|
Legislative
News
-- Carol Zielke, Legislative Liaison, Cielcollie@aol.com
January 1, 2007 Louisville Info
The text of the Anti-Pet Ordinance can be found at www.louisville-pets.com . Some of the provisions include:
++ requirement for written permission to sell, advertise, or offer to
sell ANY animal
++ requirement for written approval of any enclosure for an unaltered
dog
++ provisions to require spay/neuter of any animal impounded by Animal
Control
++ humane treatment provisions based on dogs are applied to all
animals; a rabbit kept in a proper wire hutch instead of in a crate
with a wooden floor can be seized and the owner charged with cruelty
++ "irritating or perturbing" anyone is a violation, whether it is the
animal owner or the animal that is found to be "irritating or
perturbing"
++ two violations within 5 years result in forfeiture of all animals
and a prohibition against owning animals for 2 years
This is the most restrictive, anti-pet law in the country. For those of
you who want to help, you can do the following:
Go to www.louisville-pets.com; there is a list of e-mails at the bottom
of the page. Write a message to the Council Members asking them WHY
they voted this horrible piece of legislation through, and let them
know what you think of it!
Write or phone the Mayor (Jerry Abramson) at mayor -at- louisvilleky
-dot- gov or 502-574-2003 and ask him to VETO this ordinance. Simply
not signing is not enough -- it will go into law without his signature
on Friday, January 5th.
DONATE to the LKC Legislative Fund. There is a paypal link at the
bottom of www.louisville-pets.com , or you can send your donation to
royalton -at- earthlink -dot- net .
MANY THANKS from the pet owners of Louisville, KY!
IMPORTANT NOTES:
The January Fun Match that the LKC holds has been canceled for this
year. It is hoped that the match can be rescheduled for the spring, at
a venue outside of Louisville.
People should be aware that the new anti-pet law affects ONLY
Louisville, KY, not the entire state.
The Kentuckiana Cluster of Dog Shows will be held in Louisville in
March 2007. The LKC is looking into moving the Cluster next year
possibly to Lexington. This year, exhibitors are asked to attend the
show, but spend their money outside of Louisville. There will be a big
ad campaign to let the merchants of Louisville know why dog-people are
spending their money elsewhere.
There is a mailing list that has been set up for the purpose of keeping
everyone informed and united in the ongoing fight against bad
legislation in KY--including Louisville. The list is KYDogOwners -at-
yahoogroups -dot- com and is open to ALL pet owners. People can go to
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/KYDogOwners/ to join.
Karen Brinkley
Legislative Liaison, Responsible Dog Owners of Louisville December 30, 2006 Ashland City Council Mtg 1-2-07 to Consider AR Law
Council to consider animal-rights law
Volunteers step up to help regulate; Ashland cops busy with other tasks
By John Darling
for the Mail Tribune
ASHLAND — Boosted by a big e-mail campaign, a proposed law to ban the chaining
of dogs for more than two hours will come before the City Council Jan. 2, but
because the city doesn't have the staff to enforce it, animal rights supporters
say they will take on the job and report violations.
Animal rights activist and writer Barbara E. Rosen pioneered the ordinance,
which would restrict tethering of dogs for no more than an hour and no more than
three times a day and mandates that dog pens have a minimum 97 square feet of
space.
"This is just a bread crumb for animals and its need is so obvious," said Rosen.
"We're just coming out of the dark ages about treating animals as family
members."
The proposed ordinance addresses an array of cruelties to domesticated,
vertebrate animals, including calling for no killing or injuring of an animal,
and no taking healthy animals to the vet to be put down.
In addition, abandoning animals would be banned; animals must be supplied
adequate nutritive food daily and water in tip-proof containers and must have
sufficient space to exercise for 75 percent of the time or be taken on walks for
at least 90 minutes a day. Animals outside must have protection from sunlight
and from cold below 40 degrees, with bedding. If tethered, dogs must have water,
shade, dry ground and collars or harnesses that can't injure or choke them.
The rules about tethering and pens govern only the owner's residence. City law
already prohibits tying animals in public places, such as out front of
restaurants and bars.
The city's main concern with the law is that there is no staff to enforce it,
said City Manager Martha Bennett. Police and code enforcement officers are busy
with other tasks.
However, Rosen has assured the city that a group of volunteers are willing and
ready to observe and file complaints, then police would issue citations, said
city attorney Michael Franell.
The city has received a large number of e-mails, almost all in support of the
law, he said.
Rosen, an activist who has protested and passed petitions while wearing animal
costumes, wanted the tethering law to cover goats, sheep and horses, but city
officials, because there are so few such farm animals in town and no detention
facilities for them, made it apply only to dogs.
Rosen wanted dog pens to be at least 250 square feet, saying anything less would
be a "mere pittance." Rosen argued that dogs should have pen space 75 percent of
the time to prevent people from satisfying the law by putting dogs in pens for a
few minutes, then going to work and leaving them in small travel cages where
they "suffer intensely." She also worked to have cats included in the pen
language so they wouldn't have a "horrible life" in pens, but the city deleted
that. It also wrote the tethering section so it didn't include cats.
"I hate that," said Rosen. "The whole thing has been compromised. No family
member should be tied outside. We're trying to get away from the chronic tying
up of animals. I love when people walk their animals. People can easily have a
fenced yard or an electronic fence. But I'm happy with the one hour maximum on
tethers and it's enforceable." Rosen compared the 97 square foot minimum pen
size to solitary confinement, adding, "we don't even treat murderers that way."
In her talks with the six council members, Rosen said she found two who feel the
proposed law would be a "time drain" for the city and would prefer the county
continue to be in charge of animal code enforcement.
However, Rosen said county enforcement is in response to complaints and is "not
adequate." State law — ORS 167.300 — is general, defining exercise, for
instance, as "adequate space for exercise necessary for the health of the
animal," she said, adding that such vague language is unenforceable.
Rosen disputed the idea that the law would consume city time and resources,
noting that most cited animal owners comply with the law promptly.
The proposed ordinance is based on many others from around the nation and
represents a growing trend of reducing animal cruelty — one that backers hope to
apply county-wide if it works in Ashland, said Rosen.
Most cities have an animal control department to enforce such rules, said
Franell, noting that Ashland is too small to have one, so it's up to volunteers.
"If citizen participation wanes, it would be unenforceable," he said.
The council meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m. Jan. 2 in council chambers at 1175
E. Main St.
http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2006/1226/local/stories/animal-ordinance.htm
They say that they've only gotten emails in favor of the anti-tethering,
anti-penning law. Might not be a bad idea for a few of us to send emails on the
other side. Also forbids euthanasia of healthy pets (what if the dog is
aggressive or a biter?)
Contact info for city is at http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=1611
Mayor
morrisoj @ ashland.or.us
- - - -
Council Position 1 - - -
Alice Hardesty
ahardesty88 @ charter.net
- - - -
Council Position 2 - - -
Alex Amarotico
alex @ standingstonebrewing.com
- - - -
Council Position 3 - - -
Cate Hartzell
cate @ mind.net
- - - -
Council Position 4 - - -
Kate Jackson
katejackson@opendoor.com
- - - -
Council Position 5 - - -
Russ Silbiger
russcity@zintech.org
- - - -
Council Position 6 - - -
David Chapman
davidchapman@ashlandhome.net December 21, 2006 Pit bull ban dropped in Richland, approved in Royal City
Thursday, December 21, 2006 · Last updated 8:08 a.m. PT
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
RICHLAND, Wash. -- The Richland City Council has dropped a move to define pit bulls
as potentially dangerous, while the council in Royal City approved a ban on pit bulls
and Rottweilers even in cars passing through town.
The Richland council voted unanimously Tuesday night to reject a proposed ordinance
that had passed its first reading in November 4 to 2 after a rental property owner
said a neighbor's pit bull was scaring away potential tenants.
"I don't see where amending the (dangerous dog) ordinance will gain anything," said
council member Edward Revell, who voted in favor of the proposal Nov. 21.
"We all have our fears," Revell said, "but I don't think there's any evidence to
support (pit bulls) are any worse."
Mayor Rob Welch, who also changed his stance, said opponents convinced him that a
breed-specific ordinance would be unwarranted.
"At this point in time, I think the community has spoken," Welch said.
In Royal City, population about 1,900, the council voted to banish Rottweilers as
well as pit bulls effective Jan. 12, including dogs used by the State Patrol or in
motor vehicles passing through the Grant County town southwest of Moses Lake.
Violators would be subject to a fine and the dog could be impounded.
Pet owners made the same arguments as in Richland, but to no avail. Two people
brought their pit bull to the meeting to show how well-behaved it was, only to be
told by Mayor Justin Jenks to remove the dog from the council chambers.
Citing a Web site that listed 12 dog deaths blamed on Rottweilers and pit bulls in
the last five months, none in Royal City, Jenks said he wanted to prevent any such
occurrence locally.
"I can look anything up on the Internet and find the answers I want," retorted Cindy
Bartlett, a pit bull owner. "Don't make a family get rid of a family pet. You should
be outlawing dogs who have bit people."
----------------------------------------------------------
-------
"The citizen who stands by his legal rights in the face of lawless government
misconduct
upholds the law and renders a service not only to himself but the public generally."
Justice Sanders, (defending the right to forcibly resist false arrest), writing in
dissent, State v. Valentine, 935 P.2d 1294. WA Supreme Court, 1997.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ORABS
December 20, 2006 Louisville, KY passes new ordinance
On December 20, 2006, after 13 months of consideration and much heated debate, the Louisville Metropolitan Council passed 100 pages of revised dog ordinances. While the effort was undertaken following the fatal maulings of a child and an elderly man and was generally expected to include pit bull and other breed restrictions in the City, the adopted ordinances contained no limitations on dog breeds. Instead, literally at the 11th hour, the ordinance was rewritten to drop BSL and includes mandatory microchipping and $50 annual fees for *ALL* intact animals, rather than a proposed $100 intact pit bull fee. Unaltered dog license costs will remain at $9/each.
In addition, the new law includes the following additional provisions:
Pet limits--3 dogs on up to .5 acre; 7 dogs on up to 2 acres and no limit on tracts greater than 2 acres.
New tethering restrictions
Revaccination/relicensing requirement for all dogs/cats removed from a kennel or cattery.
Breeder licensing.
Prohibits use of invisible fencing for unaltered dogs.
Requires 6 foot fence with one foot underground, 4 foot leash, and microchip for unaltered dogs.
Mandates spay/neuter for any unaltered dog that is impounded for any reason before the owner can reclaim the dog.
Requires vets to report rabies vaccination information to Metro Animal Services (MAS) so that dogs which got a rabies vax but not a license can be impounded.
Allows dogs to be impounded for "irritating" or "perturbing" ANYONE.
Prohibits ownership of ANY animals by anyone who has two violations within 5 years-no matter how minor.
Requires reporting of all litters, including brief description of all puppies.
Requires reporting of all sales of all dogs, with buyers name & address to be sent to MAS, even if buyer is not local.
Requires dog license # to be published in paper in any sale advertisement.
In order to enforce this series of expensive and very intrusive regulations, the city of Louisville requires local veterinarians supply dog owner - dog information to identify intact dogs receiving rabies vaccinations. Vets outside the city's limits will undoubtedly see increased business as people avoid this "gotcha" database. Florida and Texas Veterinary Medical Associations blocked such statewide data collections in their states in past. Unfortunately, in 2006, the Virginia Medical Veterinary Medical Association and certain dog owners supported such a statewide pet owner information reporting law.
Pennsylvania has proposed extensive new rules for that state's dog breeders. These appear to closely mimic the Pet Animal Welfare Statute of 2005 (PAWS) in their design and potential scope. Ohio also has a troublesome dog statute pending, while California localities continue their assaults on pet ownership and Virginia animal rightists' agenda grows. These assaults will only intensify in 2007. SAOVA's website has been updated to reflect the 2006 election outcomes http://saova.org/results.html and a new SAOVA News and Updates page added http://saova.org/news.html
As you prepare your Holiday gift list, please consider supporting SAOVA's pro-active animal owner advocacy via a website PayPal donation. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators
http://saova.org
Frustrate the Anti's - Take your children to the
Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey Circus and a Rodeo
December 9, 2006 Louisville City Council Dec 11, 06
**please cross-post as appropriate**
Heads up, dog owners!
December 11 at 3:00 the Louisville, KY, City Council meets and will
once again consider the 8th draft of a 100+ page long dangerous dog
ordinance. The over 100 pages include flaws and failures almost too
numerous to track, including BSL, an assault on the due process
rights of dog owners, a truly nutty limit law, and much, much more.
http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=2990
http://www.naiatrust.org/actionalertlouisville.htm
If you're debating a last minute phone call, email or fax to the
members of the Louisville City Council, please take a moment to weigh
in against discrimination and in favor of the preservation of civil
rights for dog owners. (Contact info for Louisville City Council
members is in the AKC alert, link above December 8, 2006 Tacoma City Council meeting Dec 12, 06
December 12: Tacoma, WA, City Council will meet to consider a
mandatory spay-neuter proposal --
"[City Councilmember Julie Anderson] knows it's "an encroachment on
people's rights." Even so, she insists tough regulations are "really
necessary until we get the pet population under control."
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/6273788p-5473733c.html
Folks: there is no such thing as a temporary encroachment on the
Bill of Rights, and there are far more effective ways to address the
issue of shelter populations.
Further information, along with contact info for the Tacoma City
Councilmembers:
http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=3067
Please let them hear from you.
October 29, 2006 HSUS Endorsed Candidates in State Legislature
Dear Washington Friends,
Yesterday, the Political Action Committee of the Humane Society of
the U.S. (HSUS), the animal rightist's flagship lobbying organization, added thirty-nine (39) names to its slate of endorsed candidates for the Olympia legislature. The entire list may be seen
at http://saova.org/Washington6.html
HSUS and its allies continually exhort legislators to pass federal
and state laws that restrict or eliminate hunting, fishing, purebred
pets, livestock ownership, circuses, rodeos, medical research and similar activities. If these things are important to you, I strongly urge that you consider voting for the *OPPONENTS* of these state politicians.
Senate
Jerome Delvin (R–8) - NNO
Derek Kilmer (D-26)
Tracey Eide (D-30)
Pam Roach (R–31)
Darlene Fairley (D-32)
Karen Keiser (D-33)
Erick Poulson (D-34)
Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-36) - NNO
Adam Kline (D-37)
Ed Murray (D-43)*
Ken Jacobsen (D-46)
Rodney Tom (D-48)*
House
Al O'Brien (D-1) - NNO
Mark Ericks (D-1)
Tom Campbell (R-2)
Timm Ormsby (D-3) - NNO
Edward Foote (D-4)*
Don Barlow (D-6)*
Tim Knue (D-10)*
Bob Hasegawa (D-11)
Zach Hudgins (D-11) - NNO
Deb Wallace (D-17)
Richard Curtis (R-18)
Julie McCord (D-18)*
Sam Hunt (D-22)
Sherry Appleton (D-23)
Lynn Kessler (D-24) - NNO
Kevin Van De Wege (D-24)*
Dawn Morrell (D-25)
Larry Seaquist (D-26)*
Patricia Lantz (D-26)
Jeannie Darneille (D-27)
Troy Kelley (D-28)*
Tami Green (D-28)
Steve Kirby (D-29) - NNO
Mark Miloscia (D-30)
Dan Roach (D-31)
Ruth Kagi (D-32)
Shay Schual-Berke (D-33)
Dave Upthegrove (D-33) - NNO
Kathy Haigh (D-35)
Randy Neatherlin (R-35)
Mary Lou Dickerson (D-36) - NNO
Eric Pettigrew (D-37)
Judy Clibborn (D-41)
Fred Jarrett (R-41)
Frank Chopp (D-43)
Jamie Pedersen (D-43)*
Hans Dunshee (D-44)
John Lovick (D-44)
Larry Springer (D-45)
Geoff Simpson (D-47)
Pat Sullivan (D-47)
Ross Hunter (D-48)
Deb Eddy (D-48)*
Jim Moeller (D-49)
* non-incumbent
NNO denotes No November Opponent
Sincerely,
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators
Visit our new website at http://saova.org
October 28, 2006 HSUS's October Surprise - Anti's Target House Members at a Cost
Dear SAOVA Friends.
Animal Rightists' late October reports to the government indicate that they've targeted five House members for defeat and literally spent one of their treasuries dry in this effort.
The Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance (SAOVA) website at http://saova.org/ARPACS.html contains this statement, "Third quarter PAC reports occasionally contain surprises, such as heavy direct expenditures designed to defeat a targeted candidate."
Careful scrutiny of Federal Election Commission filings since October 17, 2006 by the HSUS's Humane USA PAC and its wholly owned and controlled Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF) PAC indicates that Humane USA's balance has been reduced to less than $1000 and that HSLF has spent very significant sums on direct mail, radio and newspaper advertising to defeat targeted House members that are firm friends of sportsmen and animal owners. The vast majority of targeted opposition spending is aimed at Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM1) $155,000 and House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo (R-CA11) $107,000. This data is current through October 24, 2006. Two years ago, Humane USA PAC went into debt and spent money right up until election day, attempting to defeat pro-hunter, pro-animal owner candidates.
Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) October Political Donations and Direct "Independent" Expenditures
(Most HSUS endorsed and funded candidates listed below previously received campaign donations. Supplemental amounts less than $5000 aren't itemized.)
Northeast
CT4 Shays
NH2 Bass
NY20 Sweeney $14,800 (HSUS anti-horse slaughter bill author)
RI Senate Chafee
VT At-Large Welch
Mid-Atlantic
MD Senate Cardin
PA Senate Santorum (HSUS PAWS and PPA bill author)
PA3 English
PA6 Gerlach (HSUS PAWS bill author)
PA10 $3200 in direct opposition to Rep. Sherwood
NJ2 Ferguson
NJ5 Aronsohn (in addition, $3500 in direct opposition to Rep. Garrett)
Southeast
KY1 Whitfied (HSUS Puppy Protection Act author and anti-horse slaughter bill principal)
KY4 Davis
NC11 Shuler (in addition, $3700 direct opposition to Rep. Taylor)
TN9 Cohen
SC5 Spratt (HSUS anti-horse slaughter bill author)
Florida House 57 Culp
Texas
TX16 Reyes
TX25 Doggett
Midwest
IL8 Bean
IL10 Kirk
IL17 Hare
OH14 LaTourette
OH15 Pryce
Michigan Senate 60 Lipsey
Rockies
AZ8 Giffords
NM1 Madrid $55,000 (in addition, $100,000 in direct opposition to Rep. Wilson)
California
CA4 $7900 in direct opposition to Rep. Doolittle
CA11 McNerney (in addition, $107,000 in direct opposition to Rep. Pombo)
CA24 Gallegly $14,000 (HSUS anti-hunting bill author)
CA45 Bono
CA47 Miller
Northwest
OR4 DeFazio
WA2 Larsen
WA8 Reichert
If these messages from SAOVA have piqued your interest in this election and made you want to get to the polls to vote and take others with you, they've served their purpose. If you've already voted absentee, thank you. In addition to http://saova.org you may also find the following resources helpful http://www.pollster.com/
and http://www.pollster.com/mystery_pollster/on_waves_and_stability_part_ii_1.php
Sincerely,
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators
Visit our new website at http://saova.org
October 22, 2006 Puppy Mill Propaganda and Power 101
Sent to us by a friend. This is great background on what is currently happening in PA.
Puppy Mill Propaganda and Power 101
Pennsylvania article Part one of a series.....
http://givinuthefacts.blogspot.com/
October 19, 2006 Update in PA puppy mills
http://chatevo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2828
ANIMAL LAW COALITION
Pennsylvania Governor Recommends Sweeping Changes To Regulate Puppy Mills
October 17, 2006 : 12:00 AM
The Governor announced a plan today to crack down on the state's more than 1500 puppy mills that breed puppies in deplorable, cruel conditions.
Governor Ed Rendell announced, "'We have a very serious problem with the regulation and sale of dogs in Pennsylvania. The state has become known as the puppy mill capital of the country.'
Rendell proposed legislation that would:
* Strengthen criminal penalties related to the dog law and cruelty statutes;
* Provide the Dog Law Enforcement Bureau with the authority to issue civil penalties for violations of the dog law subject to administrative hearing for both licensed and unlicensed kennels;
* Allow the Bureau's special prosecutor to represent dog wardens in court with the approval of the local district attorney, just as Humane Societies can currently seek such approval for private representation;
* Allow dog wardens to seize dogs in distress;
* Require owners to pay for the care of dogs during pending cruelty cases, or forfeit ownership of the dogs;
* Require kennel owners to post a surety bond prior to receiving a license. When dogs are seized from unlicensed kennels, those kennels must post a surety bond prior to launching any appeal or other legal action; and
* Require that the Secretary of Agriculture revoke a kennel license from any kennel owner who is convicted of cruelty and shall not issue a kennel license to any person that has been convicted of cruelty in the past 10 years.
Governor Rendell's proposed regulatory changes include:
* Doubling cage sizes in all kennels with the exception of humane societies. This is widely viewed as a significant step to improve conditions in Pennsylvania's breeding facilities. Humane societies would be exempted because they provide only temporary shelter;
* Requiring that all dogs housed in kennels be exercised for 20 minutes per day;
* Creating more specific requirements for indoor and outdoor kennel facilities in order to detail numerous health, safety and welfare issues that must be considered in both instances. Currently, there are no separate regulations for outdoor facilities;
* Establishing more detailed specifications so that indoor and outdoor facilities provide dogs with proper shelter, temperature control, ventilation, air movement, lighting, bedding, sanitation, slope of ground and run and footing materials; and
* Creating more detailed record keeping requirements for kennel owners.
The governor also announced new appointments to the Dog Law Advisory Board. Earlier this year the governor fired every member of the Board. The new Board's first meeting is scheduled to take place next month. Most of the appointments appear to be breeders or farmers.
The governor's plan includes six new positions in the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement: special deputy secretary for dog law enforcement, special prosecutor for dog law enforcement, and a team comprised of four kennel compliance specialists, who will be dispatched throughout the state to enforce the kennel provisions of the dog law.
"We are taking strong steps to protect consumers, reputable breeders and kennels, and the defenseless animals whose health and welfare is at the heart of this important issue," Governor Rendell said. October 11, 2006 Rescind HEART: HEART Goes into Effect
PERMISSION TO CROSS POST
October 9, 2006
The Albuquerque Journal ran a story this morning about HEART going into effect tomorrow. This evening KOB-TV also ran a story about HEART going into effect. Earlier today I was contacted by KOAT-TV and did a phone interview for a segment that will run Tuesday morning about HEART (this was short notice from the morning team and there was no time to tape an interview). KOAT-TV wanted reaction about HEART. I raised issues about mismanagement by the city, the ineffectiveness of harsh laws elsewhere in the country, and plans to Rescind HEART. Please note that the city could have had a no-kill shelter without HEART, and could have done so years ago. What we are seeing is gross mismanagement by the current administration (mayor and city council). Just consider the number of animals that have been killed due to this mismanagement..
A friend told me that the segment I recorded about HEART with KOB-TV on Sep 17, finally aired on Sep 23. I missed it. Portions of my interview with KUNM about HEART ran in radio stories on Sep 15 and 18. The stories are available in the KUNM archives. It is going to take some time before the media is more responsive to our perspective on HEART. The Albuquerque Journal has not been willing to even publish letters in opposition to HEART. The "news" stories in the Journal are more like editorials that support HEART.
If anyone is willing to help work with the media, please contact me. Help is needed to plan press releases, develop forums for public debates, and to set up study sessions to educate the media.
Tomorrow evening I talk to a local group about HEART. This is part of the campaign to educate the public. More public awareness is needed before the next effort to Rescind HEART. I am willing to talk to any group about HEART. Please spread the word and help get me on the agenda for meetings or study sessions.
Last Friday I participated in a discussion with the mayor and manager of a local community. During the legislative session starting in January, HEART will become a statewide issue. It is necessary to develop political contacts. If you can help, please contact me. Elections are coming up and I am willing to help with meetings for any of the candidates.
Thanks for your help.
Ronald A. Gustafson
Chairman, Rescind HEART
ron.gustafson@worldnet.att.net
505-864-3515
http://www.icare-usa.org/
Founder, New Mexico Animal Control Forum
"Rational Thinking on Animal Control Issues for the State of New Mexico"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VCNM_Animal_Control_Forum/
October 7, 2006 Last Chance To Pass AETA This Year - Action Needed Now!
When a political cause is used to justify terror, violence, harassment, destruction and even murder, the cause itself becomes tainted grotesque and shameful. So it is with animal-rights extremism. More and more people are saying "no" to terrorists who hold legitimate animal interests hostage to extremist agendas.
On September 30, 2006 , by unanimous consent, the US Senate passed Senate Bill 3880, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), which strengthens the federal response to criminal activities conducted against organizations and individuals directly or indirectly related to animal ownership and care, "animal enterprises," as the bill calls them.
The bill now comes before the House Judiciary Committee and the House of Representatives as HR 4239. In order to become law this year, HR 4239 needs support now. Locate your US Representative in Washington or at their home district offices where they are likely to be until after the elections, and urge passage of the bill. http://capwiz.com/naiatrust/home/ A call or visit to their home office could make a big difference now.
We must say no to terrorist tactics that threaten our Constitutional ideals and certainly have no place in our efforts to promote responsible, legal animal interests. This is our last chance to pass AETA this year.
Among its actions, the bill would:
· Broaden the definition of "animal enterprise" to such private and commercial enterprises as animal shelters, breeders, pet stores, and furriers.
· Define "economic disruption" as losses or increased costs resulting from threats, acts of violence, property damage, trespass, harassment, or intimidation perpetrated against a person or entity on account of their relationship with an animal enterprise.
Contrary to a heavily waged Internet disinformation campaign fomented by animal rights groups claiming that this bill will override First Amendment protections, nothing could be further from the truth. Please note section (e) below. It's from the actual bill passed by the Senate, S. 3880.
''(e) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. Nothing in this section shall be construed
''(1) to prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution;
''(2) to create new remedies for interference with activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution, regardless of the point of view expressed, or to limit any existing legal remedies for such interference; or
''(3) to provide exclusive criminal penalties or civil remedies with respect to the conduct prohibited by this action, or to preempt State or local laws that may provide such penalties or remedies."
From our beginning in 1991, the National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA) has worked for laws to protect animal enterprises from terrorist tactics. To this end, NAIA participated in the campaign that culminated in 1992 passage of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act. In the intervening years, we have endorsed several necessary amendments to strengthen that law.
But animal-rights extremists found a huge loophole in the Act: There was no prohibition against attacking third parties connected with animal-related businesses. Extremists stepped up their acts of arson, theft and assault against these unprotected targets. They have attacked researchers, shareholders and shelter workers; vandalized country clubs; harassed employees' families; dropped bombs on the doorsteps of researcher's neighbor; and torched homes and negatively impacted personal security in their campaigns to achieve goals that range from ending animal-based research to dominating community animal-control programs and even eliminating the right to own an animal.
Encouraged by NAIA and other concerned citizens, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, convened a hearing on animal rights and environmental terrorism on October 26, 2005. At that session, Dr. Jerry Vlasak, a physician who often speaks for the Animal Liberation Front, stood behind his 2003 statement that murdering researchers would be an acceptable tactic in the crusade against animal-based research. Other witnesses described how they had been threatened and victimized by animal-rights extremists and had suffered personal and financial losses as a result.
As a result of this hearing Senator Inhofe and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced S. 1926, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. After being amended with input from the ACLU to protect free speech, the bill came to be known as S. 3880.
NAIA applauds the Senate for their stand against what the FBI reports to be the number one domestic terrorist threat in the US .
"Legitimate businesses and innocent people are suffering," says NAIA national director Patti Strand. "We cannot tolerate criminal activities without forfeiting the rule of law that forms the basis of our democratic society. We are grateful to Senators Inhofe and Feinstein for addressing this critically important threat to our country. We are especially pleased that the bill now protects legal activism, free speech and legal boycott - all good choices for people wishing to express their opinions. However, the bill is tough on arson, vandalism, and campaigns of death threats, all methods of expression that are violent and chilling to the civil liberties and free speech rights of the victims, the defenseless targets of such disgusting campaigns. We hope that everyone working with animals, everyone owning animals will see that AETA protects them from the extremists who use death threats, arson and other criminal acts to make their point. We urge strong support and quick passage of the AETA."
For more background information on this issue, log on to:
http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/Stop_Animal%20_Rights_Terrorists.htm
Please feel free to click the forward button below to send this to your friends and associates!
Copyright © 2006. National Animal Interest Alliance Trust. All Rights Reserved. October 4, 2006 Rick Santorum - The Anti-Hunter's Election Choce
Dear Pennsylvania Friends,
Sen. Rick Santorum is endorsed and heavily financially supported by the chief anti-hunting lobbyist in the United States, Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS). Pacelle told Santorum at a November 8, 2005 public hearing on his S1139 anti-hunting dog owner bill that he could count on 300,000 HSUS animal rightist votes in Pennsylvania. I was there and had previously been denied the opportunity to testify against this Santorum-HSUS bill.
HSUS is pushing anti-hunting ballot questions this year in Maine and Michigan, in addition to its federal and local lobbying. Here are some Pacelle hunting quotes,
"If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would."
"Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting. Our opponents say that hunting is a tradition. We say traditions can change."
"Only 7% of Americans are hunters. That means there are more of us than there are of them. It is simply a matter of democracy. The majority rules in a democracy. We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States... We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state."
"The entire animal rights movement in the United States reacted with unfettered glee at the [Fox Hunting] Ban in England ...We view this act of parliament as one of the most important actions in the history of the animal rights movement. This will energise our efforts to stop hunting with hounds."
Rick Santorum has repeatedly introduced and voted for anti-hunter, animal rights activists’ bills during his time in Washington. Keystone State hunters and animal owners should understand this as they go to the polls on November 7, 2006.
Understand that SAOVA's reviews are single interest efforts. We make no pretense of evaluating candidates' positions on taxes, education, social security, medical care, national security, gun control or social issues. To the degree that hunting, fishing, livestock farming and pet ownership are important to you, we offer these election candidate analyses to be combined with other, personal considerations to determine your vote. Study the candidates and support those individuals that will support you. Register and VOTE!
Animal rightist endorsed state legislators have been added to our Pennsylvania page located at http://saova.org/Pennsylvania6.html
Sincerely,
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators
Posted by: "vhdoa.earthlink.net" VHDOA@earthlink.net robertkane22715
Tue Oct 3, 2006 6:13 pm (PST)
BlankDear Pennsylvania Friends,
Sen. Rick Santorum is endorsed and heavily financially supported by the chief anti-hunting lobbyist in the United States, Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS). Pacelle told Santorum at a November 8, 2005 public hearing on his S1139 anti-hunting dog owner bill that he could count on 300,000 HSUS animal rightist votes in Pennsylvania. I was there and had previously been denied the opportunity to testify against this Santorum-HSUS bill.
HSUS is pushing anti-hunting ballot questions this year in Maine and Michigan, in addition to its federal and local lobbying. Here are some Pacelle hunting quotes,
"If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would."
"Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting. Our opponents say that hunting is a tradition. We say traditions can change."
"Only 7% of Americans are hunters. That means there are more of us than there are of them. It is simply a matter of democracy. The majority rules in a democracy. We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States... We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state."
"The entire animal rights movement in the United States reacted with unfettered glee at the [Fox Hunting] Ban in England ...We view this act of parliament as one of the most important actions in the history of the animal rights movement. This will energise our efforts to stop hunting with hounds."
Rick Santorum has repeatedly introduced and voted for anti-hunter, animal rights activists’ bills during his time in Washington. Keystone State hunters and animal owners should understand this as they go to the polls on November 7, 2006.
Understand that SAOVA's reviews are single interest efforts. We make no pretense of evaluating candidates' positions on taxes, education, social security, medical care, national security, gun control or social issues. To the degree that hunting, fishing, livestock farming and pet ownership are important to you, we offer these election candidate analyses to be combined with other, personal considerations to determine your vote. Study the candidates and support those individuals that will support you. Register and VOTE!
Animal rightist endorsed state legislators have been added to our Pennsylvania page located at http://saova.org/Pennsylvania6.html
Sincerely,
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators......
Posted by: "vhdoa.earthlink.net" VHDOA@earthlink.net robertkane22715
Tue Oct 3, 2006 6:13 pm (PST) September 29, 2006 Phony Animal-Rights 'Physicians Committee' Plays Chicken With California Lawsuits
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060928/dcth043.html?.v=73
Press Release Source: Center for Consumer Freedom
Phony Animal-Rights 'Physicians Committee' Plays Chicken With California Lawsuits, Says Center for Consumer Freedom
Thursday September 28, 12:55 pm ET
Lawsuit Group's Lead Attorney Protests Life-Saving Medical Research With PETA
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 /PRNewswire/ -- Seven California lawsuits filed yesterday against restaurants that serve grilled chicken are motivated by animal-rights ideology, the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) said today. The deceptively named "Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine" (PCRM) is actually a wealthy animal rights group, not a mainstream health charity.
PCRM's goals include transitioning Americans to a strict vegetarian diet. And publicly available tax records show that two-thirds of the group's operating budget now comes from Nanci Alexander, an animal-rights millionaire who operates a Florida vegetarian restaurant. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has also contributed over $1.3 million.
Yesterday in Los Angeles, City News Service reported that the American Medical Association has in the past called PCRM an organization that uses "unethical tactics" and is "interested in perverting medical science." City News Service also noted that "a Newsweek article in February 2004 stated that less than 5 percent of its members are doctors and it has ties to the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, an animal rights group, which has drawn criticism for some of its tactics."
PCRM lead attorney Dan Kinburn, who filed the California lawsuits yesterday, has also appeared protesting alongside PETA activists against the use of animals by medical research laboratories. A photograph of Mr. Kinburn participating in such a PETA protest can be viewed at http://www.consumerfreedom.com/kinburn.jpg.
CCF Director of Research David Martosko said: "When will people realize that this phony 'physicians' group is just PETA with a lab coat? The animal rights activists at PCRM would rather save lab rats than cure cancer and AIDS. They don't deserve a say in whether or not anyone eats a chicken sandwich."
Martosko continued: "The federal government and the American Cancer Society agree that there's nothing dangerous about eating a chicken sandwich. But letting animal rights activists slowly force us into vegetarianism could be hazardous to everyone's health. The last time I checked, Americans were getting sick from spinach, not grilled chicken."
To learn more about the radical animal rights activists behind the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, visit http://www.PhysicianScam.com. To schedule an interview, contact Sarah Longwell at +1-202-463-7112.
The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies, and consumers, working together to promote personal responsibility and protect consumer choices September 27, 2006 Indianapolis to Consider Mandatory Spay/Neuter and Mandatory Microchipping
The Indianapolis City-County Council Rules and Public Policy Committee is considering a proposal that would require all animals to be spayed or neutered and would require all dogs and cats to be microchipped. The committee will accept written public comment until this Friday, September 29th and will hold a public hearing October 10th. It is vital that fanciers, breeders and concerned dog owners write letters and attend this meeting to educate city-county councillors about the benefits and importance of responsible breeders.
The proposed mandatory spay/neuter ordinance will require all animals to be spayed or neutered unless the animal is a "show, breeder, law enforcement, service or competition animal or crime prevention dog." There are no definitions in the ordinance for show, breeder or competition animals. Indianapolis does not currently require licensing or registration of animals and under this proposal would require registration of only intact animals.
AKC opposes the concept of mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the right of responsible breeders and owners. Mandatory spay/neuter is an ineffective solution to animal control problems because it fails to address the heart of the issue-irresponsible ownership. These laws are extremely difficult to enforce and can be evaded by irresponsible animal owners by not licensing their pets. This proposed ordinance will unfairly punish responsible owners who are already complying with local animal control laws, while irresponsible owners continue to make problems for the community and local shelters.
The mandatory microchipping ordinance will require each dog and cat over the age of three months to be implanted with a microchip. Previously the city-county allowed a collar tag to serve as a means of permanent identification. Veterinarians or others who implant microchips are required to report the names, addresses and phone numbers of dog and cat owners and corresponding microchip number monthly to city-county officials.
As part of AKC's ongoing efforts to promote responsible dog ownership, we encourage dog owners to properly identify their pets. We believe, however, that the final decision about identification-whether by collar, tattoo or microchip-should be made by the owner, not the government.
It is crucial that all fanciers and concerned dog owners work together to protect our rights as dog owners. The narrow exemptions provided in the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance are not sufficient to justify relinquishing the rights of responsible owners to breed dogs.
Points to Consider:
Mandatory spay/neuter is an ineffective solution to animal control problems because it fails to address the heart of the issue-irresponsible ownership. Mandatory spay/neuter laws are extremely difficult to enforce and can be evaded by irresponsible animal owners by not licensing their pets. More regulations increase the workload of already financially strained animal control offices, making it even more difficult for them to perform their duties.
Spay/neuter requirements target all owners regardless of their actions and would restrict the many breeders who raise and breed purebred dogs responsibly. These breeders make a serious commitment to their animals, working hard to raise healthy, well cared for dogs and to ensure that the puppies are placed with responsible dog owners.
Strongly enforced animal control laws (such as leash laws), and increased public education efforts are better ways to address the issue of irresponsible dog ownership. A public education campaign would help teach community residents about how to properly care for their pets, as well as the need to be a responsible pet owner.
What You Can Do:
Attend the public hearing on October 10th at 5:30pm.
Room 260
City-County Building
200 E. Washington St.
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Contact Councillor Rozelle Boyd, Rules and Public Policy Committee Chair
The Honorable Rozelle Boyd
200 E. Washington, Room 241T
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: 317-327-4240
Contact your representative on the Indianapolis City Council.
Written comments must be received by September 29th.
To find out who represents you on the Indianapolis City Council, click here.
The Honorable or Councillor (Name)
241 City-County Building
200 E. Washington St.
Phone: 317-327-4241
For more information, contact:
Indiana Animal Owners Alliance
Patsy Dunn-Jena
padunnje2@yahoo.com
AKC's Canine Legislation department
919-816-3720
doglaw@akc.org
Sportsmen and Animal Owners Endorse Ken Lucas for Congress
The Sportsmen’s and Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance (SAOVA) today endorsed Ken Lucas in Kentucky's 4th district congressional race. SAOVA’s chairman Bob Kane indicated that ex-Rep. Ken Lucas is one of a handful of challengers nationwide that could make a substantial difference in Washington for hunting sportsmen and animal owners.
Kane continued, "The principal November election objective of Kentucky sportsmen, pet owners, stockmen and medical researchers should be to replace animal rightist Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY4) with Ken Lucas. Ken voluntarily gave up his seat in 2004, term-limiting himself, after three very successful terms representing the 4th district. His voting record for those six years was exemplary and he earned wide esteem as a solid, thoughtful, fiscally conservative "Blue-Dog Democratic." Raised on a farm, he also cast vote after vote against the animal rights zealots that are attempting to end or restrict hunting and animal ownership in America.
In contrast, Rep. Davis has spent the last two years fully supporting those same animal rightists. Before his 2004 election, Rep. Davis was asked to complete SAOVA's non-incumbent issues and attitudes questionnaire to gauge his understanding of these anti's threats to us. He repeatedly refused to respond. This is rarely a good sign. Politicians that refuse to answer such legitimate questions frequently don't want you to know their views and their refusal is often an indication of indifference, if not outright hostility, to sportsmen's and animal owners' rights. Never was a warning so prophetic.
The Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS), the anti's flagship lobbying organization, routinely pushes for federal and state laws that restrict or eliminate hunting, fishing, purebred pets, livestock ownership, circuses, rodeos, medical research and similar activities. HSUS, with justification, favors Rep. Davis."
Make a true difference. Return Ken to Washington.
Support and vote for Ken Lucas!!
~#~
The Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance (SAOVA) is a nationwide, nonpartisan group of volunteers lobbying legislation and seeking to elect politicians who will oppose the animal rightist threat to our rights as Americans. Our members hunt, fish and own livestock, dogs, cats and other pets. For more information about SAOVA visit http://saova.org
Mississippi Canine Coalition Organizes Against BSL
American Kennel Club News Article
Mississippi Canine Coalition Organizes Against Breed-Specific Proposals
Date of Article: September 27, 2006
The Tupelo City Council and the Baldwyn Board of Aldermen will meet next Tuesday to discuss possible breed bans. The Mississippi Canine Coalition invites responsible dog owners to join them tonight from 6-8pm at the Lee County Public Library at 219 N. Madison in Tupelo to organize against breed-specific ordinances being proposed in Tupelo and Baldwyn.
Mississippi has been faced with a rash of breed-specific ordinances in recent months. The Mississippi Canine Coalition and responsible dog owners recently defeated a proposed breed-specific ordinance in Jackson and convinced the City of Brandon to rescind an ordinance that would have banned American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, and related breeds. The Clinton K-9 Coalition has sued the City of Clinton over a recently adopted ordinance which bans Rottweilers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers and any mixed breed dogs with a parent from one of these breeds. Your help is needed to prevent more breed bans from being enacted in Mississippi!!
Talking Points for Opposing Breed-Specific Legislation
Breed-specific laws are not the best way to protect communities. An owner intent on using his or her dogs for malicious purposes will simply be able to switch to another type of dog and continue to jeopardize public safety. The list of regulated breeds or types could grow every year without ever addressing responsible dog ownership. Deeds, not breeds, should be addressed.
Breed-specific laws are hard to enforce. Breed identification requires expert knowledge of the individual breeds, placing great burden on local officials.
Breed-specific laws are unfair to responsible owners.
Breed-specific laws increase costs for the community. Shelter costs for the community could rise as citizens abandon targeted breeds, and adoptable dogs of the targeted breeds would be euthanized at the shelter.
In some instances, breed-specific laws have been overturned on constitutional grounds. Because proper identification of what dogs would be included is difficult or impossible, the law may be deemed unconstitutionally vague. It may also be found to involve the taking of property without due process.
Strongly enforced animal control laws (such as leash laws), generic guidelines on dealing with dangerous dogs and increased public education efforts to promote responsible dog ownership are all better ways to protect communities from dangerous animals.
Since dogs must be unaltered to participate in conformation dog shows and other performance events, many responsible dog owners will be forced to give up a sport that both they and their canine companions enjoy.
Breed-specific legislation is opposed by the AKC, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the National Animal Control Association, the ASPCA, and a host of national animal welfare organizations that have studied the issue and recognize that targeting breeds simply does not work.
What You Can Do
Attend the Mississippi Canine Coalition Meeting TONIGHT
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
6-8pm
Lee County Public Library
219 N. Madison, Tupelo
Contact the Tupelo City Council members and ask them to oppose BSL.
City of Tupelo
P.O. Box 1485
Tupelo, MS 38802-1485
The Honorable Ed Neelly, Mayor
The Honorable Dick Hill, Ward 1
The Honorable Thomas Bonds, Ward 2
The Honorable Smith Heavner, Ward 3
The Honorable Nettie Davis, Ward 4
The Honorable Bill Martin, Ward 5
The Honorable Mike Bryan, Ward 6
The Honorable Berdell Jones, Ward 7
The Honorable Doyce Deas, At Large
The Honorable Carolyn Mauldin, At Large
Contact the Baldwyn Board of Aldermen and ask them to oppose BSL.
City of Baldwyn
P.O. Box 40
Baldwyn, MS 38824
The Honorable Danny Horton, Mayor
The Honorable Lee Bowdry, Ward 1
The Honorable Ronald Michael, Ward 2
The Honorable Richard Kolheim, Ward 3
The Honorable Tammie Waters, Ward 4
The Honorable Steve Scales, At Large
For more information, contact:
Mississippi Canine Coalition
Tere Woody
4aussie@bellsouth.net
AKC's Canine Legislation department
919-816-3720
doglaw@akc.org
State Law Limiting Dog Chaining Modeled on L.A. Ordinance
State Law Limiting Dog Chaining Modeled on L.A. Ordinance
State Law Limiting Dog Chaining Modeled on L.A. Ordinance
By Nancy Vogel, Times Staff Writer
12:48 PM PDT, September 27, 2006
SACRAMENTO -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill today outlawing the chaining of dogs for more than three hours a day, saying the new law will help prevent dog attacks.
Animal rights groups sponsored the bill, arguing that chained dogs often don't get adequate food, water or medical attention and are more likely to bite people because they are not socialized and cannot flee perceived threats.
The governor's signature makes California the second state, after Connecticut, to limit dog tethering. The new law is modeled after a city of Los Angeles ordinance.
"This bill helps protect dogs from cruelty," said Schwarzenegger in a statement, "and enhances public safety by preventing aggressive animal behavior that can result from
inhumane tethering."
The governor, the owner of two dogs, signed the bill despite the opposition of policy advisors who called it unnecessary.
The legislation, SB 1578 by Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), takes effect in January. It makes it a misdemeanor - punishable by a fine of $1,000 or six months in jail - to tie, chain or tether a dog for more than three hours a day. The law makes exceptions for dogs tied to running lines and pulley systems, used for hunting or herding sheep or cattle and those staying in campgrounds.
Roughly 80 cities or counties in the U.S. have passed similar ordinances, including Los Angeles.
The Los Angeles ordinance is more strict than the new state law. It allows no exception for running lines or pulley systems, said Ed Boks, general manager of the city's Department of Animal Services.
"We have found in Los Angeles that dogs are three times more likely to be involved in a biting situation if they are tethered," he said.
Roughly half of all children are bitten by dogs by the age of 12, said Boks.
"This is a real tool for animal care and control officers," he said. "It's a real tool, too, in helping people understand the value of their own pets. A tethered pet typically doesn't get the love and attention of a household pet."
Pam Runquist, a spokeswoman for California Animal Assn., the coalition of 15 animal rights groups that sponsored the bill, said she understood that some families might not be able to afford a fence so an exception was made for dogs on a running line or pulley system.
Such methods of confinement are not ideal, she said, but allow a dog more movement than chaining.
"This is really a precedent-setting measure, in that we are banning [tethering] for other than short periods of times and demonstrating that California really cares about the treatment of our dogs," said Runquist.
Also today, the governor signed a bill that gives California National Guard members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan a leg up on getting state jobs. AB 2550 by Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee (R-San Luis Obispo) gives National Guard members or their
surviving spouses additional preference points when applying for state civil service jobs.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-092706dogs,0,6329103.story?coll=la-home-headlines September 24, 2006 BE SURE TO VOTE IN NOVEMBER
Check the SAOVA website for your state if you haven't received anything from your District Director regarding AR vs SAOVA Endorsements for November Election
The Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance (SAOVA) today unveiled its new website at http://saova.org The site contains additional research and lobbying resources, new SAOVA volunteer identities and our endorsements of 182 candidates running for federal office in November. SAOVA ENDORSED candidates understand the animal rightist, anti-hunting threat and have voting records or exceptionally strong values that demonstrate their commitment to protecting our interests. Key non-incumbent endorsements include
Chuck Basdel (R-OH6)
Joe Courtney (D-CT2)
Ken Lucas (D-KY4)
Ray Meirer (R-NY24)
Peter Rosdam (R-IL6)
Tim Walberg (R-MI7)
Andrea Lane Zinger (R-IL17)
Also displayed there are names of 228 federal and numerous state politicians that are Animal Rightist Endorsed. Please take the time to visit and study our analyses. We make no pretence of evaluating candidates' positions on national security, taxes, education, medical care or social issues. To the degree that hunting and animal ownership are important to you, we offer this review to be combined with other, personal considerations to determine your vote on November 7, 2006. Control of the U.S. House and possibly the Senate are on the line. Be Sure to Vote!
The world is governed by those who show up.
Feel free to distribute this message widely.
Sincerely,
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators
http://saova.org
The message above was posted to Oregon, Washington and Alaska residents by the Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance (SAOVA) on one of ten regional read only elists.
SAOVA is a nonpartisan volunteer group working to protect Americans from the legislative and political threats of radical animal rightists. It is the only national organization fighting this struggle for both sportsmen and animal owners, natural allies, in these arenas. Visit our website at http://saova.org for this program's goals, methodology and list signup details.
Lawsuit vs Albuquerque HEART Ordinance
Permission to cross-post is granted.
Albuquerque HEART Ordinance
As Patte Klecan and I outlined at the caucus and the delegates meeting in Newark, the Albuquerque City Council has passed what many consider to be one of the most onerous and dangerous anti-breeding laws ever to come along. Known as the HEART (Humane and Ethical Animal Regulations and Treatment) ordinance, the law would limit the number of intact dogs that a household may keep to four, impose an annual $150 per dog intact companion animal fee, and abolish hobby breeder permits that have been in effect for decades. That's just a few of its most objectionable provisions.
The ordinance also trivializes animal cruelty to the extent that one could easily face animal cruelty charges for many commonly accepted practices, and it is written so poorly that in many cases it is difficult to figure out just what it says. What's more, it has animal rights fingerprints all over it. For anybody who wishes to read this
manifesto in its abominable entirety, it can be accessed at
_http://daystar2.http://dahttp://daystar2http://da_
(http://daystar2.cabq.gov:81/Attachments/4333.doc.)
The Rio Grande Kennel Club and members of the fancy worked tirelessly to prevent this legislation from passing. We tried talking to the sponsor (she wouldn't listen to us), we tried talking to the mayor (he double-crossed us), and we finally took our case to the city council. Despite a tremendous turnout and testimony running more than
2 to 1 against the ordinance, the political "fix" was in and the ordinance passed on a 6 to 3 vote.
We are now seeking relief from the judiciary. The Rio Grande Kennel Club and eight individual plaintiffs have filed suit against the City of Albuquerque in New Mexico District Court, 2nd Judicial District.
We are currently awaiting a decision on our request for a preliminary injunction (the hearing was held Monday), but whatever the judge's decision on that, we have every intention of pursuing the matter to
trial.
There is strong evidence to indicate that Albuquerque was targeted for this ordinance and that its proponents will consider success here as their "foot in the door" for similar legislation elsewhere. A victory in Albuquerque will only strengthen their position when they push for similar legislation in other communities. That is why we are asking for financial help in our fight against the ordinance, not only for the benefit of fanciers in the Albuquerque area, but also for the benefit of the fancy nationwide. If we can stop HEART here, that will provide valuable precedent for future battles.
Donations can be sent to: RGKC Legal Fund; P.O. Box 25672;
Albuquerque, NM 87125-5672. Please make checks payable to Rio Grande
Kennel Club.
Permission to cross-post as widely as possible is given.
Bill Green, Delegate
Rio Grande KC
October 5th Riverside County Final Open Forum Manadatory Spay/Neuter
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA has rescheduled the final open forum on
the proposed Los Angeles County style mandatory spay/neuter and
microchip ordinances to Thursday, October 5 at Madison Elementary
School in Riverside at 7 p.m.
MULTIPLE UPDATES FROM THE ANIMAL COUNCIL
UPDATES FROM THE ANIMAL COUNCIL
September 22, 2006
(Last publication date 8/17/06
Appropriate forwarding encouraged.)
Preserving Our Right To Own And Breed Animals Is Your Responsibility
IN THIS ISSUE:
* CA SB 1806, ANIMALS IN VEHICLE CRIME, SIGNED BY GOVERNOR
* RIPON (SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY) CA, PASSES BSL
* SANTA BARBARA COUNTY INTERESTED IN LA COUNTY STYLE MSN
* LOMPOC CA PASSES DOG MSN, CRIMINALIZES AT LARGE INJURIES
* WINDSOR CA PASSES SONOMA COUNTY-STYLE BSL
* SANTA ROSA CA WANTS STRONGER SONOMA COUNTY STYLE BSL
* SAN JOSE CA LA COUNTY STYLE MSN LAST COMMENT MEETING 10/5
THE ANIMAL COUNCIL'S web site at http://www.theanimalcouncil.com is
updated frequently supplementing advocacy information through these
Updates. The California bill tracking page includes links for
committee hearing audio. Current Legislative Material page has
additional details and materials on local and other significant
matters. Publications and Reference pages have resource material
useful to analyze, address and rebut detrimental proposals.
Additional materials are available for items below marked by an
asterisk.
*****
BRIEFLY NOTED
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA has rescheduled the final open forum on
the proposed Los Angeles County style mandatory spay/neuter and
microchip ordinances to Thursday, October 5 at Madison Elementary
School in Riverside at 7 p.m.
CALIFORNIA BILLS
GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER today signed SB 1806 by Senator Liz Figueroa,
D-10 of Fremont, co-author Assembly Member Lloyd Levine (D-40) of Van
Nuys to create a new Penal Code Section 597.7 covering animals in
vehicles. While this bill offers a lower level alternative to
charging animal owners with misdemeanor level cruelty when no harm is
done in jurisdictions that do not have a local ordinance, it also
poses enhanced danger to motorists in the ease of citing a criminal
offense. Think defensively about choice of vehicles and when and how
to transport animals and always monitor temperatures both outside and
inside your vehicle. SB 1806 will take effect January 1, 2007.
*****
RIPON, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA* City Council on September 5
unanimously passed a San Francisco style breed specific ordinance
requiring spay/neuter of all "pit bulls" without those qualifying for
a permit. The definition of "pit bull" has been extended to include
both Bull Terriers and Miniature Bull Terriers. This will effective
October 5. No Ripon residents opposed this ordinance despite local
publicity.
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA* has emerged as a potential Los
Angeles County copycat. In a letter to the City of Lompoc, Santa
Barbara County Animal Services Director Jan Glick, stated "In general
it seems the direction we will explore is the potential spay and
neuter of all dogs, with certain exemptions as has recently been
passed and will be implemented in Los Angeles County September 3,
2006.
LOMPOC, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA* again took up the SB 861
enabled ordinance first discussed last May, but after discussion on
September 5, the City Council directed preparation of an all
inclusive Los Angeles County style sterilization mandate for dogs as
well as sterilization of all dogs and cats on redemption from impound
subject to an appeal process, and strict criminal liability for
owners of at large dogs injuring another animal or human. This was
introduced at the September 19 City Council meeting and passed 4-1.
WINDSOR, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA* in June passed a Sonoma County-
style SB 861 enabled ordinance.
SANTA ROSA, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA* on September 5 the City
Council considered a Sonoma County-style BSL ordinance but directed
the City Attorney to include more stringent provisions. October 10
is the expected public hearing date on the revised proposal.
SAN JOSE, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA last week held another
public meeting at the Animal Services facility regarding the still
unseen proposed ordinance described in a Memorandum last June as a
County of Los Angeles copycat with additional local provisions.
There will be one more public meeting in conjunction with the Animal
Advisory Committee prior to presentation to the City Council
anticipated for November 16. Following is the City's announcement
distributed to its email recipients. Information about these public
meetings has not been included on the Division's web site at
http://www.sanjoseanimals.com/
"Subject: City of San Jose Animal Ordinance Recommendations
WHAT: Animal Advisory Committee Meeting - Animal
Ordinance Recommendations
WHERE: San Jose Animal Care Center, 2750 Monterey Road, San
Jose 95111
WHEN: Thursday October 5, 2006- 6pm to 8pm
The San Jose Animal Care and Services Division would like to thank
you for your participation in the public meetings about the
recommended changes to the municipal Codes related to animals. We
will be conducting one last meeting at the next Animal Advisory
Committee meeting on October 5, 2006. This meeting will be the final
discussion with the Animal Advisory Committee and public comment
will be heard. The presentation will focus on any additional changes
or clarifications as a result of the public input and questions.
These changes/clarifications are: Location of Sales of Animals: The
current proposal would exempt any registered rescue group from the
location restrictions. The modified recommendation will also include
requirements that the rescue group notify Animal Care and Services at
least a week in advance regarding the proposed location, the location
would be subject to approval, and the rescue group would be required
to display their rescue ID for the public at the event. The sale of
animals at flea markets would remain prohibited.
Mandatory spay/neuter law: No change to recommendation. For
clarification, we received many questions from people who have
competition animals. Any animal involved in sanctioned shows or
competition, members of breed clubs that have standards for breeding,
have won titles, trained service animals, and is a breed recognized
by a national registry (AKC, UKC) would be able to keep their animal
unaltered for the same unaltered fee that is currently required
($50/yr). The main difference is that they would have to provide
proof (copy of a certificate, title, membership, etc) to qualify.
Small Animals: No Change to recommendation. For clarification, the
current limits would be modified to: 20 ft minimum distance between
the area that the animals are housed and the next closest house (not
including the owners house), current law is 15 ft. Between 20-40 ft
can house up to 6 small animals. From 40-50 ft, 10 small animals,
and over 50ft can keep up to 20 small animals. Small animals include
rabbits, chickens, geese, ducks, etc. Small animals do not include
dogs and cats or larger livestock such as goats, sheep, pigs, horse,
cattle, etc. Small animals kept indoors have a limit of six per
household without a permit.
A written summary of the proposed changes can be found here:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/CommitteeAgenda/BSN/061906/BSN061906_c.
pdf
The Animal Advisory meeting is the last step before the
recommendations are presented to the Council. The Mayor and Council
will hear these recommendations on November 14, 2006 and there will
be opportunity for additional public comment at that meeting."
*****
*a service of THE ANIMAL COUNCIL
P.O. BOX 168, MILLBRAE CA 94030
Contact us at
URL
Incorporated 1991, tax exempt under IRC Section 501(c)(4)
Online news updates published sporadically since 1997.
Legislative tracking subject to change. CA bill and law information
Federal info at
September 23, 2006 Springs seeks power to ban specific breeds of dogs
By SALLIE JAMES
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Posted September 22 2006
CORAL SPRINGS • A month after an exotic guard dog killed a Coral
Springs woman, city officials are looking for a way to ban the breed.
Commissioners this week passed a resolution urging the Broward
County Legislative Delegation to support a law that would give
Broward cities the power to outlaw certain dog breeds.
A passage in the state's existing dangerous dog law currently
prevents cities from developing dangerous dog regulations specific
to a breed.
"I've read too many stories of people losing their lives, of people
being mauled," said Coral Springs Commissioner Vincent Boccard, who
lives near the home where the Presa Canario dog attack occurred on
Aug. 18. "I'm genuinely concerned."
The state has its own dangerous dog law, but it is not breed
specific. Miami-Dade County banned pit bulls in 1989, pre-dating the
state's ban on breed-specific prohibitions.
The 120-pound guard dog that killed Shawna Willey, 30, attacked her
as she bathed the animal in her backyard. The animal tore out her
jugular veins and damaged her trachea during the mauling. Police
arrived to find the big dog standing over her body, and shot it to
death when it acted aggressively toward them.
Ten days later in south Miami-Dade County, a boxer dog fatally
mauled a 56-year-old man.
State Rep. Ari Porth, D-Coral Springs, said he will back Coral
Springs' effort.
"I support giving the city that authority, especially in light of
the terrible attack a few weeks ago," Porth said.
He added, "I don't think the problem is unique to South Florida. I
think these dangerous dogs are all over our state."
"I absolutely think it's a good idea to ban vicious animals," Vice
Mayor Roy Gold said. "There will be some people that have specific
breeds that may be considered vicious, and they will be unhappy."
The American Kennel Club opposes such legislation.
"We urge lawmakers to enact generic dangerous dog laws such as the
Florida state law which targets vicious dogs. We like to say it's
the deed, not the breed," said Lisa Peterson, the group's
spokeswoman in New York.
"It tends to be unfair to the responsible dog owner and doesn't
target the real problem, the irresponsible dog owner."
State Rep. Susan Goldstein, R-Weston, said the issue of breed
specific bans is a difficult one.
"I'd have to really look at both sides of that issue before I would
decide," she said.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-
cact22sep22,0,685477.story?coll=sfla-news-broward
Congress Passes AKC-Supported Version of 'PETS' Bill
American Kennel Club News Article
--Bill Addresses Challenges Faced By Pet Owners During Disasters--
New York, NY — This week, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives passed by unanimous consent the “Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2006,” known as “PETS.” PETS addresses the problems experienced by pet owners before, during and after the 2005 hurricane season. The enacted bill includes the stronger Senate language -- which the AKC supported and lobbied for-- rather than the weaker House version of the bill. The bill now goes to the President, who is expected to sign it.
Amidst evacuation for hurricanes Katrina and Rita, many pet owners were forced to leave their pets behind because emergency relief agencies, transportation facilities and shelters were not equipped to accommodate them. This caused some persons to resist evacuation orders, slowing down the process and putting human life at risk. Equally problematic was the public reaction to the widespread publicity given to the plight of the pets that were left behind. A recent AKC survey revealed that 67 percent of pet owning households nationwide said they would refuse future evacuation orders if they were unable to take their pets with them.
The PETS bill requires that disaster relief and emergency management agencies include provisions for the needs of households and individuals with pets and service animals in disaster relief plans as a condition for federal approval of such plans. The bill also makes providing services to individuals with household pets and service animals a legitimate activity on which to spend emergency and disaster relief funding, and authorizes the federal government to provide funds to states and local authorities for animal emergency preparedness purposes, and for procurement, construction, leasing, or renovating of emergency shelter facilities that will accommodate people with pets and service animals.
AKC President Dennis Sprung commended the Congressional action, saying “I want to thank the Congress for acting promptly and decisively to address this problem. This legislation will go a long way in assuring that the disastrous situation that occurred in 2005 is not repeated. I also want to thank the many members of the purebred dog fancy who supported and helped advocate for the passage of this important legislation.”
Sprung also noted that the successful passage of the PETS bill was a collaborative effort involving many animal interest organizations and AKC was pleased to be a leader among them.
During the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, the AKC sent staff to the affected areas to assist with the needs of displaced animals and affected fanciers. Many individuals as well as 545 AKC clubs and organizations made donations to the AKC/CAR Canine Support and Relief Fund, enabling AKC to organize and support multiple airlifts transporting dogs to facilities out of the affected region. In addition, AKC recently hired a full-time employee who is responsible for coordinating disaster relief efforts on behalf of the AKC and AKC/CAR.
http://www.akc.org/news/blocks/print_article.cfm
September, 23 2006, 4:02 PM
©2005 The American Kennel Club, Inc. All rights reserved. You may print this page for your personal, noncommercial, use only. You agree not to reprint, create derivative works from, post, reformat, transfer or sell this content in any format whatsoever.
September 22, 2006 : Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act **Update and AKC Political Notes**
Dear SAOVA Friends,
The House and Senate Judiciary Committees failed to markup HR4239 and S3880, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), this week, increasing the possibility the bill will not become law this year. The delay doesn't involve the measure's void on hunting-related business coverage, but is due the backlog of other legislation and a concern over animal activist's free speech rights. If you haven't made the contacts requested below, please do so. Hunting preserve operators, outfitters and guides deserve and need AETA's protection too.
Old news, revised: SAOVA's September 14, 2006 message titled "AKC, HSUS & $$$" contained a factual error. The American Kennel Club's (AKC) puppy sale-registration contract is with Petland, not PetsMart.
Some thoughts on the AKC's direction. The German Shorthaired Pointer Club of America's Board of Directors this month refused to let AKC Board Chairman Ronald Menaker judge its 2007 Specialty. It's widely believed this action is due to the AKC management's misguided collaboration with the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) to federally regulate hobby breeders under S1139 (PAWS). Separately, several parent breed clubs, including the gigantic Golden Retriever Club of America, have voiced strong, formal rejection of the AKC-Petland contract to Mr. Menaker.
Does AKC's interest in microchip registration revenue trump concerns over dog owners' privacy rights? What safeguards are in place to prevent CAR's database from being used against dog owners? It was clear in the PAWS debate that AKC registration data would be made available to enforce that bill's onerous provisions. While all of us are concerned about recovering lost animals, HSUS's interest in microchipping is likely more motivated by their use to enforce "gotcha" licensing and other animal control and anti-breeding ordinances. Does Ron Menaker really think than he can outwit HSUS's Wayne Pacelle, after being embarrassed so badly over PAWS? Is the AKC learning curve really that steep? Where is this all leading and to whom is AKC's Board responsible? At least a few responsible dog club leaders are speaking up, concerned with AKC's present drift.
SAOVA's Election 2006 endorsements will be announced very shortly.
Sincerely,
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators
http://saova.org
Frustrate the Anti's - Take your children to the
Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey Circus and a Rodeo
----- Original Message -----
From: vhdoa.earthlink.net
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 9:27 AM
Subject: ALERT: Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act - Hunting Enterprise Coverage Void
Gentlemen:
Time's tight on getting this bill fixed to include hunting preserve operators, outfitters and guides, but you might make a few calls early today. Other key sponsor and committee votes include
Senator Jon Kyl --- Phone: (202) 224-4521 Fax: (202) 224-2207
Senator Orrin Hatch --- Phone: (202) 224-5251 Fax: (202) 224-6331
Senator Arlen Specter --- Phone: (202) 224-4254 Fax: (202) 228-1229
Senator Rick Santorum --- Phone: (202) 224-6324 Fax: (202) 228-0604
Senator Jeff Sessions --- Phone: (202) 224-4124 Fax: (202) 224-3149
Senator Johnny Isakson --- Phone: (202) 224-3643 Fax: (202) 228-0724
Senator Lindsay Graham --- Phone: (202) 224-5972 Fax: (202) 224-3808
Senator Jim DeMint --- Phone: (202) 224-6121 Fax: (202) 228-5143
Senator John Cornyn --- Phone: (202) 224-2934 Fax: (202) 228-2856
Senator Charles Grassley --- Phone: (202) 224-3744 Fax: (202) 224-6020
Senator Mike DeWine --- Phone: (202) 224-2315 Fax: (202) 224-6519
Senator Herbert Kohl --- Phone: (202) 224-5653 Fax: (202) 224-9787
Senator Russ Feingold --- Phone: (202) 224-5323 Fax: (202) 224-2725
Senator Dianne Feinstein --- Phone: (202) 224-3841 Fax: (202) 228-3954
Thank you.
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators
http://saova.org
540-543-2312
----- Original Message -----
From: vhdoa.earthlink.net
To: S_Plains
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 6:58 PM
Subject: ALERT: Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act - Hunting Enterprise Coverage Void
Dear SAOVA Friends in Kansas, Oklahoma and South Dakota,
S3880 Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is a measure which provides badly needed protections for certain U.S. business enterprises subject to animal terrorism threats. The bill's federal penalties and definitions are helpful, but insufficient. This bill is scheduled for markup by the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 21, 2006. Despite what you might have assumed or been told, there is absolutely no coverage for hunting-related business entities. The Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance (SAOVA), on behalf of thousands of lawful operating hunting preserve operators and professional outfitters and guides, has requested that the definitional section for 'animal enterprise' of S3880 be amended to include these entities. That definition presently includes
`(A) a commercial or academic enterprise that uses or sells animals or animal products for profit, food or fiber production, agriculture, education, research, or testing;
`(B) a zoo, aquarium, animal shelter, pet store, breeder, furrier, circus, or rodeo, or other lawful competitive animal event; or
`(C) any fair or similar event intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences;
Sportsmen are under constant attack by animal terrorists. Those who rely on the hunting sport for their livelihoods deserve the same consideration as those entities already specified. It's only a matter of time before a fatality occurs.
Action Requested:
Constituents, immediately telephone or fax the following Senators. Urge that they amend S3880 to include hunting-related business entities, as described above:
Senator James Inhofe --- Phone: (202) 224-4721 Fax: (202) 228-0380
Senator Tom Coburn --- Phone: (202) 224-5754 Fax: (202) 224-6008
Senator John Thune --- Phone: (202) 224-2321 Fax: (202) 228-5429
Senator Sam Brownback --- Phone: (202) 224-6521 Fax: (202) 228-1265
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators
http://saova.org
Frustrate the Anti's - Take your children to the
Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey Circus and a Rodeo
A SAOVA message to sportsmen, farmers and pet owners concerned about protecting their traditions, avocations and livelihoods from anti-hunting, anti-breeding, animal guardianship advocates. Forwarding and cross posting, with attribution, encouraged.
September 18, 2006 Defeated - Jackie Speier, author of SB861
Defeated
Jackie Speier - Candidate for Lt. Governor in California - Author of SB 861 (infamous bill allowing breed-specific measures in a state that prohibits them)
Jackie Speier and her supporters angered dog owners not just in California, but across the country and across the aisle. She especially pissed off dog-owning members of her own party, prompting letters that said:
"I have voted for you in the past and I very well might have done so again last Tuesday except for one thing - SB 861. That absolutely wrong-headed bill shows a total lack of understanding of canine ethology and a willingness to capitalize on a family's personal tragedy for political gain, trampling the rights of all California dog owners in the process. I know dozens of Democrats among my fellow dog enthusiasts who also did not vote for you for exactly the same reason".
Bye Bye, Jackie!http://dogpolitics.typepad.com/my_weblog/
September 15, 2006 AKC, HSUS & $$$ - a message from SAOVA
Dear AKC Delegates,
The American Kennel Club (AKC) is trying numerous marketing gimmicks to
reverse its registration decline since 1992 to a 40-year low. These include free FSS papers for UKC coonhounds, discounts, waivers on lateness for certain select breeders, special coupons, whole litter registration and now the PetsMart direct sales, to name several. It’s not clear why the registry isn’t offering dog owners more and better service to attract them, but it's not. Its Board and Officers seem solely focused on total control and dominance of the dog fancy and $$, even if that requires collaborating with animal rightists.
Many dog owners are aware of AKC's new requirement that dogs be microchipped
before receiving a CGC award and the "promise" exacted from other
"responsible" dog owners and breeders to do the same. Less well-recognized are the growing revenues earned by its Companion Animal Recovery (CAR) unit or the $2 bounty given to veterinarians for chip registrations there, rather than elsewhere.
The latest chapter in the $$ canine microchipping $$ saga is the
AKC-AVMA-HSUS effort to require all breeders covered by the AWA to microchip. This would be a huge captive market and include anyone covered by the AKC-AVMA-HSUS PAWS bill, obviously. What a remarkable coincidence!
_http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=2996_
(http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=2996)
American Kennel Club News Article
AKC and AKC CAR Make Recommendations to USDA on Microchip Identification of
Pets
Date of Article: September 08, 2006
The AKC and AKC Companion Animal Recovery (AKC CAR) filed comments on
September 6, 2006 with the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) on the establishment of federal regulations for the microchip identification of animals covered by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The comment letter was filed in response to an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by the APHIS requesting public input. The complete text of the AKC's comments, as well as those of other organizations and
members of the public, can be accessed at _http://www.regulations.gov_
(http://www.regulations.gov/) . The AKC also participated in five of six public
hearings on the same subject hosted by the APHIS across the country during the
summer.
Under the AWA, the APHIS has authority to regulate research facilities,
exhibitors, auction houses, transporters and persons who sell pets at wholesale.
The regulations include requirements for the positive identification of all
animals. The AWA does not cover private pet owners and persons who breed and
sell dogs only at retail, so any regulations pertaining to microchip
identification will not apply to such persons.
Currently APHIS regulations require positive identification of covered
animals by an approved collar, tag, or tattoo, and, in some cases, a card affixed to the animal's primary enclosure. APHIS regulations do not now include the option of microchip identification. In 2005, Congress directed the APHIS to examine the issue of microchip identification of pet animals, with a particular emphasis on harmonizing microchip systems used in the U.S. and internationally.
In its comments, the AKC urged the APHIS not to harmonize the two microchip technologies by mandating the exclusive use of one system or the other, but to specify standards for the performance of a microchip reader (scanner) that will effectively and efficiently read all chips in common use in the U.S. and internationally, and then permit the use only of chips that can be read by such a scanner. This recommendation, if adopted by the APHIS, would assure that virtually all of the estimated 5 to 10 million microchips already implanted in pet animals in the United States could continue to be read, while also
accommodating the growing number of dogs imported from abroad or which travel abroad. It would also provide the public with the widest choice of microchips.
The AKC also noted that most persons who microchip pet animals do so for the
purpose of identification and recovery if the animal is lost or stolen.
Experience with the 2005 hurricane season, in which large numbers of pets and pet owners were dislocated, demonstrated the value of microchip identification and also the problems that result when people do not microchip their animals, fail to register the microchip with a recovery service, or fail to keep their contact information up-to-date. The AKC urged the APHIS to include in its regulations provisions setting standards for the creation and maintenance of microchip data bases, including access to the information for recovery purposes.
-30-
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators
_http://saova.org_ (http://saova.org/)
Frustrate the Anti's - Take your children to the
Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey Circus and a Rodeo
A SAOVA message to sportsmen, pet owners and farmers concerned about
protecting their traditions, avocations and livelihoods from anti-hunting,
anti-breeding, animal guardianship advocates. Forwarding and cross posting, with attribution, encouraged. September 14, 2006 The AKC and Petland -- Where do we go from here?
Posted by: "Walt Hutchens" waltah@earthlink.net waltah0
Wed Sep 13, 2006 7:53 pm (PST)
THIS MAY BE FORWARDED AS YOU LIKE
Three marketing ideas that could never be approved by corporate management:
1. A brand of beer, promotes with slogans like "It's the water" and
"Brewed with pure mountain spring water" could contract with the local
sanitation authority for recycled water. "A cold refreshing brew will
cost you a penny less!"
2. A fast food chain might reach out to the community with an aggressive
program to hire ex-convicts. "Behind bars to behind the counter." Paired pictures in the stores, one taken in prison garb, one in the store's uniform.
3. The AKC could sign a contract with a chain of pet stores under which they would strongly promote AKC registration of new puppies in the store.
OOPS! Scratch #3 from your 'could never happen' list, because according to today's list emails, it HAS happened.
What's wrong with all three of these ideas is the same. In each case, the core of the corporate image and good name would be badly damaged by the marketing action: The idea of purity and clean tasting beer by using water that came from a sewer, no matter how well purified and sanitized; the safe, wholesome family image of a fast food restaurant by knowing that your burger was being served by a felon; and the AKC's image of puppies lovingly raised in a home setting, by a well-known link
to pet store sales.
In all three cases it isn't the fact that causes the problem, but the
endorsement and giving of publicity. All water is ultimately recycled,
there are surely ex-cons working in many restaurants, and pet stores
already sell AKC registered puppies. It's the organizational ENDORSEMENT of the idea that does the damage.
We need to be clear that not only is commercial breeding and pet shop
selling of puppies perfectly legal and appropriate, but the AKC has for years registered such dogs and should continue to do so. There will always be people for whom a pet shop dog is a better 'fit' for one reason or another and if the breeders meet AKC standards for care and conditions and for registry integrity then their puppies should be registerable just as any others.
But when the AKC is seen as specifically endorsing pet shop sales, then the AKC's name -- which depends primarily on home breeding and is its
second most important asset -- is damaged. Damaging the corporate name
is the worst possible business sin and this marketing decision is right up there with the worst ever made. Someone -- or maybe a couple -- of
people at the top of the AKC ought to be looking for new jobs about
tomorrow.
Beyond that, we see again an AKC board that can't locate any part of its
anatomy. AKC management has been floundering for a decade, unable to
identify its customers and TREAT them AS customers, rather than as serfs
who smell bad and don't pay enough taxes to support the fetes and
banquets at the castle. Yet the board has never (that I know of) replaced any top officer. Most policies and even major changes of direction are simply decided by leadership and handed to the board with "This is the way it's going to be, so get over it." And the board
has nodded and gone back to sleep, seemingly unaware of its duty to set
direction, make major decisions, and supervise the performance of
management.
With maybe two or three exceptions, that board ought to be replaced.
The toadies, the AR-lites ("Puppy mills are THE problem!") and the just-
in-it-for-what-they-can-get folks need to go, and they should be replaced by people who care about the future of purebred dogs and who have enough business sense to do their jobs as board members.
The tone of what has been coming from the delegates today suggests that
they may be ready to start cleaning house. A lot of the anger over this
issue comes from the arrogance with which PAWS has been handled, the
judges' conflict of interest policy, the change to the AKC mission
statement and other recent issues, in which it became clear that AKC
leadership simply didn't care about the fancy, or -- seemingly -- about
the future of purebred dogs.
A housecleaning can't begin too quickly. HOWEVER it's important for
clubs and delegates to remember that as bad as the current board of directors is, there are far WORSE people out there. Animal rightists, and AR-lite types are found in most kennel clubs and some are influential in the show world. These people would very much like to take over the AKC and the result would be disaster. We could wind up with an AKC that not only didn't support the fancy but actively promoted
more laws regulating home breeding because "WE HAVE TO FIGHT PUPPY MILLS."
Delegates will need to consider board candidates with great care, looking for a positive view of what the AKC should support and do, rather than a list of things it should be against, for business common sense (with experience a plus), and for a genuine love of purebred dogs and appreciation of the place of dogs in today's families.
I said that the AKC's name was its second-most important asset. Its
MOST important asset is the home breeder and small-scale fancier because
these are the people who can do the most hands-on and generally the best
work of producing quality purebreds, putting them into good homes, and
making sure those homes succeed. The quality image of the AKC is supported by running a clean registry but that image is built and refreshed by home breeders in our daily contacts with our puppy owners and prospective buyers, in our showing and performance activities, in our relations with our communities, and in the planning we do for litters to minimize health and other inherited problems and to conserve our gene pools.
A new board of directors ought to build bridges to the AKC's breeder customers. Those bridges must be two-way: there are things we need in order to promote the future of purebred dogs, and we're going to have to give the AKC the resources it needs to do the work. In a time when our need for the AKC is greater than ever, it's ridiculous that the organization is reduced to grubbing for money in all the wrong places.
The money they should be spending to promote the interests of the fancy
should be OUR money, not money from VISA, Cherrybrook, or Petland Discount. But we can hardly be expected to send more dollars to finance an organization that treats us with contempt and works against our interests as often as for them.
Walt Hutchens
Timbreblue Whippets
THIS MAY BE FORWARDED AS YOU LIKE NAIS Prohibition Bill Analysis (S-3862)
http://freedom.org/news/200609/14/lamb.phtml?p=1
A publication
of the
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION
ORGANIZATION
NAIS Prohibition Bill Analysis (S-3862)
By Henry Lamb
September 14, 2006
Technical Review:
On September 7, Senator James Talent (R-MO) introduced S-3862, a bill to amend the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8308), which the U.S. Department of Agriculture has used as the authority to develop its proposed National Animal Identification System (NAIS). A companion bill (HR-6042) was introduced in the House by Representative Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO).
Section I of the bill says that the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture... “shall not implement or carry out, and no Federal funds shall be used to implement or carry out, a National Animal Identification System, or similar requirement, that mandates the participation of livestock owners.”
Section II of the bill defines the term “Animal Identification System” to mean: “voluntary system for identifying or tracing animals that is established by the Secretary.”
This section also provides protection from disclosure, under the Freedom of Information Act, “...of information that may be collected by the USDA through a voluntary program.” By providing information to USDA in a voluntary program, the provider does not relinquish any other right, privilege, or protection afforded under federal law, including trade secret protection.
The Secretary may release information in the event that livestock may be “threatened by a disease or pest;” providing that the Secretary is so authorized by this bill, and to other government agencies, if necessary, to assist in carrying out the purposes of this bill.
The Secretary is required to release information to:
1. The person who owns or controls the animals, upon written request;
2. The Attorney General for law enforcement;
3. The Secretary of Homeland Security for security purposes;
4. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, to protect public health;
5. An entity pursuant to a court order;
6. A foreign government, if necessary to trace a disease threat.
Any information obtained from the Secretary by state or local government, is not subject to local or state laws that require public disclosure.
Analysis:
This bill is not a National Animal Identification System bill, and should not be considered as such. Three other bills have been introduced, that are NAIS bills: HR-3170, HR-1254, and HR-1256. These are bills that describe a proposed National Animal Identification System. Additionally, the USDA has proposed a NAIS that can be implemented by rule, using the authority and funding granted in the 2002 appropriation bill.
Senator Talent’s bill goes to the seat of this authority and amends the original authority to prohibit any animal identification program developed by USDA from being mandatory. The bill further prohibits the use of federal funds to any state program that is mandatory.
The purpose of this bill is not to describe, or define a NAIS. The other bills serve this purpose, and these bills call for a mandatory system. The Talent bill will now force the Agriculture Committee to reconcile the “no mandatory program” concept with the “mandatory” concept. This head-on battle would not have occurred without the Talent bill.
The Talent bill does nothing more, or less, than is stated here.
Commentary:
Opponents of the NAIS may prefer that there be no national animal identification program at all. But this preference ignores reality. More than four years, and at least $183 million have already been invested in developing a program. There are at least three bills defining a NAIS, in addition to the program developed by the USDA. If there is no legislation, the USDA program will be instituted by rule. The basis for this eventuality was established in the agriculture appropriations bill.
Therefore, opponents of the NAIS would be well served to support the Talent bill, since it is the only hope of stopping a mandatory program. Criticism of Talent’s bill is actually criticism of the NAIS program as proposed by USDA, and is completely misplaced when directed toward the Talent bill.
The Talent bill seeks only to prohibit the USDA from making mandatory any animal identification program that it may develop, and to prohibit the use of federal funds for any state program that is mandatory. It also seeks to protect from disclosure any information that may be collected by a voluntary USDA program.
Criticism about any other aspect of the NAIS should be directed elsewhere - not toward the Talent bill.
Information is circulating on the Internet that claims the bill would “...allow exempting animals from a national licensing system....” The Talent bill does not address exemptions at all.
Other criticism claims that the Talent bill “....would allow the USDA to regulate meat packers, processors, veterinary or other services farmers must use....” The Talent bill does not address these regulations at all.
Still other criticism faults the bill’s failure to define “voluntary.” The bill does, however, prohibit “mandatory” participation, and defines any USDA animal identification program to be “voluntary.” Therefore, if enacted, the USDA could never make a program mandatory without changing the law. The other NAIS bills should address the valid concern that the USDA might require “voluntary” participation in order to participate in other government programs. The Talent bill is not the place to address this issue.
Opponents of the NAIS should rally behind the Talent bill and refocus their criticism toward HR3170, HR1254, HR1256, and the USDA’s proposed program. Opponents will need maximum unity and strength to support the few Congressmen who are willing to try to prevent a mandatory NAIS from being forced upon animal owners.
Copyright © 2006 Freedom.org. All rights reserved.
September 13, 2006 AKC & Petland - Perfect Together?
from DogPolitics
AKC & Petland - Perfect Together?
In an unconfirmed report, we hear that the American Kennel Club, that old and venerable organization, has inked a deal with Petland Discount - a chain of pet stores that sells live puppies and kittens and fish, etc.
This deal between AKC and Petland is designed to "educate" their buyers on the benefits of registering with the AKC. (cough, cough).
If true - this decision (we hear the board voted 12-1 to approve) will be sure to provoke discussion all across the web.
But hey - maybe it makes fiscal sense for the AKC - you know pump up the revenue? What do you think?
Let's take a look from a sales perspective........
or-The 80/20 Rule
I'd like to point out the old 80/20 rule.
Now for you non-sales people out there - the 80/20 rule says that 80% of your business comes from 20% of your customers.
Using this rule would mean that 80% of the AKC's revenue is coming (or should be) from 20 % of breeders.
Maybe high volume breeders - like the Hunte Corporation, that in turn sell their product through sales channels like Petland?
The Sales Challenge
Let's say all those puppies being sold from "high volume" breeders represent potential revenue for the AKC.
But those puppies from HVB actually lost revenue - because those puppies were not being registered - and those (sales) were not reaching the home office up at the AKC.
So all that revenue from all those puppy stores was being lost in LaLa Land. The question for the AKC is how to convert those lost registrations into "sales"?
How do you recover lost revenue?
The Sales Solution
How to fix this loss of revenue? Why you need a sales strategy, silly.
Maybe the AKC has figured out that in order to close more sales - ooooopps- I mean increase registrations - that it should partner more closely with it's customers - the 20% of breeders from which most revenue flows.
"Cause really the remaining 80% of low volume breeders - meaning the home hobby breeder - they only represent 20% of AKC revenue. Hypothetically - of course.
And as such a small share of revenue - it's kinda easy to ignore them. After all - they make a lot of noise - and perhaps even chew of more AKC time and resources that they're worth.
So coming up with a "program" that "educates" buyers about the "benefits" of AKC registration to close the gap on all that lost revenue - well, that's pure sales genius. Way to go, AKC!
But that plan just might be a little risky, in terms of PR and all that. But perhaps the AKC has it covered.
Risk Vs. Reward
Some people have this impression that the AKC has got things totally backwards - first lining up on the PAWS Bill with arch enemy, everyone favorite animal rights group, the HSUS.
Now if this report is true about AKC partnering with Petland - - I would say that the AKC is gonna take a beating - again. This rumored partnership may lead people to the mistaken belief that the AKC is lining up with so-called "puppymillers".
Of course - that couldn't be further from the truth, as we all know.
Such decisions that fly in the face of the AKC's mission have seriously risked the AKC’s reputation and loyalty with its core constituents. But unfortunately - it's those core constituents are the 80% who only make up 20% of the revenue.
Like they say - without risk, there can be no reward. So the AKC is betting that the rank & file will take this new approach - that despite the risk of alienating their constituents - the rewards (the revenue) will be there.
So the AKC will now embark on a new plan to take in more revenue over the objections of the clubs. But I am sure the AKC has already thought of this and has a plan at the ready to be sold - I mean communicated - to the stakeholders.
Return On Investment
Now all those little Mom & Pop home breeders that the AKC is supposed to represent, who feel they have been dissed by the AKC - we'll those people are already pissed.
They think that the leadership of the AKC has lost its way a long time ago - as this venerable organization has strayed pretty far from its core mission.
Now we happen to know that the AKC is run by some pretty smart people. But we wonder how all those really smart people up at the AKC would keep making really bad decisions? It's not like they're doing it on purpose.......
Now I'm not a dog breeder, and I don't show dogs, I'm just in marketing. But I gotta say that I don't think the AKC brand is doing real well with its core customers.
But any good sales plan includes strategies to "overcome objections".
Long Range Plan
But maybe the AKC has a long range strategic plan in place.
Perhaps its a plan that will make sure there's a return on investment (and will make for all the flak the AKC has been taking of late) - one that will become clearer for all stakeholders.
Now any good long range plan should include a multi-pronged approach to overcome objections by different groups. For example - there should be a plan to cover objections from the Mom & Pop hobby breeders, and another plan to overcome objections from the animal rights groups who are fighting puppy mills.
After all - by partnering with animal rights groups on legislation, and now facilitating registrations from so called "puppy millers", the AKC kinda leaves the wrong impression with a lot of people.
But I'm sure the AKC has that covered.
For The Good Of the Dogs
For the record, there's nothing wrong with two organizations partnering to bring improved products or services to their respective customer bases.
The point here is whether or not such a partnership is in step with the core mission of the American Kennel Club, a nonprofit organization, and whether or not such a contract reflects the values of the organization, and enhances or hurts the reputation of the AKC.
Now everyone that I've ever met that's connected with the AKC - they have been warm, lovely people, with an unparalleled love of dogs. The dog world has provided them with a lifetime of friendships built through the sport of purebred dogs.
They want "their" AKC. They want to see the AKC get on the right track. They want the AKC to succeed. I do too.
I sure hope they get their wish - because sometimes it seems like the AKC couldn't do a worse job of running their reputation into the ground if they planned it, right?
They would never plan it - would they? Naaaaaaaah.
Getting back to the unconfirmed report..... I hope the AKC has a plan. Millions of dog owners are depending on the AKC to represent their interests.............
For the good of the dogs.
http://dogpolitics.typepad.com/my_weblog/
September 12, 2006 Pacelle wants us to call dogs "Canine Americans."
For Immediate Release
For Further Information Contact: Philip Lobo, Communications Director
Phone: (703) 562-5160
Date: 9/11/2006
HSUS' Pacelle Commits to Redoubling Anti-Agriculture Efforts
Exclusive Alliance Report from Leading Animal Rights Meeting Now Online
September 11, 2006 – In a speech at the second annual ''Taking Action
for Animals'' conference in Washington D.C., Wayne Pacelle, President of
the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) committed to redoubling
the animal rights group's efforts against modern animal agriculture.
Pacelle indicated his belief that there is little difference between
animals and humans. To support his position he used research that showed
similarities between humans and non-human primates then asserted that
the concept could be expanded to include any animal.
Approximately 500 people attended this conference, September 2-5, 2006,
in the Washington, DC area. Major sponsors of the event were the Humane
Society of the United States (HSUS), the Animal Protection Institute,
the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Farm
Sanctuary, and the Doris Day Animal League (which recently announced its
merger with HSUS). Attendance increased by about 200 over last year's event.
Pacelle pledged his ongoing commitment to legislation and lobbying as
key paths for the animal rights movement to move its agenda forward. He
urged the audience to continue pursuing animal guardianship laws to
replace animal ownership laws. Pacelle suggested using the term ''Canine
Americans'' instead of dogs to emphasize the rights of these animals.
This meeting continued to reflect the major changes in the animal rights
movement shown in the last few years. The majority of the audience had a
professional demeanor and was dressed in business casual attire. It is
clear that HSUS has found - and is cultivating - a segment of activists
that are educated, organized professionals capable of making calculated
moves to f |
