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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
