement vehicles parked outside her home.
Willard says defendant PSPCA officer Tara Loller falsely accused her of violating Philadelphia’s “Limit Law,” which prohibits having more than 12 dogs in a single residence.
“Defendants improperly brandished this ‘Limit Law’ as the pretext to seize Miss Willard’s hounds from the heated barn. This inapplicable ordinance was used to oppress and badger Miss Willard into complying with defendants’ demands.”
Willard says the 12-dog limit applies to a “residential dwelling unit,” which the Philadelphia Zoning Code defines as a building “intended to be used for living or sleeping by human occupants.”
“Miss Willard’s barn is not a dwelling; no human occupants use it for living or sleeping and it was obvious to anyone on the property that the barn was not a residential dwelling. In fact, Miss Willard’s barn is a private stable under the Philadelphia Zoning Code. As no business is conducted on the property, her barn is not a kennel,” Willard says.
Willard says she involuntarily signed “surrender agreements” for seizure of 11 of her dogs after officers threatened to take all 23 of them “if she refused to sign over the others.” She says the officers told her “that the forms had to be signed immediately because one of the dog wardens was going into diabetic shock and needed medical attention; that if she did not sign the dogs over she would get so many citations that PSPCA would ‘own her home;’ and that defendants Bengal and Loller would not leave her kitchen until the documents were signed.”
Meanwhile, defendant George Bengal was a quarter-mile uphill, telling Willard’s neighbor that Willard was “running a puppy mill,” the complaint states. Willard says that charge is bogus, as she “does not sell her hounds, preferring instead to give them away to people she knows will provide warm homes and good care or to keep and raise them herself.”
She says the PSPCA claimed its raid was precipitated by “unattributed complaints about barking,” and that it forced her to make a “heart-rending” decision: “After defendant Loller informed Miss Willard that she would be seizing 10 of her dogs because she was violating the law, she directed Miss Willard to choose the dogs that would be seized.”
Tearful pleading didn’t sway Loller: “As night fell, Miss Willard was forced to undertake the traumatic task of choosing which of her dogs – most of which had been whelped in her home and spent every day of their lives with her – to hand over to the PSPCA.
“As Miss Willard tearfully decided which of her dogs to part with, defendant Bengal threatened her that defendants could give her enough citations to take her house,” the complaint states.
Willard says the officers’ heartless behavior continued. She says Bengal scoured her house with a flashlight until he found Hansel, Willard’s 12-year-old “house hound.”
“Defendant Bengal then demanded that Miss Willard surrender yet another of her dogs. Miss Willard was then forced to say a hysterical goodbye to the other dog who lived in the house with her, taking off the dog’s identification collar and Invisible Fence collar as defendants Loller and Bengal pulled her away.
The complaint continues: “Incredibly, although defendant Loller had previously stated to Miss Willard that Nellie, one of the hounds, would be seized because of the length of her toenails, while Miss Willard stood beside the impound truck while Nellie was being loaded and promised the dog she would do whatever she could to get her back, defendant Loller relented and permitted Miss Willard to choose any other dog to ‘swap’ for Nellie.”
Willard adds: “While in Miss Willard’s kitchen, defendant Bengal began to look through Miss Willard’s mail. When Miss Willard asked defendant Bengal to stop reading her mail, he retorted, ‘We got a warrant. We can look through anything we want.’”
The arbitrary abuses did not stop with the seizures, Willard says. She claims that for months, PSPCA acted as if all the seized dogs were still alive, though it knew that one had been euthanized after a botched surgical procedure.
And “Incredibly, defendant PSPCA records list 11 hounds being spayed or neutered in its facility, despite the fact that two of those seized hounds had previously been spayed,” Willard says.
“Not content to destroy Miss Willard’s pack of hounds and steal her animals, the PSPCA began a campaign of harassment by irrelevant ordinance,” slapping Willard with multiple code-violation notices for alleged “animal sounds,” which were later dismissed, she says.
Those citations were followed by a barrage of 22 citations concerning animal welfare, none of which resulted in conviction, Willard says.
Willard says her “pack of hounds was irreplaceable and her loss was tremendous.”
She adds: “The loss of genetic material is significant because those particular hounds had participated in recognized hunts, been bred with hounds of other packs and traded for generic diversity.”
The PSPCA did not return a phone calling seeking comment.
Attorney Bell told Courthouse News that nearly 2 years after her client’s ordeal, “We are not sure where these dogs are,” a painful uncertainty “that Ms. Willard faces every day.”
Willard seeks compensatory and punitive damages for constitutional violations.
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 »
