01.29.12
AKC’s formal opposition to the Federal PUPS act
http://www.akc.org/governmentrelations/documents/pdf/PUPSAct1-26-12.pdf
12.13.11
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.
Federal PUPS Act…now has 153 cosponsors…breeders beware.
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!
10.26.11
Animal Rights Agenda, AKC, and Aging Breeders
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.
07.24.11
MA legislation would affect companion animal events
|
— On Mon, 7/11/11, AKC’s Government Relations Department <mba@akc.org> wrote:
|
Your Dog’s Best Friend May Be His Attorney
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
Pet limit laws – good article
http://forums.petdocsoncall.com/entry.php?171-How-Many-Pets-Can-You-Own
05.08.11
Yikes! Performance dog folks in Cecil County, MD
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.
04.24.11
IRS INVESTIGATE HSUS
WooHoo!! Rep Leutkemeyer is another one of our area’s guys!
http://www..agrimarketing.com/ss.php?id=66714
MISSOURI CONGRESSMEN ASK TREASURY DEPARTMENT TO INVESTIGATE HSUS’ 501(C)(3) STATUS Apr. 21, 2011
Agri-Pulse reports:
A letter sent by several members of Missouri’s congressional delegation to Eric Thorson, Inspector General for the Treasury Department, requests an investigation into what the lawmakers describe as “apparent improper activities” under the tax-exempt status of the Humane Society of the
U.S. (HSUS).
“Over the past two years, this organization has conducted substantial political activities within Missouri that brought into question its tax exempt 501 (c) (3) status,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter signed by Missouri Republican Reps. Vicky Hartzler, Jo Ann Emerson, Blaine
Luetkemeyer, Sam Graves and Billy Long, along with Alaska GOP Rep. DonYoung.
“We believe that HSUS’s own public documents show beyond question that lobbying is a “substantial part” of its activities and feel that IRS’s failure to act is attributable to the politically sensitive nature of HSUS’s activities,” they wrote. Under the definition of Section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Service code, an organization “may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities.”
On March 23, 2010, Rep. Luetkemeyer notified IRS Commissioner Shulman of the organization’s potential violation of the tax exemption laws. On May 12, Luetkemeyer followed up with a letter to Lois Lerner, Director of Exempt Organizations. “Yet to our knowledge, no remedial action was taken against HSUS,” the lawmakers wrote.
Elaine Wallace
03.08.11
FEDERAL PUPS BILL HAS RESURFACED-PLEASE OPPOSE
Opposition to the bill detailed here:
http://carpoc.org/data/ifdco_position_statement_on_pups.pdf
