Letter to Brad Sherman...about your award from HSUS

Dear Congressman Sherman:

I have been a voting resident of your district for thirty three years, and it embarrasses me to say that I am represented by a man who would accept an award from the Humane Society of the United States, an organization that does not own or operate a single animal shelter in our country, despite a budget of well over $100 million.

These are the words of two of your fellow legislators:

First, Alaskan Congressman Don Young, who, unlike you, yesterday refused to accept an award from HSUS and made the following comments:

“HSUS are hypocrites, plain and simple, and I will not join them by accepting this award. Local animal shelters and humane societies do excellent work by caring for neglected and homeless animals, and through their spaying and neutering programs. This organization, however, has absolutely nothing to do with animal welfare. Instead they prey on the emotions of big-hearted Americans. They flash images of abused animals on our television screens to raise money that will eventually go to pay their salaries and pensions, not to helping better the lives of these animals.

They run anti-hunting and anti-trapping campaigns and are of the same cloth as PETA and other extremist organizations. I can only guess that I was to receive this award due to my support of the Wildlife Without Borders program, which develops wildlife management and conservation efforts to maintain global species diversity. That program is true conservation; what this group wants is preservation. To accept this award would be supporting their manipulative ways and misguided agenda, and I want no part of that.“

Second, Rep. Jim Sacia, 89th District, Illinois who, in January of this year, said the following:

“If you sent them money once, shame on them. If you’ve sent them money more than once, shame on you. You should have checked them out.

I’m referring to HSUS, the Humane Society of the United States. I’ve written of them before and the appeal they have for your money. Over the Christmas Holidays their ads were everywhere. Beaten down dogs, one eyed cats (and of course it was a big sad eye), and a lame, old, starved, and debilitated horse. And you, the concerned citizen, could fix all of this for a mere $19.00 per month sent to them to help care for these beaten, downtrodden animals.

Had you taken the time to do the research, you would have learned that the $19.00 per month translates to $228.00 per year and of that $228.00 total sum, $1.03 would have reached an actual hands-on animal shelter. By comparison, HSUS had 555 employees and paid them $37.8 million in 2008. This includes over $2.5 million contributed to employee pension plans. HSUS’ chief executive, Wayne Pacelle, made just over $251,000 in salary and benefits.

This agency just must receive closer scrutiny. Using Ohio as an example, “HSUS made zero donations to Ohio pet shelters in 2007 and 2008 and gave just $5,200 in 2006. This year, however, the organization is gearing up to spend millions of dollars in Ohio on the anti livestock farming ballot initiative.” (The Center for Consumer Freedom, not your local Humane Society, go to humane watch.org.)

My blood boils when I see you, the consumer, bilked out of your hard earned money by appealing to your sense of compassion and kindness. No one wants to see an animal starved and we all get a good feeling sending that money to such a noble cause.

What a travesty!

The good news is the IRS has been investigating HSUS for over two years. Compounding the problem of completing their investigation, the IRS has never had to deal with allegations of tax fraud by a “public charity” as large and as complex as the HSUS.

You can help. Contact the United States Treasury Inspector General at 800-366-4484 (press 5) and respectfully request that case number 55-1005-0025-C be brought to conclusion.

Most importantly, give your money to shelters in your area and don’t ever be sucked in by these predators.“

Apparently, these two men did a little due diligence before allowing their reputations to be sullied by the blessings of HSUS, but their statements barely scratch the surface.

In closing, I would like to address the note made in your press release that reads, “The Humane Society boasts 25,911 supporters in Congressman Sherman’s San Fernando Valley district and more than 11 million nationwide.”

This is not true. In their 2008 tax return, HSUS states that “Individuals who contribute $25 or more annually are ‘voting members’ of the Society.” HSUS also says that giving $25 in a year entitles one to a magazine subscription to the bi-monthly All Animals.

While it’s possible that 11 million people have contributed a few dollars to HSUS at some point in its history, for a more accurate count of its current membership, magazine readership provides a more precise number, which, according to the same 2008 return, is 420,000. I have no doubt that, to a Congressman, 11 million is an imposing number, whereas 420,000 active members comes out to fewer than 1,000 per Congressional district, nowhere near your claim of nearly 26,000.

A Horror Story at the Memphis Animal Shelter

A Horror Story at the Memphis Animal Shelter

Carlotta Cooper

The Memphis Animal Shelter in Memphis, Tennessee has had more than its share of problems in the past. Even at the best of times this shelter, under contract to and funded by the City of Memphis and Shelby County, has been described as a doggy concentration camp. According to the NoKillMemphis web site, the shelter has an astonishing kill rate of 77.45 percent, compared to the national average for shelters of 50 percent. A few years ago a dog was found starved to death, its body in a frozen mound outside the shelter. This abuse and neglect at the shelter led to indictments and firings of shelter staff. Matthew Pepper was brought in as shelter director and things were expected to improve. Unfortunately, things at the Memphis Animal Shelter continue to look like a horror show.

In February two dogs escaped from their yard and were picked up and brought to the Memphis Animal Shelter. The dogs’ owner went to get his dogs, who were intact males, and was told by shelter director Matthew Pepper that, in order to be in compliance with the new mandatory spay/neuter law in the city, both dogs would have to be neutered before they could leave the shelter. The owner said he would rather take the dogs to their regular vet to have them neutered but Pepper refused. The city’s law does not require that the shelter itself perform this surgery, only that the owner come into compliance with the law. A short time later, one of the dogs was dead following the surgery, after being left unattended on the kennel floor. The dog had a post-operative reaction to the anesthesia and there was NO ONE around to see about him. There are plenty of questions about why a dog was left unattended following surgery. How does a healthy dog go into the Memphis Animal Shelter and die from a normal procedure for neutering? And, how did Matthew Pepper react to this story? He spent the Saturday following this event dressed up like dog in a cage at the shelter as a fundraiser, coming out to dance occasionally, and refused to answer questions about the dead dog.

In other cases, there are dogs that were picked up loose by animal control who were euthanized the same day they were picked up, breaking state law.

And, in the most recent and terrible case, at least 40-50 dogs were killed last week,and as many as 100 dogs may have been destroyed at the shelter this week because of an outbreak of distemper. These are both what the shelter considers “adoptable dogs” and the strays they pick up. While it is not unusual for shelters to deal with outbreaks of disease by destroying dogs in large numbers, what is troubling about the way Memphis Animal Shelter has dealt with the situation is that they have roundly blamed the public. Instead of taking responsibility for the situation because they have no quarantine area for new dogs that come into the shelter, or because they do not vaccinate dogs for diseases and hold them long enough to see if the dogs will stay healthy, MAS blames the public for not vaccinating animals. It’s quite possible that many dogs they take in may be vaccinated for distemper and other diseases since they are owner turn-ins, but how would MAS know when they destroy healthy dogs with no sign of the disease?

YesBiscuit! has been following the tragedy in Memphis day-by-day with photos of the kennels and information from people who visit the shelter. YesBiscuit reports today, along with the Memphis media, that “up to 14 dogs” have been taken away by rescue groups. Wow. Up to 14. Is that really the best that the Memphis Animal Shelter could do for the dogs they are responsible for?

This is just what’s been happening at the Memphis Animal Shelter in the last few months, since Matthew Pepper took over as shelter director, but the culture of blaming the public, treating dog owners with disrespect, and treating the dogs even worse, has been going on for years. Yet, if you asked them, I’m sure these people would tell you that they all loved animals.

I live in Tennessee and I keep a file on my computer solely for dog events that happen in Memphis. It’s a sickening file, frankly. What’s troubling for the rest of us in Tennessee is that Memphis legislators often try to have state laws passed based on things that happen in Memphis, and fortunately, nowhere else in the state. Compared to Memphis, the rest of the state is a cakewalk. As a result, a state legislator from Memphis like Rep. G.A. Hardaway consistently tries to have passed some of the most draconian dog laws imaginable, probably based on what goes on in Memphis. Even the U.S. congressman from the Memphis area, Rep. Steve Cohen (D, TN-9), seems to have been influenced by what happens in Memphis with regard to dogs. He has been a consistent supporter of HSUS and is supporting PUPS once again this year, the only legislator from Tennessee to do so.

Now, the Memphis Animal Shelter is still taking in local dogs. They are required by law to do so, though where they are keeping these dogs so they won’t contract distemper is a good question since they have no quarantine facilities. Are these dogs being euthanized as fast as they come in the door? I don’t know. But their kennels are empty, for the most part.

As anyone knows, you can’t allow an animal shelter to have empty kennels. Without dogs to sell, er, adopt, they won’t make any money. And they need cute puppies and dogs other than the bully breed dogs that make up a large portion of the dogs in Memphis, which the newspaper, the Commercial Appeal, complains about all the time. Their editorial staff really, really dislikes “pit bulls.” They never miss an opportunity to run a bad story about them. But where is the Memphis Animal Shelter going to get some nice adoptable dogs to fill up their empty kennels?

Well, wouldn’t you know? Scotlund Haisley, formerly Director of Emergency Services with the Humane Society of the United States, formerly of the Animal Rescue League, formerly of In Defense of Animals — the guy known for his swat team tactics and “cowboy ways,” according to HSUS’s Wayne Pacelle, is now head of ARC, Animal Rescue Corps. That’s another made-up rescue group that goes around kicking in doors and seizing dogs from breeders. It seems that Mr. Haisley’s group received some kind of tip that there was a “bad” breeder in Warren County in Tennessee, about 75 miles southeast of Nashville. Lickety-split they were on the scene, working with the Warren County Sheriff’s Office to seize the 125 dogs — and five birds. Oh, yes. The birds had to be rescued, too!

According to a news story, ARC estimates that the entire operation may cost them over $100,000, which is kind of hard to imagine. How much are they planning on spending per dog? Naturally, they have their hand out for donations. Oh, yeah, I forgot to describe the dogs to you. But you can probably do that yourself. They were living in “deplorable conditions.” They had mats. They were “encrusted with feces and urine.” And, (I love this touch), one of the dogs was found in between two dead dogs! Oh, my! The description of the seized dogs is so textbook that they could have copied it right off some old news release, and probably did. If you look at the photos on the page of the story, the dogs look pretty nice. They are small breeds and very cute. They look nice and well-groomed to me. People who saw the news stories on TV said the dogs looked nice, too. But, isn’t that always the case lately? These groups only seize dogs that are small, in good condition, and which will be easy for shelters and rescue groups to sell. So, it’s hard to imagine what ARC plans to spend that $100,000 on. If anyone donates money to them, I think it’s likely the money will go straight to an ARC picnic, an ARC Christmas party, maybe some nifty ARC gear with their logo. But I don’t see it being spent on the dogs because they don’t look like they need much help.

It does seem kind of strange that they don’t know if any charges will be filed against the breeder, yet they went in and seized the dogs. How can you seize dogs when there are no charges? I certainly hope the breeder will hire a good attorney and fight to get custody of their dogs back. I think it’s pretty clear by now that the intent of these raids is two-fold: a) take cute dogs that can be sold through shelters and rescue groups; and b) ruin the lives of breeders as much as possible to try to stop them from doing any future breeding. It’s that simple. They don’t care if the dogs are well-cared for or not. These radical groups have their own agenda and it’s not really about what’s best for the dogs.

If the breeder doesn’t get their dogs back, how much do you want to bet some of these cute, very adoptable dogs end up in the Memphis Animal Shelter and their empty kennels?

"The Enemy Within"

 

The Enemy Within: AKC Registration Numbers as Barometer of Public Opinion

by Marge Kranzfelder

(reprinted here with author's permission)

Please keep in mind my perspective. It comes from working in the rank and file within the sport of dogs attempting to assist in keeping it viable in today's society. It is one of respect for the AKC. The AKC has established and maintained a uniform method of competition across our large nation. Its record-keeping has kept pace with modern technology. These functions reflect its mission statement. My writing while critical comes with the hope that the AKC will do what it takes so that future generations are able to enjoy the pleasure and contentment that sharing lives with canines brings. My concerns in recent years about the AKC's future were further crystallized by Ron Menaker's September 2008 Chairman's Report.

I am the second generation of my extended family involved in the sport of dogs. I have been raised in awe of those true "dog" men and women that have dedicated their lives, talent and seamless blend of learned and instinctual knowledge to canine endeavors. The AKC's own "breeding program" is not producing these exceptional caretakers in the number they once were. I grew up during the '50's when the word breeder was a term of respect. It was a profession you wanted to aspire to, not be apologetic about in general society.

Yes, our society is rapidly evolving. Though well intended, AKC's actions are more reactive than proactive. The writing was clearly on San Mateo's wall in 1990. By AKC's reaction to outside forces, they have turned up the heat on the people that were their support base. While having high morals standards within should be something expected and continually strived for, they should have quickly provided the public a real reason for joining in the sport, believing in the joy of pure-bred animals and really worked at making it easier to maintain a breeding program in today's life-style.

Allow me to state a few of the obvious reasons, people are no longer actively breeding dogs and dedicating their lives to this activity.

•Two people in a household need to work outside the home. This doesn't leave time to raise puppies and take care of multiple dogs.

•Limit laws prevent an active breeding establishment. Breeding one champion to one champion may produce a champion but it does not define a breeding program that will improve the breed.

•Air travel is being hampered by laws, expenses, public attitude toward dogs and increasingly intrusive security scrutiny.

•Cost of showing has increased. There are more shows with less leisurely quality time spent there.

•Veterinarians, influenced by those against breeding, discriminate against breeders or particular breeds. Veterinarian costs have increased greatly while the local veterinarian's average reproductive knowledge declined.

•Breeders are not valued by the general public.

Placing more arbitrary standards on those within the sport can be compared to the education of our children in this country. Requiring more testing doesn't really equate with better education. We must find the way to inspire and create curiosity so that individuals are self-motivated to be educated. If we educate well, the student will test well. However, conversely, if a student tests well doesn't imply he has necessarily been well educated.

The analogy applies to the artificial promotion of health testing and care regulations as "gold standards". Testing for testing sake shouldn't be the end goal. Of course, we want people to care for their animals and do the best health and genetic screenings available. This should be morally promoted and accepted practice. Standards of care shouldn't be to impress the public; they should exist because it is morally right and efficacious. The public naturally expects this. Therefore this should not be relied upon to create public incentive to own a purebred.

Promoting purebreds supersedes promoting purebreds that have passed a string of testing. The soft, fuzzy love of owning a purebred is why someone wants to purchase a purebred. Their true companionship and life benefiting love is why they keep those purebreds. The "soft-sell" emotional commercial models are the ones to probably consider primary. We don't need movies the likes of Disney's 101 Dalmatians nor the up-coming Beverly Hills Chihuahua to spike registration numbers; but we could use the promotion of devoted, purposeful individuals integrated into a modern day life-style, a current Lassie, Rin-tin-tin, and Old Yeller figuratively, to keep us company. Smoltzy, yes. But it cuts to the core of human motivation.

Two unintended negative consequences of making the "gold standard" of health testing a primary public strategy must be addressed. The reflected increased costs per puppy prohibit both breeding and then purchasing puppies. Either the public is then convinced to go to their shelters to obtain a mixed breed that does not have this expense to cover; or they now expect guarantees on a puppy for its full life that only a plush toy could offer.

A conclusion can be drawn that if care and testing standards are written in a reactionary manner to animal rights pressure, we have allowed them to set us up for failure. No finite list of acceptable results on tests can assure that a puppy will be healthy and desirable. Like the above education analogy, the AKC must inspire and instill in its breeders the desire to morally use every possible tool to produce a desirable dog to the best of the breeder's ability.

I realize the concept of how to "inspire and instill" morals is a difficult one. It is one of motivation. Today's trend in legislative restrictions adds many additional constraints onto breeders. If the AKC adds further regulation in attempts to "prove itself", it invites the real danger of snuffing the creativity of those truly gifted individual thinkers. I believe that one of the strong incentives to being a breeder is to have a hobby that is continually challenging while utilizing creativity and problem solving abilities.

An activity that is highly regulated will not attract a gifted individual. The end result of over-regulation is mediocrity. AKC should explore the concepts employed by Genentech, Google, think-tanks and innovative research facilities. This could help explain the decease of higher echelon participants in this sport.

At first I was disappointed that my children's generation isn't anxious to get involved in dog competition. Then I worried about where my grandchildren, when they become adults, will be able to purchase a family pet.

Unfortunately, I am now worried about whether they will even consider owning one, especially considering an AKC purebred. The AKC's public relations campaign addressing the reasons to want to share your life with a purebred is too little and far too late. From advice given from experience in ring competition, the AKC shouldn't concentrate so much on the competitor (other registries, designer breeds, etc.). Instead the AKC must concentrate on improving its own excellence! There is a passion in those that succeed. The uniqueness of successfully accomplishing its goals will then bestow recognition.

Another way of stating this is if the people involved within the sport are truly enjoying what they do and receiving personal benefits, others will want to join in. The AKC has much ground to make up against the animal rights lobby. It must attack this far more aggressively. It must find its terrier within!

Until the AKC finds ways to push back against those forces, by finding ways to encourage and make a breeder's life legal, more desirable, and a respected part of society, its registration numbers will continue to decline. Until the AKC increases the activities that a normal working family can engage doing with their dog and encourage public places to be accessible and acceptable to people with dogs, its registration numbers will continue to decline. Until the AKC gives people reason to keep a registered purebred and/or rescuing another in just about every home, its registration numbers will continue to decline.

Since every organization needs fiscal soundness to survive, I have one further observation to make regarding the survival of AKC. I will address Ron Menaker's noble comment concerning down-sizing. So far, the effort has been a beginning token. I'm sure there are corporate models that have successfully re-organized in order to survive which can inspire a more extensive expense cut-back. Flat line expenses can only balance flat line revenue. Until there is not a revenue problem, the balance solution remains the expense problem. Taking the advice we promote with breeders, selectivity is a main tool to achieve your goal.

The Board can respond, "But we have tried all that". They have expanded their income base with parentage testing. They have fostered more programs than just breeding/conformation, recognizing the new revenue possibilities that activities like agility and rally have provided. They have fostered public education days, breeder recognition awards and televised dog shows.

My intent is not to berate the AKC. I have done my very best to keep positive over the years and help in whatever capacity I am able; however, to be silent with these concerns would be tantamount to not helping. Until the AKC addresses some of the core directional issues I have mentioned, I question its ability to turn the present situation around.

Obviously with the continued decline in registrations, the AKC will not be able to continue to sustain our beloved sport of dogs. Registration numbers should be considered the barometer of public opinion of the value of an AKC registered dog. The "Gold Standard". If a major redirection is not considered, I fear that, like the US dollar, the AKC won't be worth a silver certificate.

Respectfully,

Marge Kranzfelder

Pomeranian Charitable Trust, Founding Trustee

American Pomeranian Club, President 2005-2006

American Pomeranian Club AKC Delegate 1999-2004

American Pomeranian Club Life Member

Northern California Pomeranian Club, Board Member

The Animal Council, Treasurer

San Mateo County Animal Task Force, 1991

__._,_.___

---

Busy Bees in the "Beehive State"

Dateline: December, 2010.

A notice is sent out from the AKC legislation department. It seems that Salt Lake County, Utah, is proposing numerous regulations for dog breeders. The most problematic concerns were:

              Definition of "Volume Dog Breeder" – As currently written, a "volume dog breeder" is anyone who whelps more than one litter of dogs in a 12-month period. Anyone who falls under this       definition must be licensed and inspected each year.

  

       Unannounced Inspections – The proposal requires an annual inspection, but also allows inspections "upon receipt of a complaint or on [the division's] own motion." This allows arbitrary inspections at any time during business hours at the discretion of the county's Animal Services Division. There is no requirement that complaints be substantiated prior to inspection.

·        Problematic Standards of Care – All dogs must be provided constant and unfettered access to an indoor enclosure with solid floors. There are no exceptions for other types of safe, sanitary flooring. 

Concerned dog owners attend the hearings. Sady, the measure passes.....but wait! The story has not ended.

Fast forward to March, 2011.

I receive a note from a friend in Salt Lake County. Seems the locals have taken matters into their own hands. Generally, this is appropriate and necessary action to address draconian legislation when it is proposed in your area.  A group of dog people, including kennel club officials and judges, have worked with the county animal services department to help revise this ordinance. It will be presented Tuesday, March 29th, for a second reading and possible final vote. If approved, it will take effect within 15 days. You can find the text of the proposed ordinance here:

http://animalservices.slco.org/pdf/revisedBreederOrdinance.pdf

The proposal requires EVERY BREEDER to be licensed and inspected annually. More inclusive than what was originally proposed. One change for the better; the inspections cannot be unannounced. Otherwise, this isn't really anything that could be considered an improvement from the original proposal.

You can register as a breeder up to a week after the litter is born, but what if you are denied the breeding permit? What then? At the mercy of the AC? What exactly is involved with the inspection? There are no guidelines in the ordinance for said inspection....so I guess it's whatever the AC people at the time decide it is. Maybe cobwebs in the corner will be a reason to deny? Crumbs about from the food dishes? Who knows?

Breeders who belong to a breed club with an ENFORCED code of ethics can obtain a free five-year license. How can clubs force adherence to a code of ethics? Per AKC, they can't. Codes of ethics are unenforceable; they are GUIDELINES. But, if the club doesn't figure out a way, they will not be allowed to participate for two years, leaving all the members out of the special free breeding license program. They must have derived this idea of the enforced code of ethics from the LA ordinance. LA, years later, still hasn't yet figured out how to handle that issue.

The breeding license is free for a club member, but how much is this breeding license for those who do not belong to a club? What about dogs raised for service, or for farm work, or for hunting, or the many other reasons people breed dogs other than as a conformation show hobby?

To qualify for the free five-year license, you must follow the breed-specific recommendations for health testing. So now all these "guidelines" that we as breeders have set up for ourselves as goals for best practice are going to be enshrined in the law? So if you breed a bitch or dog with less than perfect health scores, but perhaps other wonderful qualities where does that leave you? Up that proverbial creek without a paddle. Few dogs have absolutely perfect health, but testing is recommended to try to work toward improvement. Certainly, testing is not any ironclad guarantee of absence of genetic health problems. These are not widgets we are producing, they are living, breathing creatures with unpredictable genetic recombination and many imperfections.

A breeder MUST take back a dog at any time during its lifetime? Yes, most do, but why should it be written up as a law? What if your circumstances change and you cannot take back a dog or find it a new home, what then? Why is it deemed a seller's job to find a new home when the new owner decides he is tired of the dog, or is getting a divorce, or someone is allergic, or the dog is injured and needs expensive surgery, or a myriad of other troublesome scenarios?

"Appropriate preventative and therapeutic veterinary care is provided". Who decides what that means? All on a whim, no doubt, depending on whether or not you are liked or disliked by the powers that be...

"Prompt treatment of any injury or illness by a licensed veterinarian"? Vague, and open to prosecution for crazy stuff like teeth that need cleaning, or any minor injury like a cut or scrape. These cases are already happening........a breeder in Virginia recently had her dogs confiscated because some needed their teeth cleaned!!!

A disaster response and recovery plan is needed, "including, but not limited to, structural damage, electrical outages and other critical system failures." Good lord, since when is an electrical outage considered a disaster? Do they require a disaster plan for people without dogs, or with children? And it sounds like it will take a lot of effort to get it written up. Again, another needless but intentional roadblock to breeding.

"Constant and unfettered access to an indoor area that has a solid floor". Gosh, the exact same requirement that we objected to in the original ordinance. Still there! Hey, can I put my dogs out for exercise in the yard and close the door? Legally, guess not!

Shawni Larrabee, director of Animal Services for Salt Lake County, sent an email to the President of the local kennel club, in which she claims that they are copying the Calgary model. She informs him that she has three other ordinances in store for Salt Lake County. "These changes would require cat licensing, increase the penalty for repeat noncompliance and eliminate pet limits in unincorporated county." I'm not sure what sort of "noncompliance" she is referring to. Elimination of limits, always a good thing.

Yes, increased licensing compliance is part of the Calgary model. Annual inspections, no. Bill Bruce says that once the owners license their dogs (and now cats) he doesn't care how many they have or what they do with them, because Calgary has plenty of ordinances to deal with those that don't take care of their animals. 

But really, how shocking is this whole proposal. Home 'inspections' for ONE LITTER.. people bartering away their rights to freedom and privacy, and for what? Because they DARE to breed their dog? Absolutely appalling!

"Portion of a residence used as enclosure"?   What does that mean.. it means.. anywhere the dog has access to within your home is open to inspection. So now your home is subject to "inspection by the authorities".....No probable cause or warrant required!

This ordinance should be struck down. No private residence should be open for inspection because of a litter of puppies.. ( or kittens??)  Do they inspect your home when you bring a child from the hospital.. if you have a home birth.. anyone???

BRRR... First, LA County, and now Salt Lake? What is happening to our freedoms? 

 

I beg those of you who live in Salt Lake County to attend the hearing and ask for the defeat of this ordinance!