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
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
01.27.11
Posted in Animal Activists, Animal Ownership, On the National Front, Pet Laws, Pet Owner Bill of Rights, What is HSUS?, What is a puppy mill? at 12:26 am by Administrator
Nebraska Restrictive Dog Breeding Bill Scheduled for Hearing
[January 26, 2011]
The Nebraska Agriculture Committee is scheduled to consider Legislative Bill 427 on February 8.
Legislative Bill 427 seeks to further regulate “commercial dog breeders” in Nebraska. Current law defines “commercial breeders” as anyone “engaged in the business of breeding dogs” and owns or harbors four or more intact dogs or cats, sells at least 31 dogs and cats per year, owns dogs/cats that produce four or more litters per year, or who knowingly sells or leases dogs/cats for later retail sale or brokered trade.
With this low threshold in current law, LB 427 would require anyone who owns four intact dogs of any age to comply with strict engineering standards and breeder restrictions. View the AKC’s previous Legislative Alert on LB 427 for more information on this legislation.
Click here to read the AKC’s letter to the Agriculture Committee
How You Can Help:
- Attend the Agriculture Committee hearing and respectfully ask the members to oppose LB 427. The hearing information is as follows:
Agriculture Committee
Date: Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Location: Nebraska State Capitol
1445 K Street, Room 1524
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
Click here for instructions on how to testify at a committee hearing.
- Contact the Agriculture Committee and respectfully ask them to vote “no” on this bill. Click here for a sample letter to personalize
Senator Tom Carlson, Chairman
Phone: (402) 471-2732
Email: tcarlson@leg.ne.gov
Senator Dave Bloomfield
Phone: (402) 471-2716
Email: dbloomfield@leg.ne.gov
Senator Lydia Brasch
Phone: (402) 471-2728
Email: lbrasch@leg.ne.gov
Senator Burke Harr
Phone: (402) 471-2722
Email: bharr@leg.ne.gov
Senator Russ Karpisek
Phone: (402) 471-2711
Email: rkarpisek@leg.ne.gov
Senator Tyson Larson
Phone: (402) 471-2801
Email: tlarson@leg.ne.gov
Senator Steve Lathrop
Phone: (402) 471-2623
Email: slathrop@leg.ne.gov
Senator Norman Wallman
Phone: (402) 471-2620
Email: nwallman@leg.ne.gov
Contact the AKC Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720 or doglaw@akc.org for any questions or the latest information.
Government Relations Department
American Kennel Club
8051 Arco Corporate Drive, Suite 100
Raleigh, North Carolina 27617
Phone: (919) 816-3720
Fax: (919) 816-4275
E-mail: jlc@akc.org
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 $19-per-month donation, only about 9 cents goes to the direct care of animals in need. HSUS is not affiliated with local humane societies or shelters. They don’t give them money. Most of the donations HSUS receives goes toward six-figure salaries for their management staff, toward their pension plans, and to their lobbying efforts. In fact, there has been a demand for an investigation by the IRS regarding the HSUS 501(c)3 status. The goal of HSUS is to end animal ownership and use – period.
I don’t like puppy factories any more than the next person. I rescue and I foster. I know what’s out there. But I believe there are sufficient regulations already in existence that simply need to be properly enforced. And by the way, when was the last time you read about HSUS visiting a GOOD breeder?
I am a breeder. I am good at what I do. I don’t need politicians and bureaucrats and lobbyists telling me how to properly engage in my hobby and my passion.
Permalink
06.02.10
Posted in Pet Laws, Pet Owner Bill of Rights, What is HSUS?, What is a puppy mill? at 10:18 pm by Administrator
A quote (or THREAT) from Wayne Pacelle’s (H$U$) blog:
“Yesterday’s report and legislative introduction should serve as a warning to all those who protect this dubious industry—from “kennel clubs” to pet stores to lobbying front groups who claim to care about purebred dog breeding, but in fact only care about how much money they can make peddling loads of puppies. Your days of abusing dogs for profit while snubbing the laws of this country and many states are coming to an end.”
Please, if you own and love your dog, DO NOT SUPPORT H$U$!
Permalink
05.26.10
Posted in On the National Front, Pet Laws, What is HSUS?, What is a puppy mill? at 9:21 pm by Administrator
Dog Breeders, USDA, and the PUPS Act – Amy Peterson
In response to a scathing report by the USDA Inspector General (IG), critical of the government’s handling of puppy mill investigations, Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Senator David Vitter (R-LA) today called for immediate changes at the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s (APHIS) and promised to work with Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack on administrative and legislative reforms:
- APHIS’ “enforcement process was ineffective against problematic dealers.” The IG report shows that more than half of the dog breeding facilities found to be in violation of the Animal Welfare Act repeatedly violated the law — some as many as a dozen times.
- APHIS “inspectors did not document violations properly.” According to the report, 30% of inspectors failed to correctly report violations, resulting in some known violators receiving less frequent inspections and escaping strong enforcement. The report also says the reporting failure resulted in nearly 50% of all administrative hearings with problem dealers being compromised due to lack of evidence.
- “APHIS misused guidelines to lower penalties for violators.” In over 30% of cases, APHIS misused their own enforcement guidelines by inconsistently counting violations, applying penalty reductions without merit, and arbitrarily changing the gravity of some violations.
- Large puppy mills “circumvented the law by selling animals over the internet.” Because of a loophole in the Animal Welfare Act, large puppy mills that sell dogs online are exempt from APHIS inspection and licensing requirement.
We as dog breeders should be concerned about these issues. However, the resulting bill from Senators Durbin and Vitter raise questions about which every hobby breeder should be concerned. Called the PUPS bill, or Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety act, it calls for the following:
- Require licensing and inspection of dog breeders that sell directly to the public and sell more than 50 dogs per year.
- Require that dogs in commercial breeding facilities have appropriate space and opportunity for daily exercise.
As hobby breeders, we need to ask the following:
- What constitutes an internet sale? If a breeder has a website and receives inquiries from that site, are they categorized as internet sales?
- What constitutes the seller of puppies? Does this have the potential to affect owners of co-owned bitches? Per AKC regulations ALL the owners of a bitch must sign the registration papers. So if Owner A has one litter of five annuall, but co-owns a number of bitches who also have litters, will these “count” toward the number of dogs Owner A has sold?
- How are the exercise requirements going to be enforced? Will there be someone observing the number of hours of exercise each dog gets? And what constitutes exercise? If you turn a bunch of elkhounds out into a running yard at anything over about 75 degrees, they’ll just find a place in the shade to lie around! Similarly, if you turn an IG out in anything but about 50 degrees, all she’ll do is look for a warm place to lay! I think exercise requirements are NOT something that is a one-size-fits-all category.
- If our current laws are not being enforced by our inspectors, then who is going to enforce the new laws? Would it not be better use of funds to hire additional inspectors and provide appropriate training (and pay) for them?
In some ways, this bill does attempt to close some loopholes; however, both the USDA report and the introducing Senators agree that the problem appears to be in the enforcement of existing laws. This bill in no way provides for additional enforcement of existing laws, nor does it provide for the additional inspectors that would be necessary for enforcement of the new Act. As with all bills, this bill requires input from hobby breeders and animal husbandry experts. It is very important that all concerned hobby breeders contact their US Senators and Representatives and express their opinions. This bill is at the federal, and not the state level, and will impact every state in the nation. Please be an involved hobby breeder and take the time to research this bill and any legislation that may impact you, and the fancy!
Here are some additional comments on the bill, written by Margo Milde
The PUPS bill is up:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.3424:
Just a few brief comments to start with. This bill provides a new category of breeder, “High Volume Breeder”, as one needing USDA licensing. They define a “High Volume Breeder” as:
`(B) HIGH VOLUME RETAIL BREEDER- The term `high volume retail breeder’ means a person who, in commerce, for compensation or profit–
`(i) has an ownership interest in or custody of 1 or more breeding female dogs; and
`(ii) sells or offers for sale, via any means of conveyance (including the Internet, telephone, or newspaper), more than 50 of the offspring of such breeding female dogs for use as pets in any 1-year period.
They have defined “breeding female dogs” as:
`(A) BREEDING FEMALE DOG- The term `breeding female dog’ means an intact female dog aged 4 months or older.
The sticky question of “co-ownership” immediately raises its ugly head. Many AKC breeders “co-own” a number of bitches (and dogs, for that matter) that do not live in the home of the breeder. Regardless of where these bitches are maintained, is appears that one interpretation of the defined number includes any bitch who is “co-owned” by an individual breeder. Even worse, “breeding female” includes any intact female over 4 months of age (personal comment: it’s probably no coincidence that MSN laws have been introduced, and passed such as in Las Vegas and Los Angeles, with a 4 month S/N requirement. See, the dots all connect!!!) Thus, “breeding females” includes puppies not intended to be bred until a more mature age, or even those puppies still of a biologically non-breedable age; or elderly intact bitches well past a breedable age; or bitches left intact for reasons of veterinary recommendation, or left intact for show, working ability, or any other purposes, even if the bitch was not intended to be bred that year (or ever.)
“50 puppies” may sound like a lot, but when you add up puppies from co-owned bitches who don’t reside with their breeder, assuming that will be the interpretation given, you will then realize that who this bill targets is the typical AKC (or UKC) hobby breeder!!! Additionally, to make matters even more complicated, and as any long term breeder knows, the number of puppies the breeder “offers to sell” in any given time period does NOT mean that all those puppies were sold! Perhaps, for example, the number of puppies produced was not the optimistic number that the breeder had actual buyers for, or perhaps a poor economy forced buyers to back out of the deal at the last minute. Yet, the breeder would still be classified by the number he or she “offered to sell”, as opposed to the actual number of puppies sold.
That AKC (or UKC, etc) home hobby breeder that would be included under this law will need to be licensed, and to ensure that their facility (i.e., their home) meets the engineering standards required for a commercial USDA-licensed kennel. Think that is easy? Think again. Your home may be spotless, and the care of your dogs immaculate, but it is highly unlikely that your home can meet these USDA APHIS standards, unless you keep your dogs separate in a special addition to your home, so that they don’t reside in your “human” home proper.
Additional requirements include exercise requirements, which can be very problematic in interpretation; and a ban on “wire flooring”, despite the fact that well-designed wire floors keep puppies warmer, drier, and healthier than a cold concrete flooring.
These are just my initial speculations. I am waiting to see more official interpretations of this bill.
Here’s a few additional resources on this bill:
AKC is still examining the potential impact of this bill (personal comment – I hope they don’t take too long in doing so!! Really, the bill is relatively short and doesn’t take that long to read):
http://www.akc.org/pdfs/canine_legislation/PUPSlegalert052710.pdf
Please see links included in above AKC document to APHIS inspections requirements and regulations for USDA licensed breeders, and then ask yourself if YOUR home could meet these standards.
Pet World’s Steve Dale is opposed to this legislation, and asks the million dollar question: why aren’t existing USDA APHIS regulations being enforced?
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/steve-dale-pet-world/2010/05/why-are-puppy-mills-allowed-to-operate.html#more
http://tinyurl.com/39wwpq9
Please go comment on Steve’s blog and tell him you agree!
Finally, the USDA Inspector General report on commercial breeder deficiencies can be read at this link:
http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/33002-4-SF.pdf
I suggest strongly you read the entire IG report for yourselves. You will see that there are known major problems with existing enforcement for repeat violators, as detailed in this report. Why aren’t existing laws enforced, and shouldn’t that be the focus of our efforts, and not “new laws” that would allow the substandard breeders to continue on their merry way, while shutting down the responsible breeder?
Margo Milde
Permalink
02.14.10
Posted in What is a puppy mill? at 7:39 pm by Administrator
http://www.canismajor.com/dog/puppymil.html
Dog Owner’s Guide: What is a Puppy Mill? (www.canismajor.com/dog/puppymil.html)] is a part of the Dog Owner’s Guide internet website and is copyright 2009 by Canis Major Publications.
Permalink
