Continued from here.
New York
It
looks like HSUS has learned a new trick in New York and trying for a rerun on an
old one.
Legislation has been introduced that would require every
dog and every dog owner to complete certified obedience training as a condition
of licensing. Another bill would mandate microchipping of all dogs in order to
get a license for them. Assembly Member Jose Peralta (D-Queens) introduced both
bills.
AB
1540 mandates obedience training and certification. No dog could be licensed
without an obedience training certificate, and no owner could buy a dog license
without undergoing training. Ironically, Peralta exempts residents of his own
city from the legislation.
The
American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly opposes this kind of legislation, which
places a substantial burden on dog owners, bears no relationship to the
realities of most dog ownership, is a solution in search of a problem, will
result in a decrease in rabies and licensing law compliance, and will cause many
pets to be abandoned when their owners can’t afford the services of a certified
school.
Obedience courses are not available in many rural areas,
and certification inevitably leads toward favoritism toward certain methods of
training that are not endorsed by many dog owners. In addition, many dog owners
are skilled trainers themselves and have no need for such services.
In
many urban areas, a basic obedience course costs $1,000 or more. No evidence is
shown that would justify imposing this kind of burden on the vast majority of
dog owners. Moreover, many people simply will not be able to afford to provide
this kind of training, especially in today’s poor economy, and this will force
people to abandon their pets or fly under the radar without licensing their dogs
or obtaining rabies vaccinations.
Here
is a link to the text of this bill: http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A01540&sh=t.
The
second bill, AB 255, requires all dogs in New York to be microchipped by the age
of four months.
In
addition, a state registry would be created for microchip data for every dog in
the state and their owners.
The
American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly opposes mandatory microchipping, which
is controversial among some dog owners. Other options are available, such as
name tags or tattoos. We also strongly oppose creating a state registry, which
allows animal control agencies to go on a “fishing expedition” to enforce a
variety of other laws, and thus invades the privacy of everyone without
cause.
Here
is a link to the text of this bill: http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A00255&sh=t.
Both
bills have been referred to the Assembly’s Agriculture Committee. We urge New
York dog owners to contact Agriculture Committee members to voice strong
opposition. Here is a link to members of the committee: http://assembly.state.ny.us/comm/?sec=mem&id=2.
We
also are studying two other pieces of New York legislation.
The
first is a bill redefining a “pet dealer” in a way that might lead to including
hobby breeders. Last year, failed legislation would have brought all hobby
breeders under strict “pet dealer” regulations. This year’s legislation creates
some ambiguity in this regard, but basically does little to change the law. This
alarms us, as it might lead to an attempt to make amendments on the floor
similar to last year’s bill. Here is a link: http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A01377&sh=t.
The
second bill, AB 2069 would impose stringent regulations on boarding kennels,
which include training kennels and day care services. It is a backdoor approach
to regulation, because it is based on health code compliance (not on animal law)
and requires health department inspection and certification.
We
see much potential to harm kennel owners without any good reason from this
approach, which also creates a new and cumbersome level of
bureaucracy.
We
are very alarmed that this legislation is both an attempt to redefine animal
care as a public health issue, and to give health inspectors unrestricted access
to kennels when there is no proof of any relationship between kennels and human
health concerns in the community. We see it as an attempt to add another
unjustified regulatory burden on kennel owners.
Here
is a link to the legislation: http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A02069&sh=t.
New Jersey
New
Jersey dog owners are facing one of the toughest and most restrictive pieces of
breeding legislation in history this year, and a second bill will have a heavy
impact on lost hunting dogs.
Anyone who sells five or more dogs, cats, puppies or
kittens in a year would have to be licensed and inspected as a commercial
breeder and also as a pet dealer, which means facing Draconian restrictions and
truly devastating fines and penalties.
That
translates into a person having only one litter of puppies a year, in most
cases. Even hobby breeding of the smallest possible scale would be unable to
survive this legislation.
The
legislation also pays snitches to turn in breeders, and the reward can be in the
thousands of dollars.
AB
1591 is sponsored by Assemblywomen Joan M. Voss (D-Bergen) and Dawn Marie
Addieggo (D-Burlington). It is before the Agriculture and Natural Resources
Committee.
A
breeder is defined as anyone who sells five or more dogs and cats a year. A pet
dealer is defined as anyone who sells even one dog or cat for use as pets. A
breeding facility is defined as a building or kennel, including a home, where
two or more dogs or cats are kept for breeding.
Those definitions snag up everyone who raises dogs, and
many people who simply keep a couple of dogs for hunting or pets.
The
law also prohibits anyone from selling more than 25 dogs and/or cats a year, and
specifically bans brother-sister matings.
Every word in the bill is inspired by HSUS and its agenda
to eliminate animal ownership in America.
Every breeder (that’s you) must register with the
Department of Health, which the legislations specifically says will develop
regulations and standards of care through working closely with the radical HSUS.
The bill says that the regulations also will cover spaying and neutering.
Specific care and kenneling requirements also are covered. Extensive paperwork,
veterinary examinations, and guarantees to buyers also are required. A
veterinarian must inspect and perform stool tests on every dog or puppy no
longer than 14 days before a sale.
Anyone who buys or sells a dog without the proper New
Jersey license, or who violates any of the above provisions, is subject to civil
penalties of up to $10,000, heavy fines and imprisonment.
Even
a first offense for a minor technical violation will result in a $5,000 civil
penalty, fines and a ban against selling a dog or cat for five years. Someone
who buys a dog or cat from an unlicensed breeder faces a $1,000 penalty for the
first offense.
Accused dog owners will be denied their constitutional
right to a day in court. They will be allowed only an administrative hearing
before the same agency that charged them.
A
frightening provision is that anyone who turns in a breeder will get 10-percent
of the civil penalty as a reward, but not less than $250. Snitching by animal
rights fanatics could become full-time and lucrative jobs in New Jersey if this
bill passes!
Here
is a link to the actual legislation: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A2000/1591_I1.HTM.
The
American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly urges all New Jersey dog owners to
contact members of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee to voice
clear opposition to this terrible legislation, which will destroy a lifetime of
work by many of the most dedicated and high quality hobby breeders in
America.
Here
is a link to the committee members’ contact information: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/committees/ShowCommittee.asp.
New
Jersey dog owners also face a second piece of bad legislation, AB 1568, which
requires all dogs taken to an animal shelter to be sterilized before they are
reclaimed by their owners.
This
legislation will have a strong impact if a dog gets lost while hunting and is
taken to an animal shelter by a good Samaritan, is found by an animal control
officer or is kidnapped by an animal rights activist.
Exemptions are possible only for currently active show
dogs or show champions. No exemption is provided for field trial, performance or
hunting dogs.
In
addition, a dog can meet the requirements for being spayed only by having a
tattoo put on its belly by a veterinarian.
AB
1568 is sponsored by Assemblywoman Linda R. Greenstein (D- Mercer and
Middlesex). It’s committee assignment has not been published.
Here
is a link to the text of AB 1568: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A2000/1568_I1.HTM.
Maine
Maine’s animal control director, Norma Worley, has
clearly established herself as a staunch supporter of animal rights who is
pursuing a personal crusade against people who raise dogs. There have been
numerous reports of confrontational approaches to dog owners and heavy-handed
enforcement since Worley’s appointment, and her writing and comments quoted in
newspapers closely echoes HSUS position papers. She also uses the same
derogatory labels as HSUS to describe people who raise dogs.
Worley rammed restrictive draft legislation through a
task force, and now has presented it to the Legislature. The task force made few
changes in the draft legislation prepared by Worley, and she wrote a report to
the Legislature that ignored the views of most dog ownership advocates and made
it falsely appear that they concurred. The attached minority reports recommended
even tougher laws, and the Maine Federation of Dog Clubs refused to submit a
minority report because of the biased nature of the participants and
process.
This
legislation would strip away dog owners’ constitutional rights to due process
and equal treatment under the law, and eliminate constitutional requirements for
search warrants, seizure warrants and appeals to a court of law. It is typical
of all HSUS-backed legislation, which is designed to reduce dog owners to the
status of second-class citizens.
Dog
and kennel owners also would have their license costs increased dramatically, in
order to pay for hiring many more enforcement personnel and funding a
bureaucracy that recklessly overspent its budget by $600,000 last year. Worley
claims that this extra money was needed to care for dogs that were seized, but
we can’t imagine how it would cost $600,000 to provide short-term care for fewer
than 300 dogs and cats. That would be more than $2,000 per animal!
The
draft legislation requires anyone who owns five or more dogs to get a kennel
license and be inspected by the state. Hunting and field trial dogs were
mentioned specifically in this requirement.
Anyone who owns more than five female dogs that have not
been spayed would be classified as a breeding kennel, subject to intensive
regulation and inspection. Hunting, show, sled dog and field trial kennels would
be exempt from this requirement, but only if they are municipally licensed and
offer fewer than 16 dogs for sale in the year.
Anyone who sells even one dog would be classified as a
vendor. They are required to follow complex disclosure rules to buyers, offer
contractual guarantees, and have a veterinarian examine each dog or puppy that
is sold.
Please read Worley’s report and the proposed legislation,
which is located about midway through the document: http://www.fedmedogclubs.org/info%20flyers/Final2010rpt.pdf.
Worley sent the proposed legislation to the Legislature’s
Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee. The American Sporting Dog
Alliance is urging Maine dog owners to contact each member of this committee and
tell them why you are opposed to the legislation. Here is a link that lists all
committee members: http://www.maine.gov/legis/house/jt_com/acf.htm. Each name links to a page with contact information.
FLORIDA
Almost every dog and cat in Florida would have to be
spayed or neutered under the terms of House Bill 451.
Sterilization would have to be done within 30 days of an
animal reaching four months of age, which is an age that much recent research
has shown may be medically dangerous.
The
only exceptions would be for severe medical risks, or if a municipality passes
an ordinance that allows dogs registered with an approved registry to be
licensed as a show animal, an animal actively engaged in competition, a guide
dog, or a dog used by police officers or the military. Certain registries, such
as Field Dog Stud Book, have not been approved in any place that has mandatory
spay/neuter laws.
No
dog or cat could be bred in Florida, except by virtue of a county ordinance
allowing the sale of a breeding permit.
In
the absence of a county ordinance, no one could breed a dog or cat in Florida.
However, the legislation also allows counties to impose more strict ordinances,
and even to ban all dog breeding outright.
Stiff fines are provided, and a third offense becomes a
misdemeanor charge with possible jail time.
The
preamble to the bill, which describes the reason for it, is based on several
faulty or inaccurate presumptions. None of the stated reasons have been
documented, and much research contradicts several of them.
Florida’s legislative session officially begins in March,
and it is not known at this time what committee will get HB 451. It was
introduced by Rep. Scott Randolph, D-Orange County.
Here
is a link to the actual legislation: http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_h0451__.xml&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0451&Session=2009.
We
also urge all Floridians to contact their own legislator and express your
opposition to this legislation. Here is a link page for each legislator’s
contact information: http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Representatives/representatives.aspx.
Illinois
Illinois House Bill 0198 is one of the most repressive
and malicious pieces of animal rights legislation ever introduced in America. It
takes aim at people who are hobby breeders of hunting dogs and other breeds of
purebred dogs.
Anyone who owns more than three intact females and sells
puppies would be classified as a commercial breeding kennel, subject to high
fees for licensure, rigorous inspections, the forfeiture of several
constitutional protections, mandatory fingerprinting and criminal background
checks by the state police and Federal Bureau of Investigation, forfeiture of
the right to redress in a court of law, heavy loads of paperwork, unworkable
standards of care, and the forcible invasion of personal and financial
records.
In
addition, no one would be permitted to keep or own more than 20 dogs that are
not spayed or neutered. No dog could be bred unless it is inspected by a
veterinarian. Also, people would not be able to raise a litter of puppies inside
their home if other adult dogs are present. It would be illegal to keep more
than three dogs together, which would apply to the number of dogs kept inside a
home, ban the common practice of kenneling a pack of hounds together and
eliminate large fenced lots to allow young dogs to get plenty of
exercise.
There also is an ambiguous provision that requires the
state to pass judgment on the “qualifications” of a kennel license applicant
before issuing a license. This would be an entirely subjective judgment by the
kennel inspector, as the legislation does not define adequate
qualifications.
Only
veterinarians could euthanize a dog, which causes terrible suffering and agony
if a veterinarian cannot be located quickly.
Dog
owners also could face heavy fines and loss of licenses for irrelevant
violations, such as surface rust on wires, a few cobwebs, a knocked over water
bowl or chipped paint. Temperature requirements would make it impossible for
people to acclimate hunting, herding and performance dogs to weather conditions,
thus creating danger for the dogs. Fine and civil penalties would multiply
exponentially, and even minor offenses have the potential to destroy a dog owner
financially and cause the loss of her or his home and lifetime
savings.
The
legislation also contains numerous powers to seize dogs, or to require their
owners to turn them over to an animal shelter within seven days of license
revocation, or if a dog owner is incorrectly licensed.
This
legislation, which is clearly out of the HSUS playbook, is being sponsored by
State Rep. John A.
Fritchey (D-Chicago). It has been cosponsored by
Reps. Angelo
Saviano, Deborah
Mell, Jack D.
Franks, Daniel J.
Burke, Greg
Harris, Michael J.
Zalewski, JoAnn D.
Osmond, Keith
Farnham, Lou
Lang and Harry
OstermanDan
Kotowski (D- Mt.
Prospect). (click on a name for
a link to a contact page). It’s Senate counterpart, SB 53, will be sponsored by
Sen.
The
bill has been referred to the House Rules Committee. The House has not yet
completed committee assignments, and the names of committee members are not yet
available.
The
American Sporting Dog Alliance urges Illinois dog owners to contact their
senator and representative to voice opposition to HB 0198 and SB 53 to voice
their opposition. In addition, we ask dog owners to contact the bill’s
cosponsors to ask them to withdraw their support for the legislation.
The
bill’s formal name is the Dog Breeders License Act. HSUS and other animal rights
groups are nicknaming it “Chloe’s Bill,” for a dog allegedly rescued from an
Illinois “puppy mill.”
HSUS
has focused many of its resources on Illinois, and recently named a new State
Director, attorney Jordan Matyas. We have received confirmed reports that Rep.
Fritchey is sending correspondence about this bill directly to Matyas, and the
replies to constituents are coming directly from HSUS.
Propaganda for the bill makes it sound like legislation
to stop poorly operated commercial kennels, which have been dubbed “puppy mills”
by HSUS. However, the bill actually targets small scale hobby breeders of
purebred dogs. Large commercial kennels already are regulated by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and the State of Illinois, and all kennels are under
the jurisdiction of state animal cruelty laws.
Matyas and his cronies also continue to spread their
agenda of canine destruction in neighboring Wisconsin and Indiana, which are
expected to see similar legislation very soon, and in the City of
Chicago.
Chicago
We
are receiving some indications that a strong response from dog owners and
veterinarians has put a proposed citywide spay and neuter mandate on the ropes.
This ordinance, which is focused on destroying hobbyists in the city, has been a
top priority for HSUS, Matyas and their allies from the wealthy and powerful
PAWS animal rights group in Chicago.
The
animal rights groups were stung by support for dog owners from the Chicago
Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) and the Illinois State Veterinary Medical
Association (ISVMA), and also by research by the American Sporting Dog Alliance,
which shows the incredible success of the city’s sheltering program. The success
of Chicago’s animal shelters has come very close to the ideal of not killing any
healthy and adoptable animals, and destroys much of the rationale for the
ordinance.
The
CVMA and ISVMA have taken strong and courageous stances against the proposed
ordinance, as have several animal sheltering and rescue organizations. Here is a
link to some of these position statements: http://www.chicagovma.org/legislative/.
In
essence, a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance compromises the relationship between
a veterinarian and patient.
For
government to mandate veterinarians to perform certain medical procedures also
is a violation of at least two provisions of the American Veterinary Medical
Association Code of Ethics, as was a requirement in the original proposed
ordinance that would require veterinarians to report people who own dogs that
are not spayed or neutered, documents show.
In
addition, many veterinarians and dog owners oppose universal spay/neuter
mandates because much of the most recent research shows elevated risks of
serious and potentially fatal medical conditions from pet sterilization,
especially at an early age. Because of this, veterinarians believe that the
decision should be made on an individual basis by weighing benefits and risks as
part of the client/patient/veterinarian relationship.
Veterinarians and sheltering group leaders also say that
the proposed ordinance is very divisive and will harm the kind of community
support that is needed to continue with the success of Chicago’s animal shelter
alliance.
Aldermen Ed Burke and Ginger Rugai proposed the
ordinance, and HSUS, Matyas and PAWS are its major proponents.
PAWS
has even attempted to use strong-arm tactics against the veterinarians, by
strongly hinting that it will ask its supporters to boycott any individual
veterinarian who doesn’t support the ordinance.
Because of the veterinarians’ opposition, HSUS and the
two aldermen have backpedaled on some of the requirements of the initial
proposal. A revised ordinance draft removes the requirement for veterinarians to
turn in their patients who have not sterilized their pets. In other communities
that have passed sterilization mandates, compliance with rabies vaccination and
licensing laws has plummeted because of the requirement to report
violations.
However, the revised ordinance has not changed the
requirement for pet owners to prove that their animals have been sterilized to
get a license. In other communities, this has caused a dramatic decrease in
licensing revenues, and the Los Angeles animal control program has become
bankrupted since a spay/neuter ordinance was passed a year ago, and doesn’t have
enough money to enforce it or even to operate its animal shelters
now.
Other changes in the revised ordinance are softened
language about the alleged health benefits of sterilization (which has been
seriously questioned by much recent research), a greater emphasis on preventing
dog fighting and dog attacks (even though research indicates that this is
questionable, at best), and the elimination of heavy fines for a third
offense.
It
is clear that the real purpose of the ordinance has nothing to do with its
stated purposes. Instead, it is directed at law-abiding people who raise
dogs.
Existing city ordinances prohibit allowing a dog to roam,
and dog attacks would be addressed if they are enforced. It is not directed at
dangerous dogs, as Illinois already has a strong dangerous dog law. Nor is it
directed at dog fighting, as Illinois law makes this a felony, and only about
seven percent of the dogs in America are from “pit bull” breeds and crosses. Nor
is it directed against criminals and the drug culture, as an existing Illinois
law forbids most convicted felons of possessing a dog that has not been spayed
or neutered and microchipped, or which has been shown to be
dangerous.
The
ordinance is directed against law-abiding dog owners. It requires all dogs and
cats over six months of age to be sterilized. Exceptions are made for show and
competition dogs, although the “Catch 22” is that no registry meets the
requirements. A dog can be bred, but only if the owner is willing to pay a fee
of $100 per dog, keep extensive paperwork and submit to a background check.
It
also ignores the fact that 70-percent of the dogs in America already are
sterilized.
And
it ignores the fact that Chicago already has serious budget problems and cannot
adequately fund the animal control and shelter program.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges Chicagoans to
contact their alderman to voice opposition to this proposed ordinance. Here is a
link to the web pages of each of the aldermen, where you will find contact
information: http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalProgramAction.do?programId=536879154&channelId=-536879035&topChannelName=Government
Also, please contact local organizers to coordinate with
us and a newly forming Chicago group that is opposed to the ordinance. They are
Karen Perry ([email protected]), Margo Milde ([email protected]), Michele Smith ([email protected]) and Ami Moore ([email protected]).
We
hope that Chicago City Council takes a long hard look at other cities that have
passed spay/neuter mandates recently, such as Fort Worth, which saw rabies
compliance plummet and rabies cases soar before it scrapped the ordinance;
Louisville, which faces a federal lawsuit, and brutal home invasions to enforce
the ordinance have led to the destruction of the private animal rescue network;
several cities which saw shelter admissions and euthanasia rates soar while
license revenues fell; and most of all to Los Angeles (see below).
California
Animal rights groups in California were soundly defeated
last year when they attempted to get a statewide law mandating pet
sterilization, and its key proponent in the legislature was trounced in the
November election. That’s not surprising, as a Parade Magazine poll last
year showed that 91-percent of the people oppose sterilization
mandates.
This
year they are trying to take their failed doctrine to the local level again,
starting with Santa Barbara and Riverside counties.
But
they don’t want to talk about Los Angeles, which passed a spay/neuter mandate a
year ago and created a disaster zone for animals and taxpayers alike. Since the
ordinance was introduced, shelter admission and euthanasia rates have soared far
beyond the level created by the mortgage foreclosure crisis, and declining
license revenues have driven the city’s animal control agency into bankruptcy,
documents show.
The
situation has become so critical that Los Angeles Controller Laura Chick urged
the mayor and city council to privatize the sheltering program, in a letter
dated December 22, 2008. Chick pointed out that the animal control budget
increased from $16.2 million in FY 2005-06 to $22 million in FY 2007-08, in
order to pay operating expenses and the salaries of 300 employees. In addition,
she wrote, the city is paying off bond issues to build and repair animal
shelters at the rate of $12.4 million a year.
This
is balanced against revenues of only $2.8 million, which now are in steep
decline because of major losses in licensing revenues following the
ordinance.
Widespread employee layoffs and animal shelter closures
have been discussed, and Chick said no money is available to enforce the
spay/neuter and other animal ordinances, or to perform many other public
services.
Chick suggested turning the animal shelter program over
to private nonprofit groups, which can operate them much more economically and
efficiently, her letter shows. The city would provide the animal shelter
facilities at no charge, and the private groups would operate them.
What
happened in Los Angeles also underscores the murderous intent of animal rights
groups toward dogs and cats. On one hand, it is widely documented that
spay/neuter mandates invariably cause major increases in animal shelter
admission and euthanasia rates for several years. They kill innocent dogs and
cats unnecessarily!
But
the current economic situation in California further underscores the brutality
of the animal rights agenda.
At a
time when many pet owners are losing their homes or facing job losses, anyone
who cares about animals should be showing compassion for both dogs and their
owners. Anyone who cares should be doing everything possible to keep pets in
their homes, or to provide short-term fostering programs until people get back
on their feet and can reunite with their pets.
Instead, Los Angeles has passed an ordinance that will
make it much harder for people to keep their pets in a tough economy, or if they
have lost their homes.
The
dogs are paying the price.
In
Los Angeles, passage of the ordinance reversed a 10-year-long rapid decline in
shelter admission and euthanasia rates, and this needless destruction of a
successful sheltering program has been exacerbated by the economic
crisis.
Shelter admission and euthanasia rates continued to fall
for the first six months of the most recent fiscal year, despite the rapidly
worsening foreclosure crisis, but this progress was destroyed in the six months
following the ordinance’s introduction by skyrocketing shelter admission and
euthanasia rates.
Shelter admissions declined steadily from 34,692 in
2001-02 to 25,553 in 2006-07, but shot up 19-percent to 30,513 following passage
of the ordinance. All of the increase occurred in the six months after the
ordinance was introduced. Undoubtedly some of this increase is the result of the
foreclosure crisis, but California’s housing economy has been in deep trouble
for most of this period when shelter rates continued to improve.
The
euthanasia rate rose even more steeply since the ordinance was passed, by
22-percent, from 6,070 to 7,414. Once again, the entire increase occurred after
the ordinance was introduced. This follows a steady decline from 17,509 in
2001-02 to 6,070 in 2006-07.
The
good news is that adoptions increased by 30-percent and owner-reclaimed rates
rose by 10-percent. But the bad news is the divisiveness of the ordinance within
the animal welfare community, which caused rescues to decline somewhat in the
six months after the ordinance was passed.
Santa Barbara
Now
it’s Santa Barbara’s turn to face the brutality of the animal rights agenda, as
a task force created to provide non-mandatory ways to reduce shelter populations
and euthanasia has become a stacked deck of people who want to bring the failed
and discredited policy of mandatory pet sterilization to this county. We hope
the county supervisors are wise enough to learn from the mistakes of Los Angeles
and several other cities.
Dog
owners on the task force may get some help to counterbalance the presence of Dr.
Ron Faoro, the group’s chairman. Faoro strongly supports mandatory pet
sterilization and has rode roughshod over the committee on several
occasions.
The
guest speaker at the Feb.18 task force meeting will be noted California
veterinarian John A. Hamil. Dr. Hamil, who has spent a lifetime studying animal
shelter admission and euthanasia issues, is strongly opposed to spay and neuter
mandates. Hamil says mandatory measures make the problems worse, not better, and
also are undesirable or counterproductive for several other reasons.
Here
is a link to Dr. Hamil’s views about the defeated statewide mandate: http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2007/06/05/former-cvma-head-speaks-out-against-mandatory-spayneuter-law/. He is very articulate and knows what he is talking
about.
Task
force members have been denied access to needed statistical data to put shelter
and euthanasia numbers in perspective. After several years of miraculous
success, Santa Barbara’s sheltering system saw large increases in both shelter
admissions and euthanasia rates in the past year. Those increases are generally
attributed to the economy, and the foreclosure crisis has hit Santa Barbara
especially hard.
Data
has been concealed about why the euthanasia rate has increased by more than 2.5
times the admission rate in the first six months of 2008. Admissions went up by
554, or 14-percent, but euthanasia increased 313, or 35-percent.
This
simply does not make sense, except as a deliberate policy decision to kill more
animals. The situation is made even more inexplicable because owner redemptions
increased by 4.9 percent and adoptions increased by 12-percent.
Data
also has not been made available to allow analysis of the admissions rates, such
as a projected increase in enforcement, and the actual reasons why owners are
surrendering dogs. Effective decisions are not possible without this
information, which is being kept from the task force and public by animal
services department personnel.
All
of the evidence shows that a spay/neuter mandate will make shelter and animal
control problems worse during economic hard times when many people are losing
their homes and jobs.
The
American Sporting Dog Alliance is preparing a strategy to address these economic
problems compassionately and effectively. Our proposals will include tax credits
and rebates for people who adopt dogs and cats from animal shelters and rescue
groups, tax incentives for people who are willing to provide temporary foster
care or rescue services for displaced pets, exempting people who foster or
rescue from pet limit and other animal control laws, and changing state funding
formulas to penalize shelter programs that kill healthy and adoptable animals
when all other alternatives have not been explored.
Minnesota
Two
years ago, Minnesota dog owners had a close call with devastating animal rights
legislation that was narrowly defeated in the legislature.
It’s
back, and HSUS is throwing its full weight behind it.
SF
7, introduced by Sen. Don Betzold (D-Fridley), has been introduced into the
Senate Agriculture and Veterans Committee.
This
bill exempts what it calls “hobby breeders,” which means someone who has fewer
than six intact females over six months old.
But
it includes most people who actually are hobby breeders in real life, most of
whom own at least six intact females, even though they may not be used for
breeding in any year. Numbers add up quickly when retired dogs, older puppies,
dogs being evaluated, dogs in competition, hunting dogs, breeding dogs and just
plain pets are counted.
Most
hobby breeders would have to undergo extensive licensing investigations,
inspections (possibly including a veterinarian, police officer or animal cruelty
officer), license fees, paperwork, mandatory microchipping, and standards of
care that are vaguely defined.
One
standard of care is especially alarming, in that it gives the state the
undefined and unlimited power to develop and enforce “additional standards the board considers
necessary to protect the public health and welfare of
animals….”
The law also
gives the state the power to seize animals when undefined standards of care are
not met, and provides civil penalties of up to $5,000 for each alleged
deficiency. Criminal charges, fines and imprisonment also are provided for
violations.
The right of
appeal to a court of law is denied. Instead, an accused dog owner is allowed
only an administrative hearing before the state agency that is prosecuting him
or her.
Here
is a link to the legislation: https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S0007.0.html&session=ls86.
The
American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all Minnesotans to contact members of
the Senate Agriculture and Veterans Committee to voice strong opposition. Here
is a link to committee members and contact information: http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/committees/committee_bio.php?cmte_id=1001&ls=#members.
Colorado
Colorado dog owners face some restrictions under HB 1172,
sponsored by Reps. Elizabeth McCann (D-Denver) and Randy Fischer (D-Larimer).
HSUS and other animal rights groups are supporting the legislation.
This
legislation requires licensing and inspection, limits the number of unsterilized
dogs a person may own, and requires a veterinary examination before a dog can be
bred.
No
dog breeder (including hobby breeders, who are defined as someone who produces
fewer than two litters of puppies a year) in Colorado will be able to own or
keep more than 25 dogs over six months of age that are not spayed or neutered,
if the legislation passes.
In
addition, no one would be allowed to breed any dog without an annual veterinary
examination and certification of suitable health.
Existing law also was amended to allow inspectors
unrestrained access to a dog owner’s home, kennel, property and records at any
time, day or night, upon consent of an “administrative” search warrant. An
administrative warrant circumvents constitutional guarantees of court review of
a search warrant application.
Here
is a link to the text of this legislation: http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/CLICS2009A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/34F564F4E21607AA8725753C005AD103?Open&file=1172_01.pdf.
HB
1172 is now before the House Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources
Committee.
The
American Sporting Dog Alliance asks Colorado dog owners to contact members of
this committee to oppose this legislation as being needlessly intrusive and
restrictive.
Committee members are: Representative Curry, Chairman;
Representative Fischer, Vice-Chairman; Gardner C., Hullinghorst, Labuda, Looper,
McKinley, McNulty, Pace, Solano, Sonnenberg, Tipton and
Vigil
Here
is a link to contact information for committee members and all other
legislators: http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/CLICS2009A/csl.nsf/DirectoryHou?openframeset.
Upcoming
Legislation
·
Texas - Animal rights groups, including several with direct ties to the
ultra-radical People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and HSUS, are
hoping to take their successes in Texas cities to the state level. Buoyed by
their success in ramming through spay/neuter mandates in Dallas, Houston and San
Antonio, they are backing a bill aimed at all dog breeding statewide. Several organizations, centered around the
Texas Humane Legislation Network (THLN) are pressuring the Legislature to “study
puppy mill issues,” and legislation is in the works to restrict dog breeding
statewide. Supporters of dog breeding legislation always claim that it focuses
on commercial kennels, which they call “puppy mills.” But the legislation
invariably focuses much more on small hobby breeders in its actual
text.
- Wisconsin – Dog owners narrowly turned back highly
restrictive breeding and lemon law legislation last year that would have
devastated hobby breeding of purebred dogs. Animal rights groups have
substantial support in the legislature, and have vowed to come back with an even
tougher bill this year. Political gains in the Legislature by animal rights
groups make Wisconsin ripe for a major push again this year. HSUS is pouring
resources into the state.
- Indiana – Kennel and breeding legislation is expected
here following a major drive by HSUS in the Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana and
Michigan region. Billboards have been spotted in several places, and
anti-breeder newspaper articles are proliferating.
- Ohio – Dog owners were able to block legislation
tightening animal control laws and another bill that would have destroyed hobby
breeding in the Buckeye State. However, sponsors and supporters of this
legislation vowed to reintroduce it early in the current session. They have
stronger support in the Legislature now than they did last year, following the
November election.
- Michigan – Anti-breeder legislation is expected early
here, following withdrawal of devastating legislation late last year after
American Sporting Dog Alliance disclosures of the text of the bill, which had
been hidden even from its sponsor.
- Massachusetts – HSUS has announced that it will try again
to get an anti-breeder law passed here.
- Arizona – A major push is expected for mandatory
spay/neuter legislation here. Residents are battling local legislation in
several counties, as well.
- New Mexico – Mandatory spay/neuter legislation and overly
zealous enforcement of animal cruelty laws are expected here in
2009.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners,
breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for
hunting. We also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative
issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the
rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between
dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and
life.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help
so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your
membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our
mission. We are funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict
independence.
Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. Our email is [email protected].
PLEASE
CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS
Recent Comments