Dear Companion Pet Lovers ~
1. Sat., October 31, 2009 Buckeye Dog Auction. Below is a summary of the 425 companions (174 males, 251 females) expected to be placed on the auction block beginning next Saturday at approximately 10:00 AM:
Breed Males Females
Bernese Mountain 1 3
Bichon 4 4
Boston Terrier 7 13
Bulldog 0 1
Cairn Terrier 3 8
Cavalier King Charles Spaniel 7 5
Chihuahua 10 9
Cocker Spaniel 6 8
Coton De Tulear 2 1
Dachshund 5 13
English Bulldog 2 7
Fox Terrier 0 1
French Bulldog 2 10
Great Pyrenees 1 1
Havanese 5 2
Italian Greyhound 2 3
Jack Russell Terrier 1 6
Lhasa Apso 0 3
Maltese 11 12
Miniature Australian Shepherd 1 3
Miniature Dachshund 3 2
Miniature Pincher 5 10
Miniature Schnauzer 2 5
Mixed 11 22
Papillon 4 3
Pekingese 2 0
Pomeranian 17 16
Poodle (no classification) 15 11
Pug 7 8
Saint Bernard 1 0
Schnauzer 5 7
Scottish Terrier 1 2
Shetland Sheepdog 0 1
Shiba Inu 0 1
Shih Tzu 17 28
Silky Dachshund 2 0
Toy Fox Terrier 0 1
West Highland White 1 7
Yorkshire Terrier 11 14
TOTAL 174 251
You may be interested to know that a 2009 report issued by the USDA has confirmed Ohio ranks seventh among the top 10 states with the largest number of USDA Class A licensed 'commercial' breeders:
1. MO - 1,370
2. OK - 498
3. IA - 322
4. AR - 308 (was 5th in 2008)
5. KS - 291 (was 4th in 2008)
6. PA - 202 7. OH - 161 (a 500%increase in the number of Class A licensed "commercial" breeders just five years ago!)
8. NE - 142
9. SD - 102 (was 10th in 2008)
10. TX - 91 (was 9th in 2008)
2. Coalition to Ban Ohio Dog Auctions. The Coalition to Ban Ohio Dog Auctions does not promote or encourage individuals or groups to purchase dogs from auctions or directly from puppy mill breeders. For a great many (and a growing number) of us, initiating efforts to ban the auctions is one way to take away the demand, and we strongly believe introducing the Ohio Dog Auctions Act, (legislation similar to that of PA's statute 459-603) will impact the mills. In our opinion, as long as you have a buyer, there is always a need for the seller.
With that said, the Coalition to Ban Ohio Dog Auctions will continue working with local, state and national animal advocacy groups to actively address - through investigations, education, media relations and legislative involvement - Ohio dog auctions and their relationship to puppy mills and pet homelessness.
If you would like to download a copy of the Initiative Petition and help collect signatures for the Ohio Dog Auctions Act, click here!
If you would like to share your concerns regarding the Farmerstown Dog Auctions, I would encourage you to:
1. Write (or fax) letters to the Holmes County Commissioners (Joe Miller, Ray Feikert and Rob Ault) asking them to support the Ohio Dog Auctions Act. Emphasize that you will not be spending any dollars in Holmes County until dog auctions no longer takes place in their community!
The contact information is:
2 Court Street, Ste14
Millersburg, OH 44654-2001
Phone: 330-674-0286
Fax: 330-674-0566
E-mail: hcc@co.holmes.oh.us
SAMPLE LETTER - Please personalize the email message by expressing your opinion in your own words; it's much more effective!
Dear Commissioners Miller, Feikert and Ault:
Over the past nine years, my husband and I have made numerous trips to HolmesCountyto purchase cheeses, baked goods, quilts and furniture. I have also been a frequent customer at many of the numerous restaurants in HolmesCounty. We have enjoyed our stays at the local accommodations, taking longs weekends and summer vacations there.
BUT no more! Until I learn that the Dog Auctions have been discontinued, I will not be visiting or spending money in your community!
Please be aware that I have asked all of my family, friends and elected officials to do the same.
Ask the same from all your friends (don't forget to include your vet!), family, co-workers and state elected officials - http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/!
2. Ohio Voters Against Puppy Mills and Dog Auctions. If you haven't done so already, we invite you to join the over 1,000 voices who have become members of our FaceBook group, "Ohio Voters Against Puppy Mills and Dog Auctions." Membership is FREE, and our portal serves as a great vehicle in which to receive timely updates on issues and campaigns addressing Ohio dog auctions, puppy mills and the entities that support and keep them in business.
For more information on how you can become a member, click here.
3. Campaign Gear. If you are interested in purchasing any of our low cost 'Coalition to Ban Ohio Dog Auctions' gear to help raise awareness of the Ohio dog auctions (t-shirts, car magnets, lawn signs, etc.), please visit the 'Contact Us' page of our website, www.BanOhioDogAuctions.com.
Thanks everyone for your continued dedication to serving as a strong voice for the dogs!
Mary O'Connor-Shaver
Cell: 614-271-8248
Columbus Top Dogs
http://www.ColumbusTopDogs.com
http://www.BanOhioDogAuctions.com
http://www.ThoughtsFurPaws.com
http://tejasanimalrefuge.ca/
http://www.LostPetUSA.net
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
STRONG VOICE FOR THE DOGS!
Dear Companion Pet Lovers ~
As many of you may recall from the good news shared last week, Ohio officials have cleared the way for supporters to gather signatures for a proposed Ohio ban on auctions of dogs (officially called the 'Ohio Dog Auctions Act')! We are incredibly grateful to the over 4,000 supporters (includes many hobby/show breeders) across 27 Ohio counties (and beyond) who assisted us in meeting this very critical milestone in our campaign!
WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW...
A unanimous 4-0 vote last Tuesday from the state Ballot Board means we may now proceed to 'Phase 2' of our signature drive; collecting a minimum of 120,700 valid signatures from registered Ohio voters by December 14, 2009. The signatures are necessary to put the proposed law before the Legislature in January 2010. If our lawmakers do not move on the proposed legislation within 90 days, our team will proceed to 'Phase 3'; gathering another 120,700 valid signatures to put the Ohio Dog Auctions Act on the 2010 ballot.
WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR 'PART 2'...
Phase 2 of our signature drive will require us to move fast and smart in collecting 120,700 signatures! To ensure this signature drive is successful and meets the requirements mandated by the Secretary of State, three important steps must take place:
The total number of signatures collected for our Petition must equal at least three percent (3%) of the total vote cast for the office of governor during the 2006 gubernatorial election, Signatures must be collected from at least 44 of the 88 counties in Ohio, and from each of these 44 counties, the number of signatures must be equal to at least one and five tenths percent (1.5%) of the total vote cast for the office of governor in that county during the 2006 gubernatorial election.
Because so many people across Ohio and beyond feel passionately in supporting an ban on dog auctions, we are confident we can meet this goal! All we need is dedicated folks to collect signatures from each of the 88 counties and our Committee will handle the rest!
WHERE WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We are reaching out to groups and individuals from across Ohio (and beyond) asking for their assistance to help us gather signatures by December 14, 2009! THIS INCLUDES YOU!
Helping to collect signatures is very quick and easy - you only need to be a resident of Ohio. To assist you in this effort, we have attached the following:
Informational Flyer. This document can be given to interested parties wishing to learn more about the Ohio Dog Auction Act and our campaign.
Circulator Instructions. This document contains easy-to-follow instructions for collecting signatures.
Petition (Ohio Dog Auction Act).
It is important to note that supporters who signed our Petition during 'Phase 1' of our signature drive may also sign as 'Part 2'!
NOW IS THE TIME TO SERVE AS A STRONG VOICE FOR THE DOGS!
The next Ohio Dog Auction is scheduled to take place on Saturday, October 31. Over 300 dogs are expected to be placed on the block, including many from the state of Pennsylvania where public dog auctions are illegal. Now is the time to send a strong message to our state legislators that dog auctions are an embarrassment to Ohio and its humane minded citizens, and voters and taxpayers are committed to supporting a 2010 ballot initiative to ban these events from our community! Again, we greatly appreciate all your dedication and support for the dogs!
P.S. If you haven't done so already, we invite you to join the over 960 voices who have become members of our FaceBook group, "Ohio Voters Against Puppy Mills and Dog Auctions." Membership is FREE, and our portal serves as a great vehicle in which to receive timely updates on issues and campaigns addressing Ohio dog auctions, puppy mills and the entities that support and keep them in business. For more information on how you can become a member, click here.
P.S.S. If you are interested in purchasing any of our low cost 'Coalition to Ban Ohio Dog Auctions' gear (t-shirts, car magnets, lawn signs, banners, etc.), please reply to this message.
Mary O'Connor-Shaver
http://www.banohiodogauctions.com/
As many of you may recall from the good news shared last week, Ohio officials have cleared the way for supporters to gather signatures for a proposed Ohio ban on auctions of dogs (officially called the 'Ohio Dog Auctions Act')! We are incredibly grateful to the over 4,000 supporters (includes many hobby/show breeders) across 27 Ohio counties (and beyond) who assisted us in meeting this very critical milestone in our campaign!
WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW...
A unanimous 4-0 vote last Tuesday from the state Ballot Board means we may now proceed to 'Phase 2' of our signature drive; collecting a minimum of 120,700 valid signatures from registered Ohio voters by December 14, 2009. The signatures are necessary to put the proposed law before the Legislature in January 2010. If our lawmakers do not move on the proposed legislation within 90 days, our team will proceed to 'Phase 3'; gathering another 120,700 valid signatures to put the Ohio Dog Auctions Act on the 2010 ballot.
WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR 'PART 2'...
Phase 2 of our signature drive will require us to move fast and smart in collecting 120,700 signatures! To ensure this signature drive is successful and meets the requirements mandated by the Secretary of State, three important steps must take place:
The total number of signatures collected for our Petition must equal at least three percent (3%) of the total vote cast for the office of governor during the 2006 gubernatorial election, Signatures must be collected from at least 44 of the 88 counties in Ohio, and from each of these 44 counties, the number of signatures must be equal to at least one and five tenths percent (1.5%) of the total vote cast for the office of governor in that county during the 2006 gubernatorial election.
Because so many people across Ohio and beyond feel passionately in supporting an ban on dog auctions, we are confident we can meet this goal! All we need is dedicated folks to collect signatures from each of the 88 counties and our Committee will handle the rest!
WHERE WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We are reaching out to groups and individuals from across Ohio (and beyond) asking for their assistance to help us gather signatures by December 14, 2009! THIS INCLUDES YOU!
Helping to collect signatures is very quick and easy - you only need to be a resident of Ohio. To assist you in this effort, we have attached the following:
Informational Flyer. This document can be given to interested parties wishing to learn more about the Ohio Dog Auction Act and our campaign.
Circulator Instructions. This document contains easy-to-follow instructions for collecting signatures.
Petition (Ohio Dog Auction Act).
It is important to note that supporters who signed our Petition during 'Phase 1' of our signature drive may also sign as 'Part 2'!
NOW IS THE TIME TO SERVE AS A STRONG VOICE FOR THE DOGS!
The next Ohio Dog Auction is scheduled to take place on Saturday, October 31. Over 300 dogs are expected to be placed on the block, including many from the state of Pennsylvania where public dog auctions are illegal. Now is the time to send a strong message to our state legislators that dog auctions are an embarrassment to Ohio and its humane minded citizens, and voters and taxpayers are committed to supporting a 2010 ballot initiative to ban these events from our community! Again, we greatly appreciate all your dedication and support for the dogs!
P.S. If you haven't done so already, we invite you to join the over 960 voices who have become members of our FaceBook group, "Ohio Voters Against Puppy Mills and Dog Auctions." Membership is FREE, and our portal serves as a great vehicle in which to receive timely updates on issues and campaigns addressing Ohio dog auctions, puppy mills and the entities that support and keep them in business. For more information on how you can become a member, click here.
P.S.S. If you are interested in purchasing any of our low cost 'Coalition to Ban Ohio Dog Auctions' gear (t-shirts, car magnets, lawn signs, banners, etc.), please reply to this message.
Mary O'Connor-Shaver
http://www.banohiodogauctions.com/
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Who Wants to Regulate and Shut Down CAFOs?
Post from Betty Salmon
I wrote recently about attacks against animal agriculture. On Sept. 21,
2009, the United States Humane Society (HSUS) and other environmental
organizations filed a petition with the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to govern air pollution emissions from Confined
Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) utilizing a section of the Clean Air Act.
I thought it would be interesting for many of you to have more
information about the organizations behind the Sept. 21 petition to EPA.
It is always helpful to know the background of your opposition, their
true purpose, and also gauge their understanding of agricultural practices.
The HSUS is a national and international non-profit organization. Its
goal is protection of all animals. The organization claims to have 10.5
million members, maintains an office in Washington, DC and claims
offices and staff in 25 states and foreign countries.
HSUS says it is the most effective animal protection organization in the
United States. HSUS has an animal protection litigation section that
claims to conduct precedent-setting legal campaigns on behalf of
animals. It does this with 13 staff lawyers in Washington, New York, San
Francisco, and Seattle.
It further claims to have a network of over 1,000 pro bono lawyers
(lawyers who work for free) and dozens of active cases. Agriculture has
nothing like this to defend its interests. Have any of you ever seen
USDA's lawyers intervene to help out a farmer?
Another organization joining the Humane Society in petitioning EPA is
the Dairy Education Alliance (DEA). This alliance claims to be a
national coalition of farmers, grass roots activists, public interest
lawyers, and economists. DEA claims to have member organizations in 10
states. The alliance operates in conjunction with the Western
Environmental Law Center which says it defends the West's air, water,
and wild lands since it was created as a law clinic at the University of
Oregon's Law School in 1976.
Spotted owl fame The Western Environmental Law Center gained fame over
its seven-year litigation regarding the spotted owl. You may recall the
victory in this case helped shut down logging in many parts of the West.
The DEA claims member organizations such as the Center on the Race,
Poverty and the Environment, located in California; Family Farms located
in Missouri; the Idaho Concerned Area Residents for the Environment; and
the Idaho Rural Council. These organizations want to hold CAFOs
accountable for air emissions and educate the public about the serious
environmental damage caused by CAFOs.
Another alleged nonpartisan and non-profit organization seeking to
regulate air and water pollution from CAFOs is the Environmental
Integrity Project (EIP). One of EIP's main areas of focus is 'factory
farms,' or CAFOs. EIP was founded by former EPA enforcement attorneys
and is supported by a number of major foundations. EIP's founder and
executive director resigned from EPA and publicly expressed his
frustration with the Bush administration when he claimed it sought to
weaken enforcement of the Clean Air Act.
EIP claims to have five attorneys and works with grassroots
organizations to force alleged polluters to reduce their emissions. EIP
opposes the waste created by CAFOs and does not seem to understand that
many of us use the valuable manure for fertilizer. You might think that
such organizations would applaud the recycling of material, but
apparently EIP does not understand agriculture.
There are several other organizations filing the petition with EPA that
I could describe to you but the last one I want to bring to your
attention is the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, which
claims it is an environmental justice litigation organization. It claims
it has beaten a 55,000-cow mega-dairy. I assume this means the dairy was
never built! It further claims it has cut pollution in California's
great agricultural San Joaquin Valley by reducing 7,237 tons of volatile
organic compounds and reduced 29,600 tons of ammonia per year. The
Center claims thousands breathe cleaner air today as a result of their
work.
Improved air quality After reading about these organizations and their
claims, one would believe that EPA and the 50 state environmental
organizations are hardly doing a thing to maintain air quality
standards. As we know, this is not the case because there has been
enormous improvement in the nation's air quality since 1970 when the
Clean Air Act was passed under the Nixon administration.
Notwithstanding these successes, these groups deserve to be watched
carefully because they are smart, have excellent lawyers, and are
dedicated to greater regulation of CAFOs. I recently was involved in
trying a case in the Midwest where many claims were made with regard to
alleged terrible air pollution emitted by a CAFO. We proved these claims
to be false and the jury returned a 12 to 0 verdict in my client's
favor. This case demonstrates how important it is to deal in facts and
not in scare tactics.
Nevertheless, HSUS and the organizations described above with their
enormous foundation support, financial resources, legal resources, and
close contacts in the Obama administration, are worthy adversaries and
agriculture must organize itself in a similar fashion to protect its
interests. As you can see, these organizations which filed this
petition with EPA are not easily dismissed.
I wrote recently about attacks against animal agriculture. On Sept. 21,
2009, the United States Humane Society (HSUS) and other environmental
organizations filed a petition with the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to govern air pollution emissions from Confined
Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) utilizing a section of the Clean Air Act.
I thought it would be interesting for many of you to have more
information about the organizations behind the Sept. 21 petition to EPA.
It is always helpful to know the background of your opposition, their
true purpose, and also gauge their understanding of agricultural practices.
The HSUS is a national and international non-profit organization. Its
goal is protection of all animals. The organization claims to have 10.5
million members, maintains an office in Washington, DC and claims
offices and staff in 25 states and foreign countries.
HSUS says it is the most effective animal protection organization in the
United States. HSUS has an animal protection litigation section that
claims to conduct precedent-setting legal campaigns on behalf of
animals. It does this with 13 staff lawyers in Washington, New York, San
Francisco, and Seattle.
It further claims to have a network of over 1,000 pro bono lawyers
(lawyers who work for free) and dozens of active cases. Agriculture has
nothing like this to defend its interests. Have any of you ever seen
USDA's lawyers intervene to help out a farmer?
Another organization joining the Humane Society in petitioning EPA is
the Dairy Education Alliance (DEA). This alliance claims to be a
national coalition of farmers, grass roots activists, public interest
lawyers, and economists. DEA claims to have member organizations in 10
states. The alliance operates in conjunction with the Western
Environmental Law Center which says it defends the West's air, water,
and wild lands since it was created as a law clinic at the University of
Oregon's Law School in 1976.
Spotted owl fame The Western Environmental Law Center gained fame over
its seven-year litigation regarding the spotted owl. You may recall the
victory in this case helped shut down logging in many parts of the West.
The DEA claims member organizations such as the Center on the Race,
Poverty and the Environment, located in California; Family Farms located
in Missouri; the Idaho Concerned Area Residents for the Environment; and
the Idaho Rural Council. These organizations want to hold CAFOs
accountable for air emissions and educate the public about the serious
environmental damage caused by CAFOs.
Another alleged nonpartisan and non-profit organization seeking to
regulate air and water pollution from CAFOs is the Environmental
Integrity Project (EIP). One of EIP's main areas of focus is 'factory
farms,' or CAFOs. EIP was founded by former EPA enforcement attorneys
and is supported by a number of major foundations. EIP's founder and
executive director resigned from EPA and publicly expressed his
frustration with the Bush administration when he claimed it sought to
weaken enforcement of the Clean Air Act.
EIP claims to have five attorneys and works with grassroots
organizations to force alleged polluters to reduce their emissions. EIP
opposes the waste created by CAFOs and does not seem to understand that
many of us use the valuable manure for fertilizer. You might think that
such organizations would applaud the recycling of material, but
apparently EIP does not understand agriculture.
There are several other organizations filing the petition with EPA that
I could describe to you but the last one I want to bring to your
attention is the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, which
claims it is an environmental justice litigation organization. It claims
it has beaten a 55,000-cow mega-dairy. I assume this means the dairy was
never built! It further claims it has cut pollution in California's
great agricultural San Joaquin Valley by reducing 7,237 tons of volatile
organic compounds and reduced 29,600 tons of ammonia per year. The
Center claims thousands breathe cleaner air today as a result of their
work.
Improved air quality After reading about these organizations and their
claims, one would believe that EPA and the 50 state environmental
organizations are hardly doing a thing to maintain air quality
standards. As we know, this is not the case because there has been
enormous improvement in the nation's air quality since 1970 when the
Clean Air Act was passed under the Nixon administration.
Notwithstanding these successes, these groups deserve to be watched
carefully because they are smart, have excellent lawyers, and are
dedicated to greater regulation of CAFOs. I recently was involved in
trying a case in the Midwest where many claims were made with regard to
alleged terrible air pollution emitted by a CAFO. We proved these claims
to be false and the jury returned a 12 to 0 verdict in my client's
favor. This case demonstrates how important it is to deal in facts and
not in scare tactics.
Nevertheless, HSUS and the organizations described above with their
enormous foundation support, financial resources, legal resources, and
close contacts in the Obama administration, are worthy adversaries and
agriculture must organize itself in a similar fashion to protect its
interests. As you can see, these organizations which filed this
petition with EPA are not easily dismissed.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Federation Meeting at Urbana
The general meeting was held in Urbana in conjunction with the shows this past weekend. Below are items discussed:
1. Current bill, testimony at state house, and meetings with legilators.
2. Rod Ott reported on a conference call with AKC for all high volume breeders in Ohio, only 5 breeders participated. He also reported on a recent meeting with Bill McFadden at Montgomery County shows where the California group came to speak. He stated it was poorly attented as well.
3. Idea's were presented to wrap federation meetings around informational sessions and other dog related events such as handling clinic's and matches.
4. Those in attendance did express concern for the lack on committment by exhibitors to speak out against bill. Not everyone can make the meetings at the Statehouse but calls and letter writting is effective to voice concerns.
The group thought a handling clinic with a federation presentation might be a good event to pursue in January or Feburary. Lastly should anyone be interesed in serving the Federation in any officer position or capacity we would welcome their support.
Any suggestions can be submitted to Sharon Unrau at shunrau@yahoo.com or Meranda Hendricks at meranda@tesg.net
1. Current bill, testimony at state house, and meetings with legilators.
2. Rod Ott reported on a conference call with AKC for all high volume breeders in Ohio, only 5 breeders participated. He also reported on a recent meeting with Bill McFadden at Montgomery County shows where the California group came to speak. He stated it was poorly attented as well.
3. Idea's were presented to wrap federation meetings around informational sessions and other dog related events such as handling clinic's and matches.
4. Those in attendance did express concern for the lack on committment by exhibitors to speak out against bill. Not everyone can make the meetings at the Statehouse but calls and letter writting is effective to voice concerns.
The group thought a handling clinic with a federation presentation might be a good event to pursue in January or Feburary. Lastly should anyone be interesed in serving the Federation in any officer position or capacity we would welcome their support.
Any suggestions can be submitted to Sharon Unrau at shunrau@yahoo.com or Meranda Hendricks at meranda@tesg.net
To the Members of the California State Assembly:
I am returning Assembly Bill 241 without my signature.
This measure would make it a crime for any person or entity to own or control more
than 50 unsterilized adult dogs or cats for breeding or raising for sale as pets. I support measures designed to prevent animal cruelty and that punish persons engaged in the abuse of animals.
However, this measure simply goes too far in an attempt to address
the serious problem of puppy mills. An arbitrary cap on the number of animals any
entity can possess throughout the state will not end unlawful, inhumane breeding
practices.
Instead this measure has the potential to criminalize the lawful activities of reputable breeders, pet stores, kennels, and charitable organizations engaged in raising service and assistance dogs.
For these reasons, I am unable to sign this bill.
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger
This measure would make it a crime for any person or entity to own or control more
than 50 unsterilized adult dogs or cats for breeding or raising for sale as pets. I support measures designed to prevent animal cruelty and that punish persons engaged in the abuse of animals.
However, this measure simply goes too far in an attempt to address
the serious problem of puppy mills. An arbitrary cap on the number of animals any
entity can possess throughout the state will not end unlawful, inhumane breeding
practices.
Instead this measure has the potential to criminalize the lawful activities of reputable breeders, pet stores, kennels, and charitable organizations engaged in raising service and assistance dogs.
For these reasons, I am unable to sign this bill.
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Monday, October 5, 2009
Federal Judge Issues Mandate In Louisville
A major victory!! This is a Federal ruling so it sets a precedent for the entire country against draconian
animal legislation. The Bill of Rights lives! (Although I'm sure HSUS's attorneys are going over the ruling
with a fine tooth comb right now to prepare a lawsuit for the Supreme Court.)
This ruling by a federal judge (an esteemed Constitutional scholar) is a profound victory.
This precedent has far-reaching implications, and sets the stage for class-action lawsuits nationwide - anywhere similar ordinances have been enacted, and Constitutional rights of pet owners have been violated
Highlights of the FEDERAL ruling:
1. Pets are personal property, under the Constitution. Due process, search and seizure, etc.. (all protections provided by Constitution) apply to pets. You are the OWNER of your pets (not the "guardian.")
2. Requirements for housing, treatment, etc.. cannot be mandated by legislation to be different for intact dogs (vs. altered dogs.
3. Seizure bond is FLAT-OUT illegal and unconstitutional. This practice constitutes unlawful taking of personal property. If, after search warrant is obtained, a person is arrested and their dogs are seized, their dogs must be held AS IS (cannot be sterilized while held, cannot be sold, "transferred" or euthanized) unless the owner is found guilty after trial. Meantime, owner DOES NOT have to pay a dime for their care, until/unless they are found guilty of the charges
Louisville Kennel Club
Subject: FW: LKC
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 11:23:58 -0400
I have been informed that the Courier Journal and several tee vee stations ran stories on the Judge Simpson's decision in our Federal action last night. After hearing the reports, I am not sure that they read the same opinion as we did. The plaintiffs in this action are beyond thrilled with this decision. We prevailed on virtually every essential violation of the Federal Civil Rights act asserted. Not every argument in a lawsuit carries equal weight nor do they have equal impact on a national or local level. No longer can LMAS inspect your property and decide if you can own an unaltered dog. No longer can they require a seizure bond where failure to post it makes you forfeit your animals without a finding of guilt. There is a case currently in Kenton County where 10 years ago a women's beagles were confiscated on a nuisance issue and recently they came back and asserted cruelty. When she could not post the seizure bond, they said the animals became their property and they euthanized all of them including 10 -year olds. They then dismissed the cruelty charges. This is in Federal Court in Northern Kentucky on a challenge to the seizure bond and a violation of her civil rights. This decision by Judge Simpson holds that the conversion of her animals without a finding of guilt violates her due process rights.
This type of thing is happening all over the county and this decision will have a huge impact. While, the search and seizure issue was dismissed because the city agreed with us, the Judge went on and discussed violations of the Fourth Amendment and clearly indicated that the provision in the Ordinance which allegedly permits seizure for any violation of this chapter which is the provision used by LMAS to seize puppies because of an alleged violation of the Class A Kennel License, requires a warrant for seizure. Please take the opportunity to read this opinion several times. It will have, we believe, a huge impact on a local and national basis. If you need to contact me please do so or contact our counsel, Jon Fleischaker at 502-540-2319. We have the upmost confidence in you as you have always been committed to accurate and complete reporting. Below is the information sent to folks around the country. Thank you.
Donna Herzig
------------------------------
From: donnaherzig@hotmail.com
Subject: FW: LKC
This is a great decision. Judge Simpson found that the determination between altered and unaltered dogs is without merit and therefore the requirement of inspection of enclosures for unaltered dogs is unconstitutional, He additionally found that dogs are personal property and the requirement of a seizure bond where you must post a bond upon a showing of probable cause and if you cannot post the bond your animals become the property of the state, city etc. is unconstitutional and a finding of guilt must occur before a court can take your property.
The judge issued an injunction prohibiting the city from enforcing these provisions. With respect to the Fourth Amendment issue the Court dismissed it because the city agreed with us. However, the Court spent a lot of time discussing the Fourth Amendment and stated that notwithstanding the ordinance seeming to allow for seizure without a warrant for tethering violations, for some cruelty issues and for any violation of the ordinance(a provision used by Meloche to seize animals for violations of his alleged Class A requirements) the Court reasoned that no ordinance provision nullifies a warrant requirement so as to those seizures LMAS must obtain
a warrant prior to seizure. Moreover, while the Court did not strike down many of the definitions, it could have just left it at that. Instead the Court went point by point and clarified the statute as to what was permissible and what wasn't.
Notwithstanding the story in the "Courageless Journal"- I am not sure that they read the same opinion, we had a major victory on the issues that matter on a national basis. Please read it a few times, it gets better with age. While Judge Simpson did not deal with the state issue, the veterinary issue which was the most important one, was addressed by a change in the state law which makes veterinary records confidential and does not permit release of them unless a court order issued or the owner gives consent in writing. Since we prevailed on our Sec. 1983 issues, Jon will file next week for attorney's fees which are mandatory under the statute. We are hopeful that we will receive a substantial reimbursement.
Donna Herzig
animal legislation. The Bill of Rights lives! (Although I'm sure HSUS's attorneys are going over the ruling
with a fine tooth comb right now to prepare a lawsuit for the Supreme Court.)
This ruling by a federal judge (an esteemed Constitutional scholar) is a profound victory.
This precedent has far-reaching implications, and sets the stage for class-action lawsuits nationwide - anywhere similar ordinances have been enacted, and Constitutional rights of pet owners have been violated
Highlights of the FEDERAL ruling:
1. Pets are personal property, under the Constitution. Due process, search and seizure, etc.. (all protections provided by Constitution) apply to pets. You are the OWNER of your pets (not the "guardian.")
2. Requirements for housing, treatment, etc.. cannot be mandated by legislation to be different for intact dogs (vs. altered dogs.
3. Seizure bond is FLAT-OUT illegal and unconstitutional. This practice constitutes unlawful taking of personal property. If, after search warrant is obtained, a person is arrested and their dogs are seized, their dogs must be held AS IS (cannot be sterilized while held, cannot be sold, "transferred" or euthanized) unless the owner is found guilty after trial. Meantime, owner DOES NOT have to pay a dime for their care, until/unless they are found guilty of the charges
Louisville Kennel Club
Subject: FW: LKC
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 11:23:58 -0400
I have been informed that the Courier Journal and several tee vee stations ran stories on the Judge Simpson's decision in our Federal action last night. After hearing the reports, I am not sure that they read the same opinion as we did. The plaintiffs in this action are beyond thrilled with this decision. We prevailed on virtually every essential violation of the Federal Civil Rights act asserted. Not every argument in a lawsuit carries equal weight nor do they have equal impact on a national or local level. No longer can LMAS inspect your property and decide if you can own an unaltered dog. No longer can they require a seizure bond where failure to post it makes you forfeit your animals without a finding of guilt. There is a case currently in Kenton County where 10 years ago a women's beagles were confiscated on a nuisance issue and recently they came back and asserted cruelty. When she could not post the seizure bond, they said the animals became their property and they euthanized all of them including 10 -year olds. They then dismissed the cruelty charges. This is in Federal Court in Northern Kentucky on a challenge to the seizure bond and a violation of her civil rights. This decision by Judge Simpson holds that the conversion of her animals without a finding of guilt violates her due process rights.
This type of thing is happening all over the county and this decision will have a huge impact. While, the search and seizure issue was dismissed because the city agreed with us, the Judge went on and discussed violations of the Fourth Amendment and clearly indicated that the provision in the Ordinance which allegedly permits seizure for any violation of this chapter which is the provision used by LMAS to seize puppies because of an alleged violation of the Class A Kennel License, requires a warrant for seizure. Please take the opportunity to read this opinion several times. It will have, we believe, a huge impact on a local and national basis. If you need to contact me please do so or contact our counsel, Jon Fleischaker at 502-540-2319. We have the upmost confidence in you as you have always been committed to accurate and complete reporting. Below is the information sent to folks around the country. Thank you.
Donna Herzig
------------------------------
From: donnaherzig@hotmail.com
Subject: FW: LKC
This is a great decision. Judge Simpson found that the determination between altered and unaltered dogs is without merit and therefore the requirement of inspection of enclosures for unaltered dogs is unconstitutional, He additionally found that dogs are personal property and the requirement of a seizure bond where you must post a bond upon a showing of probable cause and if you cannot post the bond your animals become the property of the state, city etc. is unconstitutional and a finding of guilt must occur before a court can take your property.
The judge issued an injunction prohibiting the city from enforcing these provisions. With respect to the Fourth Amendment issue the Court dismissed it because the city agreed with us. However, the Court spent a lot of time discussing the Fourth Amendment and stated that notwithstanding the ordinance seeming to allow for seizure without a warrant for tethering violations, for some cruelty issues and for any violation of the ordinance(a provision used by Meloche to seize animals for violations of his alleged Class A requirements) the Court reasoned that no ordinance provision nullifies a warrant requirement so as to those seizures LMAS must obtain
a warrant prior to seizure. Moreover, while the Court did not strike down many of the definitions, it could have just left it at that. Instead the Court went point by point and clarified the statute as to what was permissible and what wasn't.
Notwithstanding the story in the "Courageless Journal"- I am not sure that they read the same opinion, we had a major victory on the issues that matter on a national basis. Please read it a few times, it gets better with age. While Judge Simpson did not deal with the state issue, the veterinary issue which was the most important one, was addressed by a change in the state law which makes veterinary records confidential and does not permit release of them unless a court order issued or the owner gives consent in writing. Since we prevailed on our Sec. 1983 issues, Jon will file next week for attorney's fees which are mandatory under the statute. We are hopeful that we will receive a substantial reimbursement.
Donna Herzig
Thursday, October 1, 2009
HEARING
The hearing lasted nearly 3 hours with at least 7 people speaking in favor
of the bill and at least 6 opposed. The committee members gave the same
attention to both sides (as usual), so it was difficult to tell if they
leaned one way or the other. A few of them asked questions that showed they
might be thinking of alternatives, but it was really hard to tell how
serious they were.
The proponents had a slick video projected from a laptop onto two big
screens, one facing the committee and one facing the audience. Kellie did
her usual spiel peppered with lies about the participation of breeders in
drafting bill language and using a picture of a large Amish farmhouse to
illustrate her contention that commercial breeders make enough money
selling puppies that they can afford big houses so they shouldn't quibble
about spending money to bring their kennels up to the standards in the
bill. Never mind that the Amish have large families living together or that
they take pride in their homes. A woman who identified herself as a tax
expert told the committee that she did a chart about the loss of revenue
from commercial breeders who take only cash to avoid paying taxes, but she
based her work on the assumption that there are 9000 commercial kennels in
Ohio. In answer to a question from a committee member, she stated that the
vast majority of commercial breeders are tax cheats.
Other proponents included a couple of women who do rescue, a dog warden
involved in a substandard kennel case, a humane agent from Perry County who
has testified before, and Bob Baker, a roving kennel 'investigator' who now
works for ASPCA but has also worked for HSUS and an anti-farm animal rights
group.
Opponents were OVDO, the Ohio Association of Animal Owners, the Ohio
Professional Dog Breeders Assoc., the dog wardnes assoc., collie breeder
Marcy Fine, and AKC judge and Cavalier breeder Meredith Johnson Snyder.
Next hearing will probably be in two weeks.
of the bill and at least 6 opposed. The committee members gave the same
attention to both sides (as usual), so it was difficult to tell if they
leaned one way or the other. A few of them asked questions that showed they
might be thinking of alternatives, but it was really hard to tell how
serious they were.
The proponents had a slick video projected from a laptop onto two big
screens, one facing the committee and one facing the audience. Kellie did
her usual spiel peppered with lies about the participation of breeders in
drafting bill language and using a picture of a large Amish farmhouse to
illustrate her contention that commercial breeders make enough money
selling puppies that they can afford big houses so they shouldn't quibble
about spending money to bring their kennels up to the standards in the
bill. Never mind that the Amish have large families living together or that
they take pride in their homes. A woman who identified herself as a tax
expert told the committee that she did a chart about the loss of revenue
from commercial breeders who take only cash to avoid paying taxes, but she
based her work on the assumption that there are 9000 commercial kennels in
Ohio. In answer to a question from a committee member, she stated that the
vast majority of commercial breeders are tax cheats.
Other proponents included a couple of women who do rescue, a dog warden
involved in a substandard kennel case, a humane agent from Perry County who
has testified before, and Bob Baker, a roving kennel 'investigator' who now
works for ASPCA but has also worked for HSUS and an anti-farm animal rights
group.
Opponents were OVDO, the Ohio Association of Animal Owners, the Ohio
Professional Dog Breeders Assoc., the dog wardnes assoc., collie breeder
Marcy Fine, and AKC judge and Cavalier breeder Meredith Johnson Snyder.
Next hearing will probably be in two weeks.
AMERICAN AGRI-WOMEN
AMERICAN AGRI-WOMEN
This November, Issue 2 will be a statewide ballot and Ohio voters need to know why they should be voting Yes on this amendment. If passed, Issue 2 will allow farmers across Ohio to know they are being fairly represented by the most educated and professional ambassadors of Ohio agriculture and not dictated to by an out of state group solely interested in abolishing animal livestock as we currently know it.
Issue 2 will establish a board of qualified people who will consider issues and how they will impact overall animal health, biosecurity on livestock farms, animal disease prevention, food safety and affordable food supplies. If needed reform is required then this board will work with industry leaders on how to accomplish the best practices.
Ohio’s livestock and poultry farmers are firmly committed to responsible care for their animals and to provide safe and humane living conditions for these animals. People who are in constant care of livestock should be the ones responsible for making decisions on their livestock’s care. This board will be fairly represented by farmers, consumers, scientists and humane society members who will be able to work together to promote the safest and most humanly living conditions for our animals.
The issue has been promoted by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) as a power grab for Big Agribusiness. This is far from the truth. Family farmers across the state are concerned that out of state people with little knowledge of agriculture will be telling them what they can and can not do with their farms and their livestock.
As president of American Agri-Women and representing over 35,000 members across the country, I can tell you my members are not happy with outside interest groups telling them how to farm. They are now finding that no matter what they try to do to improve living conditions for livestock, it isn’t enough. They feel HSUS will not be happy until all animal agriculture is abolished.
Ohio’s agriculture community is soundly behind this issue and believes the best regulations for animal care will be achieved when all interested parties join together to develop a framework that is both effective and practical for consumers and for farmers.
HSUS would like you to believe that the majority of Ohio’s family farmers, environmentalists, and animal advocates are against Issue 2 when actually just the opposite is true. Not only are Ohio commodity and livestock groups in favor of Issue 2but the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, Ohio Agri-Women, Ohio Farm Bureau, Ohio Manufacturer’s Association, Ohio Association of Second Harvest Foodbanks, Ohio State Grange, Ohio Restaurant Association, Ohio Horse Council, Ohio Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association, Ohio Veterinary Medical Association, various Ohio County Fair boards, County Commissioners, Township Trustees, State Representatives and Governor Strickland. People concerned with the livelihood of Ohio agriculture are in favor of Issue 2.
I am a farmer, a mother, a grandmother and an environmentalist. I believe in humane treatment of all livestock and I will be voting YES on Issue 2 this November. I hope you will see the need to do the same. Ohio agriculture will be counting on you.
Marcie Williams, President
American Agri-Women
Ohio Agri-Women, Past President
Farmer, Licking County
This November, Issue 2 will be a statewide ballot and Ohio voters need to know why they should be voting Yes on this amendment. If passed, Issue 2 will allow farmers across Ohio to know they are being fairly represented by the most educated and professional ambassadors of Ohio agriculture and not dictated to by an out of state group solely interested in abolishing animal livestock as we currently know it.
Issue 2 will establish a board of qualified people who will consider issues and how they will impact overall animal health, biosecurity on livestock farms, animal disease prevention, food safety and affordable food supplies. If needed reform is required then this board will work with industry leaders on how to accomplish the best practices.
Ohio’s livestock and poultry farmers are firmly committed to responsible care for their animals and to provide safe and humane living conditions for these animals. People who are in constant care of livestock should be the ones responsible for making decisions on their livestock’s care. This board will be fairly represented by farmers, consumers, scientists and humane society members who will be able to work together to promote the safest and most humanly living conditions for our animals.
The issue has been promoted by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) as a power grab for Big Agribusiness. This is far from the truth. Family farmers across the state are concerned that out of state people with little knowledge of agriculture will be telling them what they can and can not do with their farms and their livestock.
As president of American Agri-Women and representing over 35,000 members across the country, I can tell you my members are not happy with outside interest groups telling them how to farm. They are now finding that no matter what they try to do to improve living conditions for livestock, it isn’t enough. They feel HSUS will not be happy until all animal agriculture is abolished.
Ohio’s agriculture community is soundly behind this issue and believes the best regulations for animal care will be achieved when all interested parties join together to develop a framework that is both effective and practical for consumers and for farmers.
HSUS would like you to believe that the majority of Ohio’s family farmers, environmentalists, and animal advocates are against Issue 2 when actually just the opposite is true. Not only are Ohio commodity and livestock groups in favor of Issue 2but the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, Ohio Agri-Women, Ohio Farm Bureau, Ohio Manufacturer’s Association, Ohio Association of Second Harvest Foodbanks, Ohio State Grange, Ohio Restaurant Association, Ohio Horse Council, Ohio Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association, Ohio Veterinary Medical Association, various Ohio County Fair boards, County Commissioners, Township Trustees, State Representatives and Governor Strickland. People concerned with the livelihood of Ohio agriculture are in favor of Issue 2.
I am a farmer, a mother, a grandmother and an environmentalist. I believe in humane treatment of all livestock and I will be voting YES on Issue 2 this November. I hope you will see the need to do the same. Ohio agriculture will be counting on you.
Marcie Williams, President
American Agri-Women
Ohio Agri-Women, Past President
Farmer, Licking County
Note From Betty Salmon
Note from Betty:
I have been asked to forward the attached Issue 2 letter to interested parties in OH. I was asked to do so by the author of the attached letter, Marcie Williams. Marcie has been helpful in spreading the word to the agricultural sector that dog owners and owners' rights are under attack. She was instrumental in getting information about HSUS and their agenda into the hands of various OH farming coalitions, federations and boards: that led to the creation of Issue 2.
As you know, many OH agricultural concerns have met and created the oversight structure provided under Issue 2. It was passed through the preliminary legislative process and is now on the ballot for us to decide this November. Passage of Issue 2 would be a set-back for HSUS and prevent them from furthering their anti-domestic animal/anti-owners' rights agenda for a while. It may even serve as a model for enactment of other ballot issues or bills that would aid us in our fight to preserve our ability to own and breed pets. It is harder for radicals to overturn an existing system than it would be for them to put theirs in place in the absence of one.
The HSUS is pulling out all the stops to defeat Issue 2 and prevent OH from enacting this model to protect its agricultural business and the right of animal ownership. The oversight provided in Issue 2 would apply to small and large farms alike, and would put in place a mechanism to assure humane treatment of animals used for agricultural purposes. The protocols developed would be determined by individuals knowledgeable about animal husbandry and animal welfare, instead of animal rights advocates.
The specter of "Big Agribusiness" has been raised by HSUS, and may cause voters to focus on an unpopular concept. This is the same tactic as that used by HSUS to lead animal lovers to think of all breeders as "Puppy Mills."
I have been asked to forward the attached Issue 2 letter to interested parties in OH. I was asked to do so by the author of the attached letter, Marcie Williams. Marcie has been helpful in spreading the word to the agricultural sector that dog owners and owners' rights are under attack. She was instrumental in getting information about HSUS and their agenda into the hands of various OH farming coalitions, federations and boards: that led to the creation of Issue 2.
As you know, many OH agricultural concerns have met and created the oversight structure provided under Issue 2. It was passed through the preliminary legislative process and is now on the ballot for us to decide this November. Passage of Issue 2 would be a set-back for HSUS and prevent them from furthering their anti-domestic animal/anti-owners' rights agenda for a while. It may even serve as a model for enactment of other ballot issues or bills that would aid us in our fight to preserve our ability to own and breed pets. It is harder for radicals to overturn an existing system than it would be for them to put theirs in place in the absence of one.
The HSUS is pulling out all the stops to defeat Issue 2 and prevent OH from enacting this model to protect its agricultural business and the right of animal ownership. The oversight provided in Issue 2 would apply to small and large farms alike, and would put in place a mechanism to assure humane treatment of animals used for agricultural purposes. The protocols developed would be determined by individuals knowledgeable about animal husbandry and animal welfare, instead of animal rights advocates.
The specter of "Big Agribusiness" has been raised by HSUS, and may cause voters to focus on an unpopular concept. This is the same tactic as that used by HSUS to lead animal lovers to think of all breeders as "Puppy Mills."
Monday, September 28, 2009
STRICT OHIO BREEDER BILL TO BE HEARD ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30
STRICT OHIO BREEDER BILL TO BE HEARD ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30
[Monday, September 28, 2009]
A substitute version of Ohio House Bill 124 will be heard by the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday, September 30.
The AKC is concerned with many provisions within the substitute version of House Bill 124, including, but not limited to:
Broad definition of "Regulated Dog Intermediary". Anyone who sells, exchanges, donates, or gives away at least nine dogs a year or sells or gives one dog to a pet store is subject to a $500 annual license fee.. This definition also does not exclude breeders, and it is unclear if those who acquire a dog breeding kennel license must also obtain a regulated dog intermediary license.
Arbitrary, unenforceable kennel requirements and standards of care. The detailed requirements outlined in this bill are nearly impossible to enforce and do not account for the varying needs of different dog breeds or the enormous costs to responsible breeders.
Little breeder representation within Kennel Control Authority Board. Besides one member "in good standing of a national breed parent club of the American Kennel Club", breeders have no representation on the board that will=2 0set the standards of care, oversee licensing, and conduct inspections.
Extensive cost to Ohio taxpayers. The bill creates a new board to oversee implementation and inspections, which the Ohio Legislative Service Commission reports will cost the state hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to maintain.
For a copy of the substitute version of the bill, please click here.
The American Kennel Club (AKC®) believes dog owners bear a special responsibility to provide proper care and humane treatment to their canine companions at all times and abhors all forms of animal cruelty. We also beli eve, however, that any bill seeking to protect the health and welfare of dogs should be reasonable, enforceable, and not infringe on the rights of breeders who take their responsibilities seriously.
HOW YOU CAN HELP:
Attend the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee meeting to express your opposition to House Bill 124 as introduced. Although no vote is scheduled to be taken at this time, testimony will be taken. The hearing details are as follows:
Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Location: Ohio Statehouse
Room 018
77 S. High Street
Columbus,20Ohio 43215
*Cash is required for parking
Contact the members of the committee and politely express your opposition to House Bill 124 as substituted.
Please click here to view a sample letter to personalize and send.
Please click here to view a sample phone script.
The committee contact information is as follows:
Representative John Domenick (Chairman)
Phone: (614 ) 466-3735
Email: district95@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Allan Sayre (Vice Chair)
Phone: (614) 466-8035
Email: district96@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Jeff Wagner (Ranking Minority Member)
Phone: (614) 466-1374
Email: district81@ohr.state .oh.us
Representative Richard Adams
Phone: (614) 466-8114
Email: district79@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Linda Bolon
Phone: (614) 466-8022
Email: district01@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Troy Balderson
Phone: (614) 644-6014
Email: district94@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Terry Boose
Phone: (614) 466- 9628
Email: district58@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Timothy Derickson
Phone:
[Monday, September 28, 2009]
A substitute version of Ohio House Bill 124 will be heard by the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday, September 30.
The AKC is concerned with many provisions within the substitute version of House Bill 124, including, but not limited to:
Broad definition of "Regulated Dog Intermediary". Anyone who sells, exchanges, donates, or gives away at least nine dogs a year or sells or gives one dog to a pet store is subject to a $500 annual license fee.. This definition also does not exclude breeders, and it is unclear if those who acquire a dog breeding kennel license must also obtain a regulated dog intermediary license.
Arbitrary, unenforceable kennel requirements and standards of care. The detailed requirements outlined in this bill are nearly impossible to enforce and do not account for the varying needs of different dog breeds or the enormous costs to responsible breeders.
Little breeder representation within Kennel Control Authority Board. Besides one member "in good standing of a national breed parent club of the American Kennel Club", breeders have no representation on the board that will=2 0set the standards of care, oversee licensing, and conduct inspections.
Extensive cost to Ohio taxpayers. The bill creates a new board to oversee implementation and inspections, which the Ohio Legislative Service Commission reports will cost the state hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to maintain.
For a copy of the substitute version of the bill, please click here.
The American Kennel Club (AKC®) believes dog owners bear a special responsibility to provide proper care and humane treatment to their canine companions at all times and abhors all forms of animal cruelty. We also beli eve, however, that any bill seeking to protect the health and welfare of dogs should be reasonable, enforceable, and not infringe on the rights of breeders who take their responsibilities seriously.
HOW YOU CAN HELP:
Attend the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee meeting to express your opposition to House Bill 124 as introduced. Although no vote is scheduled to be taken at this time, testimony will be taken. The hearing details are as follows:
Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Location: Ohio Statehouse
Room 018
77 S. High Street
Columbus,20Ohio 43215
*Cash is required for parking
Contact the members of the committee and politely express your opposition to House Bill 124 as substituted.
Please click here to view a sample letter to personalize and send.
Please click here to view a sample phone script.
The committee contact information is as follows:
Representative John Domenick (Chairman)
Phone: (614 ) 466-3735
Email: district95@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Allan Sayre (Vice Chair)
Phone: (614) 466-8035
Email: district96@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Jeff Wagner (Ranking Minority Member)
Phone: (614) 466-1374
Email: district81@ohr.state .oh.us
Representative Richard Adams
Phone: (614) 466-8114
Email: district79@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Linda Bolon
Phone: (614) 466-8022
Email: district01@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Troy Balderson
Phone: (614) 644-6014
Email: district94@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Terry Boose
Phone: (614) 466- 9628
Email: district58@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Timothy Derickson
Phone:
Ohio Dog Auction
The next Ohio Dog Auction is scheduled for Wed., October 7 (will include 389 dogs consigned from 12 PA kennels), 2 PM at Farmerstown Sale Barn in Farmerstown, OH.
Dear Companion Pet Lovers ~
1. Wed., October 7, 2009 Buckeye Dog Auction. Below is a summary of the *389 companions (89 males, 300 females; all dogs under four years of age) expected to be placed on the auction block beginning next Wednesday at approximately 2:00 PM:
BREED
MALES FEMALES
Affen Pincher 0 0 0
Bichon Frise 49 4 45
Boston Terrier 3 2 1
Cairn Terrier 9 1 8
Cavalier King Charles Spaniel 3 3 0
Chihuahua 14 5 9
Cocapoo 1 0 1
Cocker Spaniel 9 1 8
Collie 0 0 0
Coton De Tulear 0 0 0
English Bulldog 0 0 0
Fox Terrier 0 0 0
French Bulldog 1 1 0
Golden Retriever 0 0 0
Havanese 22 2 20
Havanese Mix 1 0 1
Japanese Chin 0 0 0
Lhasa Apso 10 4 6
Maltese 36 9 27
Mini Dachshund 27 3 24
Mini Pincher 2 2 0
Mini Schnauzer 11 0 11
Mixed Breeds 0 0 0
Papillon 0 0 0
Parti Poodle 5 1 4
Pekingese 3 0 3
Pomeranian 4 2 2
Poodle (Toy and Mini) 36 9 27
Poodle (Standard) 1 1 0
Pug 6 3 3
Schnauzer 0 0 0
Shetland Sheepdog 3 0 3
Shibu Unu 0 0 0
Shih Tzu 53 10 43
Silky Terrier 3 3 0
Toy Fox Terrier 0 0 0
Parti Yorkshire Terrier 2 2 0
Biewer Yorkshire Terrier 1 0 1
West Highland White Terrier 15 4 11
Yorkshire Terrier 59 17 42
TOTAL 389 89 300
*South Central PA breeders with consigned dogs at this sale:
Ammon Martin
Aquilla Blank
Dan Esh
Daniel Stoltzfus
Ella Mae Zimmerman
James Zimmerman
John Fisher
Loren Nolt
Nathan Myer
Sam Stoltzfus
Steve Stoltzfus
Wayne Sensenig
Click here to view their USDA licenses
Click here to view their USDA Animal Welfare Inspection Reports
You may be interested to know that a 2009 report issued by the USDA has confirmed Ohio ranks seventh among the top 10 states with the largest number of USDA Class A licensed 'commercial' breeders:
1. MO - 1,370
2. OK - 498
3. IA - 322
4. AR - 308 (was 5th in 2008)
5. KS - 291 (was 4th in 2008)
6. PA - 202
7. OH - 161 (a 500% increase in the number of Class A licensed "commercial" breeders just five years ago!)
8. NE - 142
9. SD - 102 (was 10th in 2008)
10. TX - 91 (was 9th in 2008)
2. BanOhioDogAuctions.com. BanOhioDogAuctions does not promote or encourage individuals or groups to purchase dogs from auctions or directly from puppy mill breeders. For a great many (and a growing number) of us, initiating efforts to ban the auctions is one way to take away the demand, and we strongly believe introducing legislation similar to that of PA's statute 459-603 will impact the mills. In our opinion, as long as you have a buyer, there is always a need for the seller.
Dear Companion Pet Lovers ~
1. Wed., October 7, 2009 Buckeye Dog Auction. Below is a summary of the *389 companions (89 males, 300 females; all dogs under four years of age) expected to be placed on the auction block beginning next Wednesday at approximately 2:00 PM:
BREED
MALES FEMALES
Affen Pincher 0 0 0
Bichon Frise 49 4 45
Boston Terrier 3 2 1
Cairn Terrier 9 1 8
Cavalier King Charles Spaniel 3 3 0
Chihuahua 14 5 9
Cocapoo 1 0 1
Cocker Spaniel 9 1 8
Collie 0 0 0
Coton De Tulear 0 0 0
English Bulldog 0 0 0
Fox Terrier 0 0 0
French Bulldog 1 1 0
Golden Retriever 0 0 0
Havanese 22 2 20
Havanese Mix 1 0 1
Japanese Chin 0 0 0
Lhasa Apso 10 4 6
Maltese 36 9 27
Mini Dachshund 27 3 24
Mini Pincher 2 2 0
Mini Schnauzer 11 0 11
Mixed Breeds 0 0 0
Papillon 0 0 0
Parti Poodle 5 1 4
Pekingese 3 0 3
Pomeranian 4 2 2
Poodle (Toy and Mini) 36 9 27
Poodle (Standard) 1 1 0
Pug 6 3 3
Schnauzer 0 0 0
Shetland Sheepdog 3 0 3
Shibu Unu 0 0 0
Shih Tzu 53 10 43
Silky Terrier 3 3 0
Toy Fox Terrier 0 0 0
Parti Yorkshire Terrier 2 2 0
Biewer Yorkshire Terrier 1 0 1
West Highland White Terrier 15 4 11
Yorkshire Terrier 59 17 42
TOTAL 389 89 300
*South Central PA breeders with consigned dogs at this sale:
Ammon Martin
Aquilla Blank
Dan Esh
Daniel Stoltzfus
Ella Mae Zimmerman
James Zimmerman
John Fisher
Loren Nolt
Nathan Myer
Sam Stoltzfus
Steve Stoltzfus
Wayne Sensenig
Click here to view their USDA licenses
Click here to view their USDA Animal Welfare Inspection Reports
You may be interested to know that a 2009 report issued by the USDA has confirmed Ohio ranks seventh among the top 10 states with the largest number of USDA Class A licensed 'commercial' breeders:
1. MO - 1,370
2. OK - 498
3. IA - 322
4. AR - 308 (was 5th in 2008)
5. KS - 291 (was 4th in 2008)
6. PA - 202
7. OH - 161 (a 500% increase in the number of Class A licensed "commercial" breeders just five years ago!)
8. NE - 142
9. SD - 102 (was 10th in 2008)
10. TX - 91 (was 9th in 2008)
2. BanOhioDogAuctions.com. BanOhioDogAuctions does not promote or encourage individuals or groups to purchase dogs from auctions or directly from puppy mill breeders. For a great many (and a growing number) of us, initiating efforts to ban the auctions is one way to take away the demand, and we strongly believe introducing legislation similar to that of PA's statute 459-603 will impact the mills. In our opinion, as long as you have a buyer, there is always a need for the seller.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
National Lawyers Guild offers resource for animal welfare activists
http://www.examiner.com/x-3605-DC-Animal-Welfare-Examiner
Animal welfare activists have found a friend in the legal system. Due to the intense scrutiny and increased investigations into animal rights workers, the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) has created a free online legal guide, "Operation Backfire: A Survival Guide for Environmental and Animal Rights Activists." This 16-page document explains why there has been such a recent interest in the work of animal advocates, and the rights of those who find themselves under investigation.
According to the booklet, recently enacted laws such as the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA)and the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) "impose more serious sanctions for certain crimes if committed by animal rights activists. In some cases, the laws criminalize traditionally protected First Amendment activities. Prosecutors often request "terrorism enhancements" to extend prison sentences in cases involving animal rights and environmental activists." While these laws have only been used in the legal system in four specific cases in the past five years, the NLG warns that law enforcement officials will be increasing their use as the interpretation of the law expands over time.
Following an explanation of these two laws, the consulting lawyers provide eight full pages of guidance on what activists can do if put in precarious situations with law enforcement. While the document clearly states that these issues must be evaluated individually, they make a distinct point to identify its benefits. "Remember that you have the right (some movement lawyers and activists would say that you have a moral imperative) to stand up to FBI agents and other law enforcement officials. In case after case, informed resistance to intimidation tactics has brought positive results-sometimes just saying that your lawyer will contact them is enough to stop future visits or inquiries. Grand jury non-cooperation has often resulted in no additional subpoenas being issued. Every activist who takes a courageous stand makes future resistance easier for all."
Animal welfare activists have found a friend in the legal system. Due to the intense scrutiny and increased investigations into animal rights workers, the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) has created a free online legal guide, "Operation Backfire: A Survival Guide for Environmental and Animal Rights Activists." This 16-page document explains why there has been such a recent interest in the work of animal advocates, and the rights of those who find themselves under investigation.
According to the booklet, recently enacted laws such as the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA)and the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) "impose more serious sanctions for certain crimes if committed by animal rights activists. In some cases, the laws criminalize traditionally protected First Amendment activities. Prosecutors often request "terrorism enhancements" to extend prison sentences in cases involving animal rights and environmental activists." While these laws have only been used in the legal system in four specific cases in the past five years, the NLG warns that law enforcement officials will be increasing their use as the interpretation of the law expands over time.
Following an explanation of these two laws, the consulting lawyers provide eight full pages of guidance on what activists can do if put in precarious situations with law enforcement. While the document clearly states that these issues must be evaluated individually, they make a distinct point to identify its benefits. "Remember that you have the right (some movement lawyers and activists would say that you have a moral imperative) to stand up to FBI agents and other law enforcement officials. In case after case, informed resistance to intimidation tactics has brought positive results-sometimes just saying that your lawyer will contact them is enough to stop future visits or inquiries. Grand jury non-cooperation has often resulted in no additional subpoenas being issued. Every activist who takes a courageous stand makes future resistance easier for all."
Thursday, August 20, 2009
BREEDERS RED ALERT- AUGUST 18, 2009
The following alert has just now been posted to the DFOW website:
www.dfow.net
BREEDERS RED ALERT- AUGUST 18, 2009
URGENT * URGENT * URGENT * URGENT * URGENT * URGENT * URGENT * URGENT *
DFOW has just been notified by a very credible source that between now and just after legislators go back into session floor periods (September 15, 2009), the Humane Society of the United States will be orchestrating a breeder bust.
If you have been listed in a breeder directory, have shown your dogs or have advertised a litter in any publication in the last nine years-you must be on your guard at all times. Do not allow anyone into your home without a search warrant. In the State of Wisconsin, Animal Control officers and HSUS do not have police powers. They must be accompanied by law enforcement (although some law enforcement officers are also animal control officers) with a search warrant in order to enter your premises. If HSUS is working in conjunction with law enforcement and there is a search warrant, you must cooperate. DO NOT SIGN OVER ANY OF YOUR DOGS if threatened. Do not believe those that state that the charges against you will be lessened if you sign over your dogs. Video tape the entire proceedings. If you are detained asking questions while a search is going on, have another individual available to video tape or photograph the proceedings. Ask for proof
of identification. Get names and license plate numbers for those coming onto your property.
Some breeders have had to get special permits in order to have more than the arbitrary number of allowed animals in their community and have had to waive their constitutional rights in order to get those permits. If you are in this situation, you must contact a lawyer and find out what your rights are TODAY.
If animal control or law enforcement come to your door, walk out of your door and shut it behind you. Do not allow them to enter your home-you go out to them unless they have a search warrant. Please read the article "What to do when animal control comes knocking"
http://www.dpca.org/BreedEd/when_animal_control_comes.htm for more details.
If anything seems amiss, make notes of dates and times, take names, get witness names, what they did, take photos, and keep a log of suspicious activities.
We often hear fanciers state that "this issue will never affect me" when it comes to breeder licensing legislation. There have been at least 4 situations that have already happened in OUR STATE since the beginning of the year and breeder licensing requirements have not yet been passed into law. The orchestrated bust that we were warned about today could very well be targeted at any one of us.
You must protect yourself against false accusations. This is a very serious situation. If you truly believe in preserving the future of your chosen breed or breeds, you must do everything in your power to protect those breeds and their heritage. Insist on the preservation of your constitutional rights.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cross posting is allowed.
Tracey Johnston
DFOW Vice President
www.dfow.net
BREEDERS RED ALERT- AUGUST 18, 2009
URGENT * URGENT * URGENT * URGENT * URGENT * URGENT * URGENT * URGENT *
DFOW has just been notified by a very credible source that between now and just after legislators go back into session floor periods (September 15, 2009), the Humane Society of the United States will be orchestrating a breeder bust.
If you have been listed in a breeder directory, have shown your dogs or have advertised a litter in any publication in the last nine years-you must be on your guard at all times. Do not allow anyone into your home without a search warrant. In the State of Wisconsin, Animal Control officers and HSUS do not have police powers. They must be accompanied by law enforcement (although some law enforcement officers are also animal control officers) with a search warrant in order to enter your premises. If HSUS is working in conjunction with law enforcement and there is a search warrant, you must cooperate. DO NOT SIGN OVER ANY OF YOUR DOGS if threatened. Do not believe those that state that the charges against you will be lessened if you sign over your dogs. Video tape the entire proceedings. If you are detained asking questions while a search is going on, have another individual available to video tape or photograph the proceedings. Ask for proof
of identification. Get names and license plate numbers for those coming onto your property.
Some breeders have had to get special permits in order to have more than the arbitrary number of allowed animals in their community and have had to waive their constitutional rights in order to get those permits. If you are in this situation, you must contact a lawyer and find out what your rights are TODAY.
If animal control or law enforcement come to your door, walk out of your door and shut it behind you. Do not allow them to enter your home-you go out to them unless they have a search warrant. Please read the article "What to do when animal control comes knocking"
http://www.dpca.org/BreedEd/when_animal_control_comes.htm for more details.
If anything seems amiss, make notes of dates and times, take names, get witness names, what they did, take photos, and keep a log of suspicious activities.
We often hear fanciers state that "this issue will never affect me" when it comes to breeder licensing legislation. There have been at least 4 situations that have already happened in OUR STATE since the beginning of the year and breeder licensing requirements have not yet been passed into law. The orchestrated bust that we were warned about today could very well be targeted at any one of us.
You must protect yourself against false accusations. This is a very serious situation. If you truly believe in preserving the future of your chosen breed or breeds, you must do everything in your power to protect those breeds and their heritage. Insist on the preservation of your constitutional rights.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cross posting is allowed.
Tracey Johnston
DFOW Vice President
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Avid Rumors
In the last 48 hours Avid has been at the receiving end of a barrage of
email and telephone calls all relating to an assertion that Avid data
related to microchips is being provided to HSUS and that some of Avid's
business activities provide money to HSUS.
The information we are getting is provided to us from a few of the people
who have been receiving this, apparently for at least several days now. A
common claim includes the false assertion that " If you are purchasing Avid
chips . beware that HSUS will now have your information (name, address,
phone)."
Let me state categorically Avid's policy and position with respect to the
claims raised specifically and the issues reached indirectly.
Avid does not provide data to outside organizations. It is only used within
our operations for immediate recovery purposes. No information whatsoever
that Avid acquires, processes or holds in its database is provided directly
or indirectly to HSUS. None of the business activities, including PetPlan
Insurance, provides any money to HSUS, either directly or indirectly. Any
representation that Avid information is made available by any method to HSUS
is false.
This has the characteristics of a disinformation storm motivated by
commercial aims. One reason I believe this is so is that Avid was never
contacted about these sorts of claims before they began to be disseminated
in forums and blogs in the internet.
It is only because of the forwarding of some of these emails, from what I am
sure is a very small portion of the number of people actually having
received this information, that we have become aware of it.
Some of these are breeders that Avid has been doing business for 10 years.
Even from those who have been aware or Avid's practices over the last 25
years of business, and have been very helpful and taken effort to verify
information, nonetheless are writing asking us to reconsider our position,
not realizing that this assumes the truth of something they actually want to
ask about.
Some minority of people were kind enough to take the time to write us. Some
of them even made phone calls and tried to independently get information and
provided that to us. That takes a lot of time. We appreciate that. They had
very constructive tones in their emails. That is very useful and helpful. We
also appreciate that. But even there, they end up implicitly taking the
position that what they heard is true and we should change our minds. One of
the quotes is "We hope that Avid is taking this seriously and will
reconsider their position." Of course we take this seriously. It is at the
core of our principles. Our position has always been for privacy and for
recovery. That is what it is. So there is no reconsideration to take place.
Even in the most forthcoming and constructive email, which was very long,
you end up with implicitly saying 'You are doing it. Please change your
mind.'
One of the writers says - and I think it is perfectly fair - "If I do not
receive a response, I will assume it is all true." I think that is a fair
position, and that is why I have to respond.
I have had to respond, I have to say, before I have really gotten to the
bottom of it all. Because there are deeply mysterious and puzzling things
about this. It is still murky. We are kind of in this windstorm and there is
a lot of dust and confusion around, but the center of the storm seems to be
a completely mistaken, utterly false idea that Avid passes its data onto
HSUS either directly or indirectly. So that part has to be addressed, and we
are still going to pursue a better understanding of everything else that is
going on.
I feel very strongly about this and it drives my emotions. My apologies for
this windy and disorganized email, which is meant to be conversational more
than documentary.
Before closing, I have to say that it angers me just as much that good
people are left in the position of having repeated, in good faith and from
what they believe to be reliable sources, information which is literally
false. Such is the rumour mill. To those I say that I value your good name
as my own. In cases where this has caused venom to be directed to us, I say
I approve of the passion, but ask that it be directed where it belongs.
Peter Troesch
VP Avid Identification Systems
email and telephone calls all relating to an assertion that Avid data
related to microchips is being provided to HSUS and that some of Avid's
business activities provide money to HSUS.
The information we are getting is provided to us from a few of the people
who have been receiving this, apparently for at least several days now. A
common claim includes the false assertion that " If you are purchasing Avid
chips . beware that HSUS will now have your information (name, address,
phone)."
Let me state categorically Avid's policy and position with respect to the
claims raised specifically and the issues reached indirectly.
Avid does not provide data to outside organizations. It is only used within
our operations for immediate recovery purposes. No information whatsoever
that Avid acquires, processes or holds in its database is provided directly
or indirectly to HSUS. None of the business activities, including PetPlan
Insurance, provides any money to HSUS, either directly or indirectly. Any
representation that Avid information is made available by any method to HSUS
is false.
This has the characteristics of a disinformation storm motivated by
commercial aims. One reason I believe this is so is that Avid was never
contacted about these sorts of claims before they began to be disseminated
in forums and blogs in the internet.
It is only because of the forwarding of some of these emails, from what I am
sure is a very small portion of the number of people actually having
received this information, that we have become aware of it.
Some of these are breeders that Avid has been doing business for 10 years.
Even from those who have been aware or Avid's practices over the last 25
years of business, and have been very helpful and taken effort to verify
information, nonetheless are writing asking us to reconsider our position,
not realizing that this assumes the truth of something they actually want to
ask about.
Some minority of people were kind enough to take the time to write us. Some
of them even made phone calls and tried to independently get information and
provided that to us. That takes a lot of time. We appreciate that. They had
very constructive tones in their emails. That is very useful and helpful. We
also appreciate that. But even there, they end up implicitly taking the
position that what they heard is true and we should change our minds. One of
the quotes is "We hope that Avid is taking this seriously and will
reconsider their position." Of course we take this seriously. It is at the
core of our principles. Our position has always been for privacy and for
recovery. That is what it is. So there is no reconsideration to take place.
Even in the most forthcoming and constructive email, which was very long,
you end up with implicitly saying 'You are doing it. Please change your
mind.'
One of the writers says - and I think it is perfectly fair - "If I do not
receive a response, I will assume it is all true." I think that is a fair
position, and that is why I have to respond.
I have had to respond, I have to say, before I have really gotten to the
bottom of it all. Because there are deeply mysterious and puzzling things
about this. It is still murky. We are kind of in this windstorm and there is
a lot of dust and confusion around, but the center of the storm seems to be
a completely mistaken, utterly false idea that Avid passes its data onto
HSUS either directly or indirectly. So that part has to be addressed, and we
are still going to pursue a better understanding of everything else that is
going on.
I feel very strongly about this and it drives my emotions. My apologies for
this windy and disorganized email, which is meant to be conversational more
than documentary.
Before closing, I have to say that it angers me just as much that good
people are left in the position of having repeated, in good faith and from
what they believe to be reliable sources, information which is literally
false. Such is the rumour mill. To those I say that I value your good name
as my own. In cases where this has caused venom to be directed to us, I say
I approve of the passion, but ask that it be directed where it belongs.
Peter Troesch
VP Avid Identification Systems
Subject: Caution HSUS plans a sneak attack
Forwarded post from Legislative Liaisons/NAIA and Maine Legislative canine
lists. Please read with your thinking cap on, and make your own judgments.
I personally lean toward believing him, as I've not found him to be prone to
exaggeration in my limited past dealings.
Forwarded:
This alert was actually first forwarded by APRI but did not originate with
them. It came from Frank Losey, who is an attorney and the lobbyist for the
Missouri Pet Breeders Association. He was credited with the editorial
comments, but it is fairer to say that the entire alert came from him. He
released this alert last weekend at the Missouri Pet Breeders Association
legislative seminar and stated that if we could get ten emails to every
congress member, we'd stand a good chance of stopping whatever HSUS has in
mind.
Subject: Caution HSUS plans a sneak attack
Please cross post to dog breeders and all interested parties that support
breeders and owners' rights.
CAUTION: HSUS plans a sneak attack
Today is Monday August 17 , 2009
* After more than 6 years of restraint and gathering of information to
expose the HSUS...it is time...NOW!
* HSUS plans a sneak attack - we must act right away.
* Please be patient and read the following report:
* WHY IT’S NOW TIME TO USE YOUR "POWDER!"
(Editorial Comments of Franklin W. Losey)
For over 4 years I have repeatedly "preached" the importance for
responsible breeders to strive to improve their credibility by doing
such things as
"publicly condemn" substandard kennels. To that end, I am pleased to
report that pet breeder organizations in Iowa, Pennsylvania and Indiana have
followed the lead of the Missouri Pet Breeders Association (MPBA), and
have publicly condemned substandard kennels. And I believe several other
state pet breeder organizations will soon do the same.
In a similar vein, I have "preached" for over 6 years that it is
important to "keep your powder dry," and not overly contact your
personal U.S.
Senators and Representative until you really need to use those "chits."
In this regard, if you overly use your "Contact your Member of Congress
Chits,"
they may tend to be blasé when you really need for them to go to battle
stations.
After six years of "personal restraint," I believe that if ever a time
existed for responsible breeders to use their powder, NOW IS THE TIME FOR
EACH OF YOU TO CONTACT YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, AND DO IT NOW, FOR
THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. I BELIEVE THAT THE REASON THAT NO BILL HAS BEEN INTRODUCED SO FAR
THIS YEAR THAT WOULD AGGRESSIVELY AMEND THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT IS
BECAUSE HSUS IS EXECUTING A STRATEGIC "SNEAK ATTACK" PLAN SO THAT NO ONE
WILL HAVE TIME TO MOUNT OPPOSITION. THE REASONS WHY AND DETAILS OF THE
"SNEAK ATTACK STRATEGY" ARE SET OUT BELOW.
2. During an HSUS co-sponsored workshop in Washington DC in March 2009,
Congressman Jim Moran from VA told the audience that the best way to
amend the Animal Welfare Act is to, in effect, "sneak" amending language
into a "must-pass" bill, such as an Appropriation Bill, at the eleventh
hour so that there will be no time for breeders to mount opposition to
the language.
3. It is not a coincidence that no "PM" Bill has surfaced so far this
year, especially in light of the fact that the "Stop PMs Campaign" is
constantly referenced on the HSUS Home Page, EACH AND EVERY DAY, 24-7,
and is listed as a top legislative priority of HSUS. In short, it is
obvious that HSUS has adopted the "game plan" laid out by Congressman
Moran in March.
4. It is noteworthy that Congressman Moran is on the House
Appropriations Committee, and Senator Durban, who sponsored the PUPS
Bill in the last
session of Congress, is also on the Senate Appropriations Committee, and
is in a Leadership Position in the Senate. Thus, both of these Members of
Congress are in positions that will enable them to influence potential
last minute amendments to an Appropriation Bill.
5. HSUS has given Senator Durbin a 100% rating and Congressman Moran a
100 % rating on its "Humane Scorecard!"
6. Congressman Moran is Co-Chair of the Friends of Animals Congressional
Caucus.
7. When Congress returns from its August Recess, it will need to act on
the Appropriation Bill for the Agriculture Department - - the vehicle that
Congressman Moran suggested could be used to sneak amending language
into the Animal Welfare Act.
HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO RAISE QUESTIONS IN THE MINDS OF MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS ABOUT THE CREDIBILITY OF HSUS?
When I began "preaching" about the importance of publicly condemning
substandard kennels, I simultaneously began laying the groundwork for a
strategy to set into motion potential issues that could raise questions
about the self-righteous credibility of HSUS. The first part of the
strategy was to discreetly orchestrate the insertion of amending
language into the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which expanded the
"protected class" to include breeders and pet stores. That amendment
occurred in 2006.
HSUS was caught off guard and could not stop it.
Next, I began writing to Mr. Pacelle, President and CEO of HSUS, and I
specifically requested that HSUS, in the same manner as MPBA had publicly
condemned substandard kennels, publicly condemn those who explicitly
violate the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA). He responded twice
to my letters, but each time he parsed his words and did not explicitly
condemn those who violate the AETA. Instead, he suggested that the Animal
Enterprise Terrorism Act was an unjust law, and that in the same manner
as the Reverend Martin Luther King had engaged in "civil disobedience"
to undo unjust laws, "civil disobedience" was an activity supported by
HSUS, even though this Federal Terrorism Statute contains no "civil
disobedience" provisions. Thus, I have a "paper trail" that conclusively
provides a basis for raising questions as to why HSUS refuses to
publicly condemn those who explicitly violate the Animal Enterprise
Terrorism Act - - a Federal Terrorism Statute!
Adding more potential "fuel to the fire" of questionable practices of
the HSUS is what appears to be excessive "Lobbying Activities" of HSUS,
which IRS recognizes as a "public charity." In this regard, public charities
that exceed permissible limits on lobbying activities are subject to
losing their tax-exempt, public charity status, which could really crimp their fund
raising activities! In this regard, if IRS were to log onto the HSUS
Website, and type in "Lobbying," 100 - - that’s right - - 100 stories
detailing lobbying activities of the HSUS would appear. So if you are
going to contact your Members of Congress, why not throw in a comment
about excessive lobbying activities?! ?!?!?!? After all, "what is good
for the goose" is supposed to be "good for the gander!"
Wouldn’t it be refreshing if HSUS were put on the defensive for a change!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!
SO WHAT CAN RESPONSIBLE BREEDERS DO IN ANTICIPATION OF THE HSUS "SNEAK
ATTACK?"
Call or Send a written letter by FAX or E-Mail to your two U.S. Senators
and your U.S. Representative. AND DO IT NOW!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!
WHAT DO I SAY OR WRITE TO PUT HSUS ON THE DEFENSIVE?
1. Remember to always be polite - - and remember that you are asking
your Members of Congress for a "favor."
2. Use the following "script" for your calls, letters or E-Mails.
3. Urge all other responsible breeders to follow the same script, and
tell them to do it now!!!!!
SUGGESTED "SCRIPT"
I am a Federally licensed breeder, and my kennel is located in
(City_______ ). I am (calling) (writing) to ask that you not vote in
favor of any Bill or language that would amend the Animal Welfare Act
until the Humane Society of the U. S. (HSUS) tells you:
1. Why HSUS will not tell the American Public and Members of Congress
why it refuses to publicly acknowledge that Federally licensed and
responsible breeders in the U.S. have publicly condemned substandard
kennels?
2. Why HSUS dances around questions concerning the Animal Enterprise
Terrorism Act, which is a Federal Terrorism Act, and why the HSUS
suggests that "civil disobedience" is a justification for individuals to
potentially participate in expressly prohibited and defined terrorist
activities?
3. Why HSUS refuses to publicly condemn those who engage in activities
that are specifically listed as prohibited activities and a violation of the
Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act?
I’m (calling) (writing) to express my concerns about the potential lack
of candor and the appearance of excessive lobbying activities by public
charities, such as the HSUS, because I have learned that a Member of
Congress suggested during an HSUS co-sponsored workshop at the Georgetown
Law Center in Washington DC in March of this year that the best way to
amend the Animal Welfare Act is to sneak in language in an Appropriation
Bill or some other must-pass bill at the eleventh hour.
Thank you for your attention to my concerns.
Sincerely,
Your Name
Your Phone Number
NOTE 1: If you decide to mail a letter instead of calling or E-Mailing,
it will have more of an impact on the Member of Congress if you actually
legibly write or print it, than if you typed it.
NOTE 2: NUMBERS DO MATTER - - THE MORE CALLS AND LETTERS AND E-MAILS
that Members of Congress receive, the more likely they will "NOT" accept
at face value everything that HSUS says is true.
SHORTCUT TO CALLING OR SENDING AN E-MAIL TO YOUR U.S. SENATORS AND US.
REPRESENTATIVE
1. Log onto a search engine such as www.congressmerge. com.
2. Click on "Find who represents you in Congress."
3. Fill in your address and ZIP Code.
4. Phone and FAX numbers for each of your Senators and U.S.
Representative will be listed by their name.
5. Shortcut for finding the telephone number of your U.S. Senators and
Representative: Call the Capitol Hill Switchboard at 202-224-3121, give the
operator the name of your Senator or Representative, and ask to be
connected to his or her Office.
6. For E-Mail, click on the name of the U.S. Senator or Representative,
and then click on their respective E-Mail address. Be sure to add your name
and phone number at the end of your E-Mail.
7. Note: The addresses of the Local Regional Offices of Members of
Congress in your State will also be listed. If you are going to mail a
letter to your U.S. Senators or U.S. Representative, mail it to the
Local Regional Office in your State, instead of to their DC Address.
Delivery of
mail addressed to the DC Addresses of Members of Congress may be delayed
by up to 4-6 weeks, as it will be screened for Anthrax - - that is why
calling or sending an E-Mail is the quickest way to express your
concerns to Members of Congress. (Alternatively, you may FAX your
letters to the FAX numbers that may be found by following Steps 1-4 above.)
For more information please call:
Thank You!
Michael Glass mg@aprpets.org 484-880-7962 Rob Hurd hurdkennel@aol. com
515-962-7552 America's Pet Registry, Inc in Arkansas: 479-299-4418
lists. Please read with your thinking cap on, and make your own judgments.
I personally lean toward believing him, as I've not found him to be prone to
exaggeration in my limited past dealings.
Forwarded:
This alert was actually first forwarded by APRI but did not originate with
them. It came from Frank Losey, who is an attorney and the lobbyist for the
Missouri Pet Breeders Association. He was credited with the editorial
comments, but it is fairer to say that the entire alert came from him. He
released this alert last weekend at the Missouri Pet Breeders Association
legislative seminar and stated that if we could get ten emails to every
congress member, we'd stand a good chance of stopping whatever HSUS has in
mind.
Subject: Caution HSUS plans a sneak attack
Please cross post to dog breeders and all interested parties that support
breeders and owners' rights.
CAUTION: HSUS plans a sneak attack
Today is Monday August 17 , 2009
* After more than 6 years of restraint and gathering of information to
expose the HSUS...it is time...NOW!
* HSUS plans a sneak attack - we must act right away.
* Please be patient and read the following report:
* WHY IT’S NOW TIME TO USE YOUR "POWDER!"
(Editorial Comments of Franklin W. Losey)
For over 4 years I have repeatedly "preached" the importance for
responsible breeders to strive to improve their credibility by doing
such things as
"publicly condemn" substandard kennels. To that end, I am pleased to
report that pet breeder organizations in Iowa, Pennsylvania and Indiana have
followed the lead of the Missouri Pet Breeders Association (MPBA), and
have publicly condemned substandard kennels. And I believe several other
state pet breeder organizations will soon do the same.
In a similar vein, I have "preached" for over 6 years that it is
important to "keep your powder dry," and not overly contact your
personal U.S.
Senators and Representative until you really need to use those "chits."
In this regard, if you overly use your "Contact your Member of Congress
Chits,"
they may tend to be blasé when you really need for them to go to battle
stations.
After six years of "personal restraint," I believe that if ever a time
existed for responsible breeders to use their powder, NOW IS THE TIME FOR
EACH OF YOU TO CONTACT YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, AND DO IT NOW, FOR
THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. I BELIEVE THAT THE REASON THAT NO BILL HAS BEEN INTRODUCED SO FAR
THIS YEAR THAT WOULD AGGRESSIVELY AMEND THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT IS
BECAUSE HSUS IS EXECUTING A STRATEGIC "SNEAK ATTACK" PLAN SO THAT NO ONE
WILL HAVE TIME TO MOUNT OPPOSITION. THE REASONS WHY AND DETAILS OF THE
"SNEAK ATTACK STRATEGY" ARE SET OUT BELOW.
2. During an HSUS co-sponsored workshop in Washington DC in March 2009,
Congressman Jim Moran from VA told the audience that the best way to
amend the Animal Welfare Act is to, in effect, "sneak" amending language
into a "must-pass" bill, such as an Appropriation Bill, at the eleventh
hour so that there will be no time for breeders to mount opposition to
the language.
3. It is not a coincidence that no "PM" Bill has surfaced so far this
year, especially in light of the fact that the "Stop PMs Campaign" is
constantly referenced on the HSUS Home Page, EACH AND EVERY DAY, 24-7,
and is listed as a top legislative priority of HSUS. In short, it is
obvious that HSUS has adopted the "game plan" laid out by Congressman
Moran in March.
4. It is noteworthy that Congressman Moran is on the House
Appropriations Committee, and Senator Durban, who sponsored the PUPS
Bill in the last
session of Congress, is also on the Senate Appropriations Committee, and
is in a Leadership Position in the Senate. Thus, both of these Members of
Congress are in positions that will enable them to influence potential
last minute amendments to an Appropriation Bill.
5. HSUS has given Senator Durbin a 100% rating and Congressman Moran a
100 % rating on its "Humane Scorecard!"
6. Congressman Moran is Co-Chair of the Friends of Animals Congressional
Caucus.
7. When Congress returns from its August Recess, it will need to act on
the Appropriation Bill for the Agriculture Department - - the vehicle that
Congressman Moran suggested could be used to sneak amending language
into the Animal Welfare Act.
HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO RAISE QUESTIONS IN THE MINDS OF MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS ABOUT THE CREDIBILITY OF HSUS?
When I began "preaching" about the importance of publicly condemning
substandard kennels, I simultaneously began laying the groundwork for a
strategy to set into motion potential issues that could raise questions
about the self-righteous credibility of HSUS. The first part of the
strategy was to discreetly orchestrate the insertion of amending
language into the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which expanded the
"protected class" to include breeders and pet stores. That amendment
occurred in 2006.
HSUS was caught off guard and could not stop it.
Next, I began writing to Mr. Pacelle, President and CEO of HSUS, and I
specifically requested that HSUS, in the same manner as MPBA had publicly
condemned substandard kennels, publicly condemn those who explicitly
violate the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA). He responded twice
to my letters, but each time he parsed his words and did not explicitly
condemn those who violate the AETA. Instead, he suggested that the Animal
Enterprise Terrorism Act was an unjust law, and that in the same manner
as the Reverend Martin Luther King had engaged in "civil disobedience"
to undo unjust laws, "civil disobedience" was an activity supported by
HSUS, even though this Federal Terrorism Statute contains no "civil
disobedience" provisions. Thus, I have a "paper trail" that conclusively
provides a basis for raising questions as to why HSUS refuses to
publicly condemn those who explicitly violate the Animal Enterprise
Terrorism Act - - a Federal Terrorism Statute!
Adding more potential "fuel to the fire" of questionable practices of
the HSUS is what appears to be excessive "Lobbying Activities" of HSUS,
which IRS recognizes as a "public charity." In this regard, public charities
that exceed permissible limits on lobbying activities are subject to
losing their tax-exempt, public charity status, which could really crimp their fund
raising activities! In this regard, if IRS were to log onto the HSUS
Website, and type in "Lobbying," 100 - - that’s right - - 100 stories
detailing lobbying activities of the HSUS would appear. So if you are
going to contact your Members of Congress, why not throw in a comment
about excessive lobbying activities?! ?!?!?!? After all, "what is good
for the goose" is supposed to be "good for the gander!"
Wouldn’t it be refreshing if HSUS were put on the defensive for a change!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!
SO WHAT CAN RESPONSIBLE BREEDERS DO IN ANTICIPATION OF THE HSUS "SNEAK
ATTACK?"
Call or Send a written letter by FAX or E-Mail to your two U.S. Senators
and your U.S. Representative. AND DO IT NOW!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!
WHAT DO I SAY OR WRITE TO PUT HSUS ON THE DEFENSIVE?
1. Remember to always be polite - - and remember that you are asking
your Members of Congress for a "favor."
2. Use the following "script" for your calls, letters or E-Mails.
3. Urge all other responsible breeders to follow the same script, and
tell them to do it now!!!!!
SUGGESTED "SCRIPT"
I am a Federally licensed breeder, and my kennel is located in
(City_______ ). I am (calling) (writing) to ask that you not vote in
favor of any Bill or language that would amend the Animal Welfare Act
until the Humane Society of the U. S. (HSUS) tells you:
1. Why HSUS will not tell the American Public and Members of Congress
why it refuses to publicly acknowledge that Federally licensed and
responsible breeders in the U.S. have publicly condemned substandard
kennels?
2. Why HSUS dances around questions concerning the Animal Enterprise
Terrorism Act, which is a Federal Terrorism Act, and why the HSUS
suggests that "civil disobedience" is a justification for individuals to
potentially participate in expressly prohibited and defined terrorist
activities?
3. Why HSUS refuses to publicly condemn those who engage in activities
that are specifically listed as prohibited activities and a violation of the
Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act?
I’m (calling) (writing) to express my concerns about the potential lack
of candor and the appearance of excessive lobbying activities by public
charities, such as the HSUS, because I have learned that a Member of
Congress suggested during an HSUS co-sponsored workshop at the Georgetown
Law Center in Washington DC in March of this year that the best way to
amend the Animal Welfare Act is to sneak in language in an Appropriation
Bill or some other must-pass bill at the eleventh hour.
Thank you for your attention to my concerns.
Sincerely,
Your Name
Your Phone Number
NOTE 1: If you decide to mail a letter instead of calling or E-Mailing,
it will have more of an impact on the Member of Congress if you actually
legibly write or print it, than if you typed it.
NOTE 2: NUMBERS DO MATTER - - THE MORE CALLS AND LETTERS AND E-MAILS
that Members of Congress receive, the more likely they will "NOT" accept
at face value everything that HSUS says is true.
SHORTCUT TO CALLING OR SENDING AN E-MAIL TO YOUR U.S. SENATORS AND US.
REPRESENTATIVE
1. Log onto a search engine such as www.congressmerge. com.
2. Click on "Find who represents you in Congress."
3. Fill in your address and ZIP Code.
4. Phone and FAX numbers for each of your Senators and U.S.
Representative will be listed by their name.
5. Shortcut for finding the telephone number of your U.S. Senators and
Representative: Call the Capitol Hill Switchboard at 202-224-3121, give the
operator the name of your Senator or Representative, and ask to be
connected to his or her Office.
6. For E-Mail, click on the name of the U.S. Senator or Representative,
and then click on their respective E-Mail address. Be sure to add your name
and phone number at the end of your E-Mail.
7. Note: The addresses of the Local Regional Offices of Members of
Congress in your State will also be listed. If you are going to mail a
letter to your U.S. Senators or U.S. Representative, mail it to the
Local Regional Office in your State, instead of to their DC Address.
Delivery of
mail addressed to the DC Addresses of Members of Congress may be delayed
by up to 4-6 weeks, as it will be screened for Anthrax - - that is why
calling or sending an E-Mail is the quickest way to express your
concerns to Members of Congress. (Alternatively, you may FAX your
letters to the FAX numbers that may be found by following Steps 1-4 above.)
For more information please call:
Thank You!
Michael Glass mg@aprpets.org 484-880-7962 Rob Hurd hurdkennel@aol. com
515-962-7552 America's Pet Registry, Inc in Arkansas: 479-299-4418
Thursday, August 13, 2009
From the article: _Definition of Ear Cropping_
From the article: _Definition of Ear Cropping_
(http://dogs.about.com/od/dogandpuppyhealth/g/ear_crop_def.htm)
Ear cropping and tail docking are age-old procedures done on some purebred
dog. However, they have become increasingly taboo in today's society. Many
veterinary groups disapprove of cosmetic procedures on dogs, and they are
even banned in some countries.
Where do you stand? Are ear cropping and tail docking inhumane and
unnecessary, or are they harmless procedures that uphold the integrity of certain
dog breeds? Should they be banned or not?
Please do not attempt to reply to other users or treat this as a
discussion or debate. Use this as tool to explain your platform on the issues of
tail docking and ear cropping.
_Speak your Mind_
(http://dogs.about.com/u/ua/dogandpuppyhealth/elective_sx_UA.htm?from=lb#ua_form)
(http://dogs.about.com/od/dogandpuppyhealth/g/ear_crop_def.htm)
Ear cropping and tail docking are age-old procedures done on some purebred
dog. However, they have become increasingly taboo in today's society. Many
veterinary groups disapprove of cosmetic procedures on dogs, and they are
even banned in some countries.
Where do you stand? Are ear cropping and tail docking inhumane and
unnecessary, or are they harmless procedures that uphold the integrity of certain
dog breeds? Should they be banned or not?
Please do not attempt to reply to other users or treat this as a
discussion or debate. Use this as tool to explain your platform on the issues of
tail docking and ear cropping.
_Speak your Mind_
(http://dogs.about.com/u/ua/dogandpuppyhealth/elective_sx_UA.htm?from=lb#ua_form)
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Spread the word, forward as needed....
None of us think it will happen to us...and then they knock at the door and take your dogs. Can't even imagine what this woman must be going through.
http://neveryetmelted.com/2009/08/05/spca-outrage-in-philadelphia/
"The Murder Hollow Bassets of Philadelphia (a private pack* founded in 1986) is one thirteen organized packs of basset hounds recognized by the National Beagle Club hunting in the United States."
"But neither gentility nor middle-aged respectability was sufficient to protect the Murder Hollow's Master Wendy Willard from a full scale raid by Philadelphia police, nor did it prevent 13 hounds from being taken from their kennels and turned over to a private animal rights organization hostile to hunting."
http://neveryetmelted.com/2009/08/05/spca-outrage-in-philadelphia/
"The Murder Hollow Bassets of Philadelphia (a private pack* founded in 1986) is one thirteen organized packs of basset hounds recognized by the National Beagle Club hunting in the United States."
"But neither gentility nor middle-aged respectability was sufficient to protect the Murder Hollow's Master Wendy Willard from a full scale raid by Philadelphia police, nor did it prevent 13 hounds from being taken from their kennels and turned over to a private animal rights organization hostile to hunting."
Assemblyman: Hands Off that Dog!
The following is appeared on the Maine Legislative Canine list:
FG/CH News A division of the New York Times
August 4, 2009, 4:35 pm
Assemblyman: Hands Off that Dog!
By Sarah Maslin Nir
http://tinyurl.com/assemblyman-ahs-Aug6
Let's just put a name on it right now: The Laika Law.
Laika, the Husky "dog-napped" by a well-meaning passerby from the front of a Fort Greene shop where she was tied last week - and since found - has inspired a new bill that would make dog-napping a crime.
Assemblyman Joseph R. Lentol, who represents part of Fort Greene, wants to make sure pet-napping is taken seriously by the law, said his media coordinator, Amy Z. Cleary.
Under current law, stealing a dog is treated the same as stealing a VCR. That shouldn't be, Ms. Cleary said. Society, she said, has evolved to the point where a pet is considered a member of a family, and Mr. Lentol wants the law to reflect that, she said.
The bill aims to raise dog and cat-napping (the stealing, not the sleeping) to a Class E felony with two years of jail time if convicted. If a dog-napper aims to sell the animal for scientific research or for malicious purposes (such as for use in dog fighting, an issue Mr. Lentol has campaigned against since 2007) the crime would be upgraded to a Class D felony, under the bill. This would entail four years of jail time if convicted.
Mr. Lentol is most concerned about those who would sell the animals for scientific research, Ms. Cleary said. But that crime appears to be rare: The National Association for Biomedical Research says that 3 percent of all cats and dogs used in lab tests are not sourced from breeders or lab animal dealers. About 66,000 dogs are used in scientific research yearly.
And not everyone is Cruella de Vil, hoping to turn Dalmatian puppies into fur coats. In the week since Mr. Lentol proposed the legislation, Internet commenters have expressed concern that the law could be a deterrent for would-be rescuers, who might fear prosecution if they take in a distressed animal.
"There is a very strong element of intent with this," said Ms. Cleary. Nevertheless, Mr. Lentol will add "safe harbor" proviso to the proposed law, similar to those that permit mothers to abandon babies at hospitals without fear of reprisal. This would prevent a "chilling effect" on do-gooders, she says.
"You have to know that you are taking someone else's animal from their possession," she said, "not an abandoned animal or street or one that got lost." Only if this level of intent is proven in court by a prosecutor and then affirmed by a jury or judge would a person be convicted, she said.
However, Ms. Cleary said, such a law would likely apply to Giusseppe Francis Leonardo and his wife, who took Laika believing she was abandoned after she was left tied up outside a shop for several hours. Though Mr. Leonardo believed he was saving the dog, Ms. Cleary says that under this legislation, if he knew the animal belonged to someone else, he would be open to prosecution.
"In that case you're supposed to call the ASPCA. You can't just take someone else's animal," she said.
However, "If he truly believed the animal was abandoned," she said, he would not be convicted.
FG/CH News A division of the New York Times
August 4, 2009, 4:35 pm
Assemblyman: Hands Off that Dog!
By Sarah Maslin Nir
http://tinyurl.com/assemblyman-ahs-Aug6
Let's just put a name on it right now: The Laika Law.
Laika, the Husky "dog-napped" by a well-meaning passerby from the front of a Fort Greene shop where she was tied last week - and since found - has inspired a new bill that would make dog-napping a crime.
Assemblyman Joseph R. Lentol, who represents part of Fort Greene, wants to make sure pet-napping is taken seriously by the law, said his media coordinator, Amy Z. Cleary.
Under current law, stealing a dog is treated the same as stealing a VCR. That shouldn't be, Ms. Cleary said. Society, she said, has evolved to the point where a pet is considered a member of a family, and Mr. Lentol wants the law to reflect that, she said.
The bill aims to raise dog and cat-napping (the stealing, not the sleeping) to a Class E felony with two years of jail time if convicted. If a dog-napper aims to sell the animal for scientific research or for malicious purposes (such as for use in dog fighting, an issue Mr. Lentol has campaigned against since 2007) the crime would be upgraded to a Class D felony, under the bill. This would entail four years of jail time if convicted.
Mr. Lentol is most concerned about those who would sell the animals for scientific research, Ms. Cleary said. But that crime appears to be rare: The National Association for Biomedical Research says that 3 percent of all cats and dogs used in lab tests are not sourced from breeders or lab animal dealers. About 66,000 dogs are used in scientific research yearly.
And not everyone is Cruella de Vil, hoping to turn Dalmatian puppies into fur coats. In the week since Mr. Lentol proposed the legislation, Internet commenters have expressed concern that the law could be a deterrent for would-be rescuers, who might fear prosecution if they take in a distressed animal.
"There is a very strong element of intent with this," said Ms. Cleary. Nevertheless, Mr. Lentol will add "safe harbor" proviso to the proposed law, similar to those that permit mothers to abandon babies at hospitals without fear of reprisal. This would prevent a "chilling effect" on do-gooders, she says.
"You have to know that you are taking someone else's animal from their possession," she said, "not an abandoned animal or street or one that got lost." Only if this level of intent is proven in court by a prosecutor and then affirmed by a jury or judge would a person be convicted, she said.
However, Ms. Cleary said, such a law would likely apply to Giusseppe Francis Leonardo and his wife, who took Laika believing she was abandoned after she was left tied up outside a shop for several hours. Though Mr. Leonardo believed he was saving the dog, Ms. Cleary says that under this legislation, if he knew the animal belonged to someone else, he would be open to prosecution.
"In that case you're supposed to call the ASPCA. You can't just take someone else's animal," she said.
However, "If he truly believed the animal was abandoned," she said, he would not be convicted.
Monday, July 27, 2009
July 22, 2:50 AM
The AKC and AVMA disagree on whether ear cropping is humane.
In recent months, the American Kennel Club (AKC) and the American
Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) have been involved in a disagreement over
whether ear cropping, tail docking and other types of cosmetic surgery on dogs
should be encouraged.
AVMA toughens stance on ear crops, tail docks
In November, 2008, the AVMA executive board made a decision to strengthen
their stance opposing the cropping of ears and docking of tails as well as
other surgeries performed on pets for purely cosmetic reasons. This decision
was made amid a great deal of controversy, with the Utah Veterinary
Medical Association (UVMA) even submitting a resolution to the House of Delegates
of the AVMA asking for a more tolerant stance toward these surgical
procedures.
The resolution, also supported by the AKC, was eventually voted down by the
House of Delegates and a new position statement opposing cosmetic
surgeries such as ear cropping and tail docking was adopted by the AVMA.
AKC creates Canine Health and Welfare Advisory Panel
Following the defeat of the resolution asking for a softer stance on the
performing of cosmetic surgeries, which the AKC supported, a new panel was
created by the American Kennel Club. This 12 member panel, dubbed the AKC
Canine Health and Welfare Advisory Panel, is made up of individuals gathered
from all over the United States with a wide variety of credentials, each
bringing his/her own knowledge and experiences to the newly created panel.
According to the AKC, the purpose of the panel is to "strengthen
opportunities for the public to admire, love and own purebred dogs and to foster
greater public education about health concerns relevant to all dogs." The
panel's goal, according to a press release issued by the AKC, will be "to
provide factual and impartial information by creating a forum for proactive
discourse based on scientific and ethical concerns".
Though the AKC did not mention the recent policy debate concerning ear
cropping and tail docking in certain breeds of dogs, it seems likely that this
panel will address the issue at some point in the near future.
In recent months, the American Kennel Club (AKC) and the American
Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) have been involved in a disagreement over
whether ear cropping, tail docking and other types of cosmetic surgery on dogs
should be encouraged.
AVMA toughens stance on ear crops, tail docks
In November, 2008, the AVMA executive board made a decision to strengthen
their stance opposing the cropping of ears and docking of tails as well as
other surgeries performed on pets for purely cosmetic reasons. This decision
was made amid a great deal of controversy, with the Utah Veterinary
Medical Association (UVMA) even submitting a resolution to the House of Delegates
of the AVMA asking for a more tolerant stance toward these surgical
procedures.
The resolution, also supported by the AKC, was eventually voted down by the
House of Delegates and a new position statement opposing cosmetic
surgeries such as ear cropping and tail docking was adopted by the AVMA.
AKC creates Canine Health and Welfare Advisory Panel
Following the defeat of the resolution asking for a softer stance on the
performing of cosmetic surgeries, which the AKC supported, a new panel was
created by the American Kennel Club. This 12 member panel, dubbed the AKC
Canine Health and Welfare Advisory Panel, is made up of individuals gathered
from all over the United States with a wide variety of credentials, each
bringing his/her own knowledge and experiences to the newly created panel.
According to the AKC, the purpose of the panel is to "strengthen
opportunities for the public to admire, love and own purebred dogs and to foster
greater public education about health concerns relevant to all dogs." The
panel's goal, according to a press release issued by the AKC, will be "to
provide factual and impartial information by creating a forum for proactive
discourse based on scientific and ethical concerns".
Though the AKC did not mention the recent policy debate concerning ear
cropping and tail docking in certain breeds of dogs, it seems likely that this
panel will address the issue at some point in the near future.
California Mandatory/Spay Neuter Bill Held in Committee
California Mandatory/Spay Neuter Bill Held in Committee
7/15/09
An outpouring of opposition by California sportsmen has applied the brakes
to a bill that would trample the rights of sportsmen and dog enthusiasts.
Senate Bill 250, which would with few exceptions mandate that all dogs be
spayed or neutered, appeared on the fast track this year. It passed the
Senate last month and recently cleared the Assembly Business and Professions
Committee. However, during a hearing on July 15, more than 100 opponents
turned out and rallied afterwards. During the rally, they heard from
numerous speakers including longtime sportsmen's supporter, Sen. George Runner (R-
Lancaster) a member of the Outdoor Sporting Caucus.
The bill remains "suspense file" which is where bills with a fiscal
impact go. Once a bill has been placed there, legislators must vote to remove
it before the bill can be considered again.
"The turnout today as well as the calls, letters, and emails from
sportsmen and dog enthusiasts made a difference," said Rob Sexton, U.S. Sportsmen's
Alliance (USSA) vice president for government affairs. "Although we're
not out of the woods yet, this kind of grassroots support is what can really
get the attention of legislators. "
In addition to USSA, opposition has come from dog and sporting groups
across California, including key partners such as the California Outdoor
Heritage Alliance (COHA), Masters of Foxhounds Association of North America, NRA,
California Rifle and Pistol Association, and Pet Pac.
Take Action- California sportsmen should continue contacting their
Assembly members and inform them of your continued opposition to SB 250 without
full protections for sporting dog owners.
7/15/09
An outpouring of opposition by California sportsmen has applied the brakes
to a bill that would trample the rights of sportsmen and dog enthusiasts.
Senate Bill 250, which would with few exceptions mandate that all dogs be
spayed or neutered, appeared on the fast track this year. It passed the
Senate last month and recently cleared the Assembly Business and Professions
Committee. However, during a hearing on July 15, more than 100 opponents
turned out and rallied afterwards. During the rally, they heard from
numerous speakers including longtime sportsmen's supporter, Sen. George Runner (R-
Lancaster) a member of the Outdoor Sporting Caucus.
The bill remains "suspense file" which is where bills with a fiscal
impact go. Once a bill has been placed there, legislators must vote to remove
it before the bill can be considered again.
"The turnout today as well as the calls, letters, and emails from
sportsmen and dog enthusiasts made a difference," said Rob Sexton, U.S. Sportsmen's
Alliance (USSA) vice president for government affairs. "Although we're
not out of the woods yet, this kind of grassroots support is what can really
get the attention of legislators. "
In addition to USSA, opposition has come from dog and sporting groups
across California, including key partners such as the California Outdoor
Heritage Alliance (COHA), Masters of Foxhounds Association of North America, NRA,
California Rifle and Pistol Association, and Pet Pac.
Take Action- California sportsmen should continue contacting their
Assembly members and inform them of your continued opposition to SB 250 without
full protections for sporting dog owners.
AVMA House Rejects Policy Change on Ear Cropping and Tail Docking
AVMA House Rejects Policy Change on Ear Cropping and Tail Docking
Posted: Friday, July 10, 2009, 7:46 p.m., EDT
The _American Veterinary Medical Assn.'s_ (http://www.avma.org/) House of
Delegates on July 10 rejected Resolution 4, which would have revised its
policy on ear cropping and tail docking of dogs.
The action came during the legislative body's semi-annual session, held in
Seattle, Wash., before the AVMA's annual convention.
Submitted by the Utah Veterinary Medical Assn., the resolution would have
eased the AVMA policy, adopted by the executive board in November 2008, that
opposes ear cropping and tail docking when done solely for cosmetic
reasons.
The revision would have noted that the procedures, though offering limited
or no therapeutic value, are condoned by the _American Kennel Club_
(http://www.akc.org/) and many members of society. Because of that acceptance,
the policy would have stated that it is "imperative that the procedures be
performed by trained, licensed and caring veterinarians using current stand
of care" while continuing to support the elimination of those procedures
from breed standards.
In addition, the resolution would have revised AVMA policy to ensure that
association members "conform to all state mandates concerning the
procedures."
The November 2008 policy significantly altered the AVMA's position against
the two procedures; previous policy recommended only that veterinarians
discuss with clients the cosmetic nature of the procedures before performing
them.
A major reason for the resolution was to defend veterinarians willing to
perform such procedures who might otherwise be ostracized by the profession
for going against AVMA policy.
In its argument in favor of the resolution, the Utah VMA said the AVMA
should be wary of restricting pet owners' rights because it supports the
concept of pet ownership.
Posted: Friday, July 10, 2009, 7:46 p.m., EDT
The _American Veterinary Medical Assn.'s_ (http://www.avma.org/) House of
Delegates on July 10 rejected Resolution 4, which would have revised its
policy on ear cropping and tail docking of dogs.
The action came during the legislative body's semi-annual session, held in
Seattle, Wash., before the AVMA's annual convention.
Submitted by the Utah Veterinary Medical Assn., the resolution would have
eased the AVMA policy, adopted by the executive board in November 2008, that
opposes ear cropping and tail docking when done solely for cosmetic
reasons.
The revision would have noted that the procedures, though offering limited
or no therapeutic value, are condoned by the _American Kennel Club_
(http://www.akc.org/) and many members of society. Because of that acceptance,
the policy would have stated that it is "imperative that the procedures be
performed by trained, licensed and caring veterinarians using current stand
of care" while continuing to support the elimination of those procedures
from breed standards.
In addition, the resolution would have revised AVMA policy to ensure that
association members "conform to all state mandates concerning the
procedures."
The November 2008 policy significantly altered the AVMA's position against
the two procedures; previous policy recommended only that veterinarians
discuss with clients the cosmetic nature of the procedures before performing
them.
A major reason for the resolution was to defend veterinarians willing to
perform such procedures who might otherwise be ostracized by the profession
for going against AVMA policy.
In its argument in favor of the resolution, the Utah VMA said the AVMA
should be wary of restricting pet owners' rights because it supports the
concept of pet ownership.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Article - California tax officials target breeders via Internet
California tax officials target breeders via Internet Article - California tax officials target breeders via Internet) June 29, 2009By: Timothy KirnFor The VIN News Service
California tax officials are surfing - the Internet, that is.It is not unusual for authorities, potential employers, bankers and others to use the Internet to investigate people.And now California tax officials are targeting potential breeders that way.
According to a letter from the California Board of Equalization, board officials visited the American Kennel Club Web site and linked to individual dog clubs to identify potential breeders living in the state.Board officials are not sure if these dog club members are breeders, but they could be.Tax board spokeswoman Anita Gore confirmed that 361 individuals will receive the letter. She would not say how or why those particular individuals were identified, however.Gore also said the board was unapologetic about using the Internet to identify potential breeders.
The Internet is a research tool, like any other, and a fairly popular one, she said.Though a few blogs have speculated that the state might be groping gracelessly for funds with this effort, due to the California government's financial distress, Gore said the letters are a typical education and outreach effort that the board periodically makes.Breeders are in the spotlight because "quite often people who sell animals are not aware of this tax obligation," Gore said.According to California tax law, anyone who sells more than two animals a year must have a seller's permit and pay the state a sales tax.
Fifty letters have been sent out so far, Gore said. The rest will be mailed in the coming weeks. The letter states that the recipient must respond and let the board know whether he or she has a permit, would like to apply for one or does not need one because he or she does not sell animals.Board members have received no complaints about the letters, Gore said. But at least a few are concerned.
Dawn Capp, an attorney and animal advocate, said the fact that the board has used the American Kennel Club Web site and other dog club Web sites is going to upset some people who will ask not to be listed so they cannot be targeted. That will limit resources for the general public, as people visit club Web sites searching for information and help."It definitely is going to have a chilling effect on information," said Capp, founder of the Coalition of Human Advocates for K9s and Owners (CHAKO).
Capp_posted a notice about the letters on the CHAKO blog_ (_http://news.http://news.http://news._ (http://news.vin.com/Link.plx?ID=70527) ) and alerted a number of other bloggers about the issue, who have also posted notices.Capp said it is heavy-handed of the state to target people just because they are members of a dog club.
She also said that when she called the board, she was told that it will pursue people who do not respond to the first letter with a second letter and might investigate if that second letter is ignored."The problem is that this is a very Big-Brother type of mentality," she said. "They don't know whether anyone is a breeder. There are all kinds of dog clubs out there. It sends the message that you are presumed guilty until proven innocent."
California tax officials are surfing - the Internet, that is.It is not unusual for authorities, potential employers, bankers and others to use the Internet to investigate people.And now California tax officials are targeting potential breeders that way.
According to a letter from the California Board of Equalization, board officials visited the American Kennel Club Web site and linked to individual dog clubs to identify potential breeders living in the state.Board officials are not sure if these dog club members are breeders, but they could be.Tax board spokeswoman Anita Gore confirmed that 361 individuals will receive the letter. She would not say how or why those particular individuals were identified, however.Gore also said the board was unapologetic about using the Internet to identify potential breeders.
The Internet is a research tool, like any other, and a fairly popular one, she said.Though a few blogs have speculated that the state might be groping gracelessly for funds with this effort, due to the California government's financial distress, Gore said the letters are a typical education and outreach effort that the board periodically makes.Breeders are in the spotlight because "quite often people who sell animals are not aware of this tax obligation," Gore said.According to California tax law, anyone who sells more than two animals a year must have a seller's permit and pay the state a sales tax.
Fifty letters have been sent out so far, Gore said. The rest will be mailed in the coming weeks. The letter states that the recipient must respond and let the board know whether he or she has a permit, would like to apply for one or does not need one because he or she does not sell animals.Board members have received no complaints about the letters, Gore said. But at least a few are concerned.
Dawn Capp, an attorney and animal advocate, said the fact that the board has used the American Kennel Club Web site and other dog club Web sites is going to upset some people who will ask not to be listed so they cannot be targeted. That will limit resources for the general public, as people visit club Web sites searching for information and help."It definitely is going to have a chilling effect on information," said Capp, founder of the Coalition of Human Advocates for K9s and Owners (CHAKO).
Capp_posted a notice about the letters on the CHAKO blog_ (_http://news.http://news.http://news._ (http://news.vin.com/Link.plx?ID=70527) ) and alerted a number of other bloggers about the issue, who have also posted notices.Capp said it is heavy-handed of the state to target people just because they are members of a dog club.
She also said that when she called the board, she was told that it will pursue people who do not respond to the first letter with a second letter and might investigate if that second letter is ignored."The problem is that this is a very Big-Brother type of mentality," she said. "They don't know whether anyone is a breeder. There are all kinds of dog clubs out there. It sends the message that you are presumed guilty until proven innocent."
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Subject: STRICT OHIO BREEDER BILL TO BE HEARD ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24
[Tuesday, June 23, 2009]
Ohio House Bill 124 will be considered by the Ohio House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday, June 24.
HB 124 seeks to strictly regulate commercial breeders who produce nine litters of puppies or at least forty puppies in any given calendar year, including:
Imposing strict engineering standards (including cage sizes, temperature range, etc.) with no regard for various dog breeds or the extensive costs to responsible breeders
Limiting breeding ages to dogs between 18 months and 9 years of age with no regard for alternative reproductive techniques. The AKC believes the decision on whether a dog should be bred is one to be made by the dog's owner in conjunction with a veterinarian.
The AKC strongly opposes cruelty and mistreatment of animals and believes all dogs should be cared for in a humane manner. The AKC is concerned, however, that any bill seeking to protect the health and welfare of dogs does not infringe on the rights of breeders who take their responsibilities seriously.
How You Can Help
Attend the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee hearing on Wednesday, June 24, and politely express your concerns with HB 124. The hearing details are as follows:
House Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee
Wednesday, June 14
9:30 a.m.
Room 018
Ohio Statehouse
Columbus, Ohio
*Please note that the committee will be considering a resolution on an unrelated issue prior to hearing HB 124. The Chairman's office has informed AKC that that consideration of this bill may take several hours, depending on the length of public testimony.
If you are unable to attend the hearing, contact the members of the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee and express your concerns with HB 124 and your support for responsible breeding in Ohio. The Committee's contact information is as follows:
Representative John Domenick (Chairman)
Phone: (614) 466-3735Fax: (614) 719-6995Email: district95@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Allan Sayre (Vice Chair)
Phone: (614) 466-8035Fax: (614) 719-6996Email: district96@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Jeff Wagner (Ranking Minority Member)
Phone: (614) 466-1374Fax: (614) 719-6981Email: district81@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Richard Adams
Phone: (614) 466-8114Fax: (614) 719-3979Email: district79@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Linda Bolon
Phone: (614) 466-8022Fax: (614) 719-6971Email: district01@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Troy Balderson
Phone: (614) 644-6014Fax: (614) 719-6994Email: district94@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Dan Dodd
Phone: (614) 466-2500Fax: (614) 719-6991Email: district91@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Terry Boose
Phone: (614) 466-9628Fax: (614) 719-3958Email: district58@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Jennifer Garrison
Phone: (614) 644-8728Fax: (614) 719-6993Email: district93@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Timothy Derickson
Phone: (614) 644-5094Fax: (614) 719-6953Email: district53@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Dennis Murray
Phone: (614) 644-6011Fax: (614) 719-6980Email: district80@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Matthew Dolan
Phone: (614) 644-5088Fax: (614) 719-6998Email: district98@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Deborah Newcomb
Phone: (614) 466-1405Fax: (614) 719-6999Email: district99@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Dave Hall
Phone: (614) 466-2994Fax: (614) 719-6997Email: district97@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Mark Okey
Phone: (614) 466-1464Fax: (614) 719-3961Email: district61@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Margaret Ruhl
Phone: (614) 466-1431Fax: (614) 719-6990Email: district90@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Raymond Pryor
Phone: (614) 644-7928Fax: (614) 719-6985Email: district85@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative W. Carlton Weddington
Phone: (614) 466-5343Fax: (614) 719-3581Email: district27@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative James Zehringer
Phone: (614) 466-6344Fax: (614) 719-3977Email: district77@ohr.state.oh.us
For more information, contact AKC's Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720; or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.
Ohio House Bill 124 will be considered by the Ohio House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday, June 24.
HB 124 seeks to strictly regulate commercial breeders who produce nine litters of puppies or at least forty puppies in any given calendar year, including:
Imposing strict engineering standards (including cage sizes, temperature range, etc.) with no regard for various dog breeds or the extensive costs to responsible breeders
Limiting breeding ages to dogs between 18 months and 9 years of age with no regard for alternative reproductive techniques. The AKC believes the decision on whether a dog should be bred is one to be made by the dog's owner in conjunction with a veterinarian.
The AKC strongly opposes cruelty and mistreatment of animals and believes all dogs should be cared for in a humane manner. The AKC is concerned, however, that any bill seeking to protect the health and welfare of dogs does not infringe on the rights of breeders who take their responsibilities seriously.
How You Can Help
Attend the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee hearing on Wednesday, June 24, and politely express your concerns with HB 124. The hearing details are as follows:
House Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee
Wednesday, June 14
9:30 a.m.
Room 018
Ohio Statehouse
Columbus, Ohio
*Please note that the committee will be considering a resolution on an unrelated issue prior to hearing HB 124. The Chairman's office has informed AKC that that consideration of this bill may take several hours, depending on the length of public testimony.
If you are unable to attend the hearing, contact the members of the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee and express your concerns with HB 124 and your support for responsible breeding in Ohio. The Committee's contact information is as follows:
Representative John Domenick (Chairman)
Phone: (614) 466-3735Fax: (614) 719-6995Email: district95@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Allan Sayre (Vice Chair)
Phone: (614) 466-8035Fax: (614) 719-6996Email: district96@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Jeff Wagner (Ranking Minority Member)
Phone: (614) 466-1374Fax: (614) 719-6981Email: district81@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Richard Adams
Phone: (614) 466-8114Fax: (614) 719-3979Email: district79@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Linda Bolon
Phone: (614) 466-8022Fax: (614) 719-6971Email: district01@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Troy Balderson
Phone: (614) 644-6014Fax: (614) 719-6994Email: district94@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Dan Dodd
Phone: (614) 466-2500Fax: (614) 719-6991Email: district91@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Terry Boose
Phone: (614) 466-9628Fax: (614) 719-3958Email: district58@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Jennifer Garrison
Phone: (614) 644-8728Fax: (614) 719-6993Email: district93@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Timothy Derickson
Phone: (614) 644-5094Fax: (614) 719-6953Email: district53@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Dennis Murray
Phone: (614) 644-6011Fax: (614) 719-6980Email: district80@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Matthew Dolan
Phone: (614) 644-5088Fax: (614) 719-6998Email: district98@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Deborah Newcomb
Phone: (614) 466-1405Fax: (614) 719-6999Email: district99@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Dave Hall
Phone: (614) 466-2994Fax: (614) 719-6997Email: district97@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Mark Okey
Phone: (614) 466-1464Fax: (614) 719-3961Email: district61@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Margaret Ruhl
Phone: (614) 466-1431Fax: (614) 719-6990Email: district90@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Raymond Pryor
Phone: (614) 644-7928Fax: (614) 719-6985Email: district85@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative W. Carlton Weddington
Phone: (614) 466-5343Fax: (614) 719-3581Email: district27@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative James Zehringer
Phone: (614) 466-6344Fax: (614) 719-3977Email: district77@ohr.state.oh.us
For more information, contact AKC's Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720; or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Ban on Dog Auctions
Check this out this link from today's Columbus Dispatch.
http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/06/11/AUCTIONBAN.ART_ART_06-11-09_B1_T8E55KC.html?adsec=politics&sid=101
http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/06/11/AUCTIONBAN.ART_ART_06-11-09_B1_T8E55KC.html?adsec=politics&sid=101
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Attention: Update
Today the bill is in meeting for 'sponsor testimony' and then the real hearing will be scheduled. But with only 2 days left in this session, June 11 and June 18, for committee meetings one of these dates willbe picked. It is essential that you get in contact with the committeemembers and your representatives so they can express their position to thecommittee members.If you need a recap on the bill go to:http://www.legislat?ure.state.?oh.us/bills. cfm?ID=128_ SB_95
We need help in Ohio.? SB 95 is being sponsored tomorrow in Ohio.?
http://www.legislat?ure.state.oh.us/bills. cfm?ID=128_ SB_95
You can see there is a lot to be upset about, but here are a couple steamers.(No person shall....II) Breed a dog that is less than eighteen months of age or?Line 702 -- KK)
No person shall....Dock a dog's tail, crop a dog's ear, remove a dog's??claws, or debark a dog. Tail docking, ear cropping, the removal of??a dog's claws, or debarking shall only be conducted by a licensed?veterinarian.?
No person shall...:(line 708 -- MM) Keep a dog in an enclosure, crate, or cage that includes?exposed metal caging without a protective plastic or rubber???
And this one:No person... shall????(Line 700 -- JJ) Permit a dog to have more than one litter per calendar year;
Please let the following senators know that bills about veterinary care should not be written by non-veterinarians and that skipping seasons is hard on the uterus and should be a decision made by the breeder and their veterinarian, not the HSUS.The sponsors are Cates and Hughes.? The others listed are committee members.?
Please call AND write them tomorrow.? Snail mail makes more of an impact than email.
Some of the contacts have changed. Here are the correct ones:
Definitely Hughes and Cates, but also Carey, Stewart, Grendell, Seitz,Wagoner, Miller, Turner and Fedor are on that committee. Call early in themorning and you'll likely get an aide to pass on your message.
Senator Gary Cates Senate BuildingRoom #132, First FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215 Telephone: 614/466-8072 Email: SD04@senate. state.oh. usHometown: West Chester
Senator Jim HughesRoom #038, Ground FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614/466-5981Email: SD16@senate. state.oh. usHometown: Columbus
John Carey Senate BuildingRoom #127, First FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614/466-8156Email: SD17@senate. state.oh. usHometown: Wellston
Jimmy Stewart Senate BuildingRoom #040, Ground FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215 Telephone: 614/466-8076Email: SD20@senate. state.oh. usHometown: Albany
Tim GrendellSenate Building Room #042, Ground FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614/644-7718Email: SD18@senate. state.oh. us Hometown: Chesterland
Bill SeitzSenate BuildingRoom #143, First FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614/466-8068Email: SD08@senate. state.oh. us Hometown: Cincinnati
Mark WagonerSenate BuildingRoom #129, First FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614/466-8060Email: SD02@senate. state.oh. usHometown: Toledo
Teresa FedorRoom #051, Ground FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614/466-5204Email: fedoroffice@ maild.sen. state.oh. usHometown: Toledo
Ray MillerRoom #228, Second FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614/466-5131Email: rmiller@maild. sen.state.?oh.us
Nina TurnerSenate BuildingRoom #226, Second FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614/466-4583Email: senatorturner@ maild.sen. state.oh. us Hometown: Cleveland
We need help in Ohio.? SB 95 is being sponsored tomorrow in Ohio.?
http://www.legislat?ure.state.oh.us/bills. cfm?ID=128_ SB_95
You can see there is a lot to be upset about, but here are a couple steamers.(No person shall....II) Breed a dog that is less than eighteen months of age or?Line 702 -- KK)
No person shall....Dock a dog's tail, crop a dog's ear, remove a dog's??claws, or debark a dog. Tail docking, ear cropping, the removal of??a dog's claws, or debarking shall only be conducted by a licensed?veterinarian.?
No person shall...:(line 708 -- MM) Keep a dog in an enclosure, crate, or cage that includes?exposed metal caging without a protective plastic or rubber???
And this one:No person... shall????(Line 700 -- JJ) Permit a dog to have more than one litter per calendar year;
Please let the following senators know that bills about veterinary care should not be written by non-veterinarians and that skipping seasons is hard on the uterus and should be a decision made by the breeder and their veterinarian, not the HSUS.The sponsors are Cates and Hughes.? The others listed are committee members.?
Please call AND write them tomorrow.? Snail mail makes more of an impact than email.
Some of the contacts have changed. Here are the correct ones:
Definitely Hughes and Cates, but also Carey, Stewart, Grendell, Seitz,Wagoner, Miller, Turner and Fedor are on that committee. Call early in themorning and you'll likely get an aide to pass on your message.
Senator Gary Cates Senate BuildingRoom #132, First FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215 Telephone: 614/466-8072 Email: SD04@senate. state.oh. usHometown: West Chester
Senator Jim HughesRoom #038, Ground FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614/466-5981Email: SD16@senate. state.oh. usHometown: Columbus
John Carey Senate BuildingRoom #127, First FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614/466-8156Email: SD17@senate. state.oh. usHometown: Wellston
Jimmy Stewart Senate BuildingRoom #040, Ground FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215 Telephone: 614/466-8076Email: SD20@senate. state.oh. usHometown: Albany
Tim GrendellSenate Building Room #042, Ground FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614/644-7718Email: SD18@senate. state.oh. us Hometown: Chesterland
Bill SeitzSenate BuildingRoom #143, First FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614/466-8068Email: SD08@senate. state.oh. us Hometown: Cincinnati
Mark WagonerSenate BuildingRoom #129, First FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614/466-8060Email: SD02@senate. state.oh. usHometown: Toledo
Teresa FedorRoom #051, Ground FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614/466-5204Email: fedoroffice@ maild.sen. state.oh. usHometown: Toledo
Ray MillerRoom #228, Second FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614/466-5131Email: rmiller@maild. sen.state.?oh.us
Nina TurnerSenate BuildingRoom #226, Second FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614/466-4583Email: senatorturner@ maild.sen. state.oh. us Hometown: Cleveland
Friday, June 5, 2009
Delegates to consider revised AVMA ear crop, tail dock policy
AVMA delegates will revisit the Association's policy opposing cosmetic ear crops and tail docks on dogs.Resolutions about a potential addition to the AVMA House of Delegates advisory panel, use of random-source animals, judicious use of antimicrobials, and cosmetic surgeries on dogs will be considered at the HOD regular annual session in Seattle, July 9-10. The resolutions were submitted by the May 8 deadline. At press time, the Executive Board was scheduled to make its recommendations to the HOD on the resolutions at its June 4-6 meeting. Resolution 1, submitted by the House Advisory CommitteeAdd American Association of Zoo Veterinarians Representation to AVMA House Advisory Panel"RESOLVED, that the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) add the American Association of Zoo Veterinarians representation to the House Advisory Panel." The advisory panel is currently made up of representatives of eight member organizations: the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians; Food and Drug Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Department of Homeland Security; National Assembly of State Animal Health Officials; National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians; and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection and Food Safety and Inspection services. Advisory panel members do not vote on HOD actions, but instead, offer expert advice on a broad range of veterinary-related issues as needed. Even though the size of the AAZV membership is too small to meet the membership requirements for being a constituent allied organization in the HOD, the HAC believes the group is an important informational resource. Zoo veterinarians protect the health of many nondomestic species as well as contribute to public health by helping prevent zoonotic diseases from spreading. They also see to the welfare of the animals in zoo collections, the HAC explained. "Adding the American Association of Zoo Veterinarians as an advisory panel member would give a voice to this valuable sector of our profession," the HAC wrote in the resolution background. "The House of Delegates would benefit from such an addition to the advisory panel when a resolution is under debate and zoo expertise is required." Resolution 2, submitted by the House Advisory CommitteeRevise Policy on Use of Random-Source Dogs and Cats for Research, Testing, and Education"RESOLVED, that the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) revise its policy on the Use of Random-Source Dogs and Cats for Research, Testing, and Education to indicate opposition to the use of live animals procured from animal shelters or the use of live animals procured from dealers who deliver such animals from animal shelters, as noted below (deleted text is indicated by strikethrough, added text is indicated by underline)-" Use of Random-Source Dogs and Cats for Research, Testing, and Education(EB 1983; revised 6/91, 4/00, 11/07) While the use of animals The carefully controlled use of random-source dogs and cats contributes greatly to improving the health and welfare of both animals and human beings Therefore, the AVMA believes there is ample justification for prudent and humane use of random-source dogs and cats in research, testing, and education, provided that: * The institution conducting such research, testing, or education has met all legal requirements and guidelines pertaining to the acquisition, care, and use of dogs and cats for these purposes; * The investigators have thoughtfully examined the need for such dogs and cats, appropriately justified the use of the species, and carefully determined the minimum number required to meet the needs of the protocol; * Adequate safeguards are used to ensure that only appropriately screened dogs and cats are obtained legally; and * Preventive measures are taken to optimize the health of dogs and cats used in research, testing, and education that no live dogs or cats shall be procured from an animal shelter, or a dealer who provides live animals from an animal shelter, for the purpose of such research, testing, and education (with the exception of dogs/cats which may be used by students in veterinary programs for harmless procedures). Random-source animals can include dogs and cats obtained from shelters, breeders, individuals who offer their own pets, pet stores, and class B dealers, according to the resolution background. Resolution 2 focuses only on live animals, and specifically, live animals originating from animal shelters. The HAC explained in its statement about the proposal that the AVMA should not support a policy whereby animals that are abandoned, neglected, or lost are given over to a research or testing facility instead of a loving home or, where necessary, are euthanized. The present AVMA policy on random-source use runs counter to the public's concept of an animal shelter and may impede the surrender of pets to such a facility, the HAC added. In the resolution background, the term "pound seizure" is described as being commonly used to denote pets originating from an animal shelter as the source for research or testing. It is illegal in 17 states and Washington, D.C. "Representing itself as the authority on animal welfare issues, the AVMA should adopt a policy which is more sensitive to the issues surrounding the source of live dogs and cats used for research, testing, and education," the HAC background states. Examples of the "harmless procedures" mentioned in the resolution are physical examinations, spaying/neutering, bandaging, ultrasonography, and radiology, the background states. Resolution 3, submitted by the New Jersey VMA, Association of Avian Veterinarians, and Washington State VMAJudicious Therapeutic Use of Antimicrobials Policy"RESOLVED, that the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) revise the Judicious Therapeutic Use of Antimicrobials Policy as indicated below (deletions are struckthrough):" The following is the only sentence in the policy with a proposed change. Judicious use of antimicrobials, when under the direction of a veterinarian, should meet all requirements of a veterinarian-client-patient relationship. As organizational policy, the AVMA should have the clearly stated, unequivocal concept that veterinarians are the gatekeepers and decision makers regarding judicious use of antimicrobials, the resolution sponsors explained in the background. "There should be no exclusion in policy that suggests or implies that judicious use is only appropriate when under the direction of a veterinarian," the groups stated. Veterinarians' education, knowledge, experience, and licensure render them as the only individuals entrusted with ensuring judicious use of antimicrobials, they continued. "To state that the judicious use only applies when such use is under the direction of a veterinarian suggests tacit approval of non-judicious use," they wrote. If the HOD accepts the revised policy, the new policy would be expected to supersede and be applied to all AVMA policies in which similar wording and/or intent is present, the groups wrote. Resolution 4, submitted by the Utah VMARevise Policy on Ear Cropping and Tail Docking of Dogs"RESOLVED, that the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) revise the AVMA policy on Ear Cropping and Tail Docking of Dogs as indicated below (deletions are stuckthrough and additions are underlined):" Ear Cropping and Tail Docking of DogsThe AVMA opposes ear cropping and tail docking of dogs when done solely for cosmetic purposes. Although cosmetic ear cropping and tail docking of dogs has little or no therapeutic basis, it is a procedure that is condoned by the American Kennel Club and by many members of society. It is imperative that the procedures be performed by trained, licensed, and caring veterinarians using current standard of care. The AVMA encourages the elimination of ear cropping and tail docking from in breed standards. Members of the AVMA will conform to all state mandates concerning the procedures. Resolution 4 gives the HOD a chance to weigh in on the recently revised AVMA policy. In November 2008, the Executive Board amended the policy to state that the AVMA opposes these procedures when done solely for cosmetic purposes. In addition, the amended policy encourages the elimination of ear cropping and tail docking from breed standards. The Utah VMA proposes amending the policy to, among other things, retract AVMA opposition to the procedures. The Utah VMA writes in the resolution background that the Executive Board action was made without input from the HOD. The board was within its purview to do so, but the revised policy took a "much more hard line slant" than earlier iterations on the matter, which included warnings about the risks of cosmetic ear crops and tail docks, the Utah VMA wrote. Society has mixed feelings about the procedures, which are minor surgeries, relatively safe, and cause little discomfort to the animals, the Utah VMA continued. Moreover, public demand for ear crops and tail docks is high, and many AVMA members continue performing the procedures. "The issue for the AVMA is not to decide what surgery pet owners want or do not want for their pets, but rather to be sure all surgical procedures performed by licensed veterinarians are with proper protocol and proper postoperative care," the association wrote. Veterinarians are not compelled to perform the procedures, the Utah VMA added, and the resolution indicates only that these procedures should be performed by licensed professionals who are willing and able to do them. The four resolutions and their accompanying statements are posted on the AVMA Web site (_www.avma.org_ (http://www.avma.org/) ) in the About the AVMA section under House of Delegates 2009 Annual Session Agenda Items. - R. Scott
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Betty Salman sharing info:
Sen. Hughes' aide, Andy Bowsher, indicated yesterday that SB 95 is at least temporarily sidelined while they deal with budgetary issues. HB 124, however, is still moving right along.
CA SB 250, Radical Tactics
Subject: CA SB 250, Radical tactics A person with the Concerned Dog Owners of California stated yesterday that the Animal Radicals hired a call center to contact the few Senators who had abstained on SB 250 the day before. The offices of these remaining Senators were inundated with telemarketers calling with false names and urging a "Yes" vote. The result of this tactic was a call ratio of 50-1. A Senator's staff member confirmed this with another individual, saying they were receiving a lot of Robo calls and didn't know where they were coming from or if the names were even real. This odiferous activity just puts more pressure on reputable dog breeders, rescuers and pet owners to stand up and be counted on legislative matters! The bill passed when it was voted on the next day. Since this tactic worked for them in CA, expect the ARs to adapt it for other states.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Where Do Humane Society Donations Really Go
Where Humane Society Donations Really GoPosted: 4:03 pm EDT May 14, 2009Updated: 6:50 pm EDT May 14, 2009*ATLANTA
A Channel 2 investigation is looking into millions of dollars in donations given to the Humane Society of the United States. A national consumer organization says the society solicits pet-lovers for money, but little to none of that money ever goes to help local shelters.
Critics tell Channel 2 Action News reporter Amanda Rosseter that this isn't just consumers misunderstanding who they are giving to -- but an organization actively misleading donors to get money. "They do their marketing very well, that's for sure," said Trey Burley of PAWS Atlanta.
Critics say the national organization takes advantage of people who think they are giving to local shelters. DeKalb's "PAWS" shelter says there is no regular funding help from the $100 million HSUS budget. "I think that some of the folks who donate to the national organization may be under the false pretense that that money is going to a local cause," said Burley. While the HSUS does work to stop puppy mills, it also gets media coverage and donations doing it. But the puppies then go to local shelters who have to pay and care for them. "They may initialize the resources for a rescue, but again the animals go to a shelter somewhere in the country," said Richard Rice, VP of the Atlanta Humane Society. Critics said HSUS also takes advantage of high-profile events. After hurricane Katrina, HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle promised on national TV to reunite pets with their owners -- and raised $34 million for the cause. But public disclosures of where that money went add up to less than $7 million. The Louisiana attorney general launched an 18-month-long investigation, and then ended it, when HSUS offered to build the state a new shelter.
The HSUS annual report for 2007 showed $120 million in revenue, including $5.4 million just from online donors. Then there's $112 million in expenses -- most of which appears to have gone to legislation for animal rights bills. The list includes raccoons, mice, wild horses, burros and primates. The center for consumer freedom says all worthy causes, but HSUS shouldn't mislead to get money. So where does all the money go? "It goes to lobbying, it goes to political contributions, it goes to pay huge staff salaries and benefits," said David Martosko with Center for Consumer Freedom. Channel 2 Action News went to a local HSUS meeting to find out. The two hour discussion was about activist plans and lobbying.
The Georgia director for the HSUS agrees that's mostly what she does. "I think that in all of our literature, it is very explicit as to what our campaigns are and what we are doing," said Cheryl McAuliffe, Georgia Director for HSUS. "We help where we can and focus on our programs, which are national and international." McAuliffe said there are just too many local shelters to help. "I always tell people, contribute to your local shelter first," said McAuliffe.
When asked how much her budget is for the state of Georgia, McAuliffe said she didn't have a budget and neither did other states. McAuliffe said all money is controlled from headquarters in Washington, D.C. HSUS later contacted Channel 2 about their work during hurricane Katrina. They say all of the money they collected has been spent since the initial crisis on helping Katrina families and pets.
A Channel 2 investigation is looking into millions of dollars in donations given to the Humane Society of the United States. A national consumer organization says the society solicits pet-lovers for money, but little to none of that money ever goes to help local shelters.
Critics tell Channel 2 Action News reporter Amanda Rosseter that this isn't just consumers misunderstanding who they are giving to -- but an organization actively misleading donors to get money. "They do their marketing very well, that's for sure," said Trey Burley of PAWS Atlanta.
Critics say the national organization takes advantage of people who think they are giving to local shelters. DeKalb's "PAWS" shelter says there is no regular funding help from the $100 million HSUS budget. "I think that some of the folks who donate to the national organization may be under the false pretense that that money is going to a local cause," said Burley. While the HSUS does work to stop puppy mills, it also gets media coverage and donations doing it. But the puppies then go to local shelters who have to pay and care for them. "They may initialize the resources for a rescue, but again the animals go to a shelter somewhere in the country," said Richard Rice, VP of the Atlanta Humane Society. Critics said HSUS also takes advantage of high-profile events. After hurricane Katrina, HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle promised on national TV to reunite pets with their owners -- and raised $34 million for the cause. But public disclosures of where that money went add up to less than $7 million. The Louisiana attorney general launched an 18-month-long investigation, and then ended it, when HSUS offered to build the state a new shelter.
The HSUS annual report for 2007 showed $120 million in revenue, including $5.4 million just from online donors. Then there's $112 million in expenses -- most of which appears to have gone to legislation for animal rights bills. The list includes raccoons, mice, wild horses, burros and primates. The center for consumer freedom says all worthy causes, but HSUS shouldn't mislead to get money. So where does all the money go? "It goes to lobbying, it goes to political contributions, it goes to pay huge staff salaries and benefits," said David Martosko with Center for Consumer Freedom. Channel 2 Action News went to a local HSUS meeting to find out. The two hour discussion was about activist plans and lobbying.
The Georgia director for the HSUS agrees that's mostly what she does. "I think that in all of our literature, it is very explicit as to what our campaigns are and what we are doing," said Cheryl McAuliffe, Georgia Director for HSUS. "We help where we can and focus on our programs, which are national and international." McAuliffe said there are just too many local shelters to help. "I always tell people, contribute to your local shelter first," said McAuliffe.
When asked how much her budget is for the state of Georgia, McAuliffe said she didn't have a budget and neither did other states. McAuliffe said all money is controlled from headquarters in Washington, D.C. HSUS later contacted Channel 2 about their work during hurricane Katrina. They say all of the money they collected has been spent since the initial crisis on helping Katrina families and pets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
