The Writing on the Wall

Elizabeth, the Lhasa Apso deserves hearty congratulations for her Best in Show win at Crufts 2012.

The Lhasa Apso is closely related to the Pekingese, the Shih Tzu and the Tibetan Spaniel, and a bit further removed is the Tibetan Terrier, the Pug and the Japanese Chin. In fact, sometimes different-coated dogs known popularly as "Prapsos" (perhaps Apsos) are born in Shih Tzu and Lhasa Apso litters. These dogs have different coats, shorter and straighter, and they look nearly identical to a Tibetan Spaniel. 

This is a clue to the close genetic relationship these breeds share. Historically, it is believed by some that the Chinese used the most extreme short-faced Tibetan dogs to develop the Pekingese. Some people believe it happened the other way around; that the Pekingese gave rise to those other breeds, but either way it is obvious that the Peke has been interbred with and is closely related to the various Tibetan breeds.

Elizabeth, and indeed her breed in general, escaped the intense scrutiny of being on the "High Profile Breed" hit list. At least for this year.

This despite the close relationship to other breeds under fire, and sharing some of the much-criticised "extreme" features. The Lhasa Apso has a coat that dusts the floor. And hair that cascades over the eyes. And an undershot lower jaw. And is brachycephalic.

The AKC breed standard states:

The preferred bite is either level or slightly undershot....Heavy head furnishings with good fall over eyes, good whiskers and beard.

The KC standard specifies:

 Head furnishings with fall over eyes, but not affecting the dog's ability to see....Muzzle.....length from tip of nose roughly one third total length from nose to back of skull...reverse scissor bite.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't find fault with the standards. I'm simply anticipating future criticism by the nannying animal welfarists. A short muzzle, with an undershot bite? Dentition is probably suboptimal. Isn't all that hair a bit too "extreme"? That has been an oft-repeated criticism of the Pekingese....too much coat. Will the Lhasa be next to be criticised for their coat? At least the coat of the Pekingese doesn't fall over the eyes!

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
  Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit,
Shall lure it back to cancel half a line,
  Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

But helpless pieces in the game He plays,
  Upon this checker-board of Nights and Days,
He hither and thither moves, and checks ... and slays,
  Then one by one, back in the Closet lays.

Lhasa apso littermates, "Prapso" on the right

PUPS - "What Can We Do"?

PUPS (Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety) is the federal proposal that anyone who owns (or co-owns) even ONE intact bitch be brought under commercial regulations, if he also sells (or offers for sale) fifty dogs in a year. 

This measure is sponsored by the HSUS, so we know that the number "50" is arbitrary and will be reduced with future amendments. No need to reduce the number of intact bitches because anyone with an ownership interest in ONE intact bitch (as young as four months old) would be automatically included. Co-ownerships are specifically mentioned; it's possible that such things as breeding rights and puppy back contracts may also "count" in one way or another as your sales numbers are tabulated.

PUPS erases the line between those who sell at wholesale and those who sell at retail. Currently, retail sellers are regulated locally. PUPS is an effort to bring those who sell at retail (like anyone who advertises with a personal website) under the auspices of the federal Animal Welfare Act. Contrary to the claims of PUPS supporters it does NOT apply only to internet sales. PUPS includes breeders who place pets "via any means of conveyance"; internet ads/websites, newspaper, telephone, dog show contacts and so on.

Requiring hobby breeders to follow USDA rules would force many people to give up hobby breeding entirely. Commercial rules forbid keeping dogs in your house, and instead require that an expensive kennel facility be built. Carpet, grass and upholstered furniture (like a couch or chair) is forbidden in the dog areas. Raising pups in your bedroom instead of a kennel would not be allowed. Dogs must be kept in runs with cement floors, roof-style covers, an adequate ventilation system and floor drains for sanitation protocols which are also regulated. The cost of building such facilities would be out of reach for the vast majority of breeders.

Other rules that would be difficult if not impossible for hobby breeders to meet include submission to unannounced inspections and meeting ambiguous exercise requirements.

The USDA is currently criticised for lax enforcement of existing law. In 2008, the USDA had 99 inspectors who conducted 15,722 inspections or re-inspections on facilities including 4,604 licensed breeders and 1,116 licensed brokers. The numbers of facilities/homes that would be added by PUPS would be in the thousands, adding additional strain on the existing system. PUPS would result in fewer inspections of the large, commercial breeders the AWA was intended to regulate in the first place.

Along with many other canine groups, AKC opposes PUPS, stating:

 

The AKC also has a number of serious concerns with the bill as introduced and does not support this measure.

(You can read their concerns and the full alert at the link below)

http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=4543

One of best PUPS opposition statements belongs to the national cat registry association, CFA, even though PUPS doesn't even apply to them (doesn't apply YET - which is the whole idea of why they oppose):

http://www.cfa.org/Client/exhibitorsalert.aspx

There is a version of PUPS in the Senate, and a version in the House of Representatives. Presumably, this makes it easier to get it pushed through quickly once the votes are there. And, at last count, there were 196 congressional sponsors for PUPS; more are signing on every day. Once they get around 220 or so they will have enough votes to pass and it just might be brought up at that time. There is talk that PUPS may never come to a vote because the USDA may amend the AWA and then it might be a moot point. We can hope!

There's a new legislative site that allows you to contact your legislators quickly and let them know when you support or oppose proposed legislation.

Click on the two Popvox links below to urge your legislator to oppose PUPS in both House and Senate:

US Senate PUPS
https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s707

US House of Representatives PUPS
https://www. popvox.com/ bills/us/ 112/hr835

The entire rationale for PUPS is to try to "catch" people who are breeding commercially and selling directly to the public via the internet. However, people who attempt to skirt the law now will not be more likely to comply if a new law is passed. Instead, we will lose many conscientious breeders who are the best sources for healthy, well-bred dogs in this country. The language of PUPS would also bring rescue groups and other resellers under onerous federal rules. Many of these groups use the internet (websites or puppyfind-type services) to find homes for their animals. All retailers who sell directly to the public should remain under local regulation.

Please take a minute to contact your senator and congressman. Popvox makes it quick and easy.

Animal Ownership Petition

In recognition of the fact that animal rights groups like HSUS and PETA are devoted to limiting pet ownership in our country by any means possible, including subterfuge, lies and animal enterprise terrorism, we the people, the vast nation of animal owners, wish for the truth to be exposed.







Be it known that:


• Animal rights extremists have claimed that "not enough homes" exist for pets. There are 23 million homes for pets opening up each year in the USA, and between 3-4 million animals killed in shelters. We have a failure of shelter leadership and management.


• Shelter killings are only justified in cases of illness, infirmity, severe injury, or owner-requested euthanasia. No adoptable animal need ever be killed.


• Pet lovers across the land are appalled that this killing continues when there is no reason for it.


• The latest national pet owner survey reveals that 78% of all owned dogs and 88% of all owned cats are already spayed or neutered.


• Mandated sterilization results in increases in shelter intakes and deaths everywhere it has been tried.

• Shelters and rescues import hundreds of thousands of dogs into the US each year, and many more are smuggled in to meet the current demand for pets.

Be it further resolved:


• ANIMALS, including dogs, cats and other pets are property. The Government should recognize the inherent right to property as specified in the US Constitution.


• The government shall set no limit on our right to own animals excepting local nuisance ordinances.


• No restriction shall be set on the numbers of animals owned or the animal husbandry methods employed by animal owners beyond basic health, sanitation and rabies control.


• No adoptable dogs or cats in animal shelter should be killed. Animal control agencies must fulfill their duties to seek out homes or rescue group placement for all such adoptable animals, and to trap, neuter and release feral, unadoptable cats.


• The reproductive rights for our animals rests with owners and the government shall not interfere with those rights.

Proposal: a federal law prohibiting limitation on ownership of animals as personal property; nor shall any animal ownership regulation be imposed that does not directly affect human health nor violate existing animal welfare laws.

Jerry Brown - Still Crazy After All These Years

You are known by the company you keep.

SB 917, the bill that would criminalize someone who would sell or give away kittens or puppies at the local market, was signed into law today by Governor Brown. The criminal animal cruelty statute now will include public sales of animals, making sales a misdemeanor offense right up there in the same league with beating, maiming, and torturing.

Sadly, this means that people will be afraid to place animals at all, and instead of animals finding homes, more dogs and cats will become homeless, to starve or be hit by a car; or, they might end up in the local shelter where they will add to the death toll. The good Samaritan who attempts to find homes for the litter of kittens under his porch would end up with a criminal record. Nice, huh?

One would think that a former Attorney General for the state would see this bill for what it is....a mockery of justice. We've got nothing more important to do than criminalize more and more people? The courts aren't crowded enough? Perhaps Brown views more criminals and potential criminals as job security for government workers. We'll have a fine time rounding everybody up and punishing them. And get paid for it, too!

Good ol' "Governor Moonbeam" Brown....wiser? Nah, just older. 

Los Angeles now to kill dogs for their "potential"

Los Angeles just doesn’t seem to have enough pressing issues to keep the board of supervisors occupied. Now they are busily dreaming up new ways to harass dog owners, and looking for excuses to seize and kill more dogs.

KNX 1070′s John Brooks reports animal control officers will now have the power to seize an animal simply for chasing someone.

“There doesn’t necessarily have to be a bite,” said director of animal control Marcia Mayeda. “But if a dog’s charging at you down the street and you jump on top of a car to get out of the way, that’s a potentially dangerous dog.”

But if a dog is determined to be a “significant threat to the public health, safety and welfare,” animal control personnel can destroy the dog under the new ordinance.

OK let me get this straight. If my dog does the job that it’s bred for and chases off a burglar, it can now be declared a dangerous dog? And destroyed? Hey, why stop at a dog that chases? Barking, growling and baring teeth can also be considered menacing. I suppose if an AC officer tries to enter my property and is chased, then the dog will be subject to a death penalty?

The law also sets up a more cost-effective administrative hearing process, one that won’t call on the Superior Court to resolve disputes over whether the picked-up dog was in fact dangerous.

Heck yeah. Why worry about whether the dog is in fact actually dangerous? Just kill him. An uneducated animal control officer is obviously going to do a better job adjudicting these matters than an actual REAL judge.


Is there any place on the planet more dog-unfriendly than Los Angeles? Perhaps a good candidate for the title would be the People’s Republic of China, where they club dogs to death by the thousands instead of vaccinating them for rabies.


But hey, give LA time. They'll get down to clubbing dogs soon enough. Or maybe shooting them where they stand. After all, that would be way more cost-effective than impounding them. 

Not surprisingly, the People’s Republic of Los Angeles is travelling down the same path as the People's Republic of China.

My dog sure as heck better chase anyone who is a threat to me and my family. And for the government to suggest that he should be killed for doing his job is obscene.


Full article here:
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/07/19/what-makes-spot-vicious-la-county-to-seize-dogs-for-chasing-people/

The Death of Liberty in Philadelphia

Philadelphia Freedom? Not likely under a new animal ordinance.

Passed in May, and effective immediately: All "adoptions" from shelter/rescue and dogs sold at retail must be sterilized. (police, service and competition dogs exempted).

Sale of Unsterilized Animals Prohibited. No animal retailer shall sell a dog or cat on a retail basis unless the animal is of an appropriate age for sterilization and the animal has been sterilized by a licensed veterinarian. In addition to a fine for any unsterilized cat or dog sold in violation of this subsection, the Animal Control
Agency may order an animal retailer to cease operations for up to one year from the date of a violation.

Some provisions in this ordinance sound eerily similar to the Title 10 ordinance in LA, including the requirement for  kennels to have staffing for 18 hrs per day. However, the mandatory sterilization requirement in LA applies to every owned dog. 

Does the "sold at retail" provision apply to private parties (i.e. small home breeders)? According to the definition included in the ordinance, it just might apply depending on what is considered a "business". If you deduct your expenses for tax purposes, are you a "business"?

Animal Retailer. A person in the business of selling dogs or cats to the
ultimate owners of such dogs or cats, including but not limited to a pet shop kennel under the Dog Law, and a dealer, to the extent such dealer engages in the retail sale of dogs or cats.

As in LA, the requirements necessary to qualify for an exemption as a "competition" dog have not been cearly defined. See page 15-16 for the MSN requirements.

http://www.pijac.org/_documents/pa_philadelphia_mandatory_spay-neuter_ordinance_2011.pdf

But wait! As if that mandatory sterilization law is not enough to make you want to move to some freer nation (Mexico perhaps?), there are yet more chilling new rules now in effect under this ordinance. Now veterinarians must verify dog licensure in order to treat the animal. And, a seller reporting requirement sounds strangely similar to a bill currently in the California legislature, AB 1121, that mandates "pet dealers" report the details of their sales to the local licensing agency.

  

(a) Licensing Upon Purchase or Adoption. A person obtaining a dog
that must be licensed under this Section from an animal retailer or animal shelter shall submit an application and the applicable fee for such license to a dog licensing agent or the Animal Control Agency as a condition of obtaining the dog. No animal retailer or animal shelter shall release a dog to a person unless such person has submitted a license application and applicable fee.

(b) Licensing Upon Provision of Services. Whenever a veterinarian, veterinary hospital, boarding kennel, or groomer provides services for a dog that must be licensed under this Section, such service provider shall verify that the dog is licensed.

http://www.pijac.org/_documents/pa_philadelphia_mandatory_spay-neuter_ordinance_2011.pdf

Can you imagine how many dogs will not be treated when they need it? Bad enough to make vets report their rabies vaccinations to the state, but now for veterinarians to be the licensing police?? 

All this out of a city that saw the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the assembly of the Continental Congress, and that was the seat of the new Republic in the 18th century. All traded away for Gestapo-style tactics aimed against the citizenry.

A sad reflection on how far we have strayed from the freedoms which founded our nation.

Animal Extremists Subvert the Will of the People





PETArd Judie Mancuso poses with her legislative lackeys at a "Social Compassion in Legislation" award event in June 2011. (left to right) CA Assemblyman Mike Gatto, West Hollywood City Councilmember John D’Amico, LA City Councilman Paul Koretz, CA Senator Kevin de León, "retired" CA Assemblyman Pedro Nava, lobbyist Judie Mancuso, CA Senator Ted Lieu, LA City Councilman Tony Cárdenas, and CA Assemblyman Jose Solorio.

  

 
Anyone who owns and breeds animals realizes that the goal of animal rights 
fanatics is to regulate animal ownership right out of existence. And now, 
we see that persistent campaign in action year after year in the California 
legislature. 

We have a serious problem in California. Animal Rights fanatics are writing  
many new laws in our state. These laws are sponsored by the HSUS and 
other radical animal groups. Laws that mandate sterilization of pets, 
broadscale application of microchipping, seller reporting of sales to the 
government, limits on breeding, and expensive permits and fees for animals
....these are the order of the day. 

Lately, we are fighting a very well-organized effort to ferret out animal 
owners and attempts to criminalize them, penalize them, fine them, jail them, 
and prevent them from legally possessing any animals for YEARS! 

We also have a law progressing that requires any pet seller to report their 
buyer’s personal information to licensing agencies. There is also a law on 
the governor's desk awaiting signature that would criminalize sales of 
animals in public venues. Giving away kittens at the market would net you a 
misdemeanor!

We already have mandatory spay/neuter/microchip in many areas. So, once 
you are targeted as an animal offender for not spaying your dog, or for daring 
to sell an animal in public, or for not microchipping your cat, there are new 
laws being pushed through that will cause you to forfeit your animals and 
prohibit you from having any contact with animals for 5 to 10 years! 

Just as an example of this Animal fanatic legislative agenda, take the 
support list for CA SB 702, mandatory microchipping of animals on release 
from a shelter. (See below, copied from CA legislative website)

This list reads like the "Who's Who" of animal rights terrorists: 

• Social Compassion in Legislation; a front group for PETA, with at least 
one of the four founders (Jane Garrison) having been a former longtime 
PETA employee. PETA kills the majority of animals that enter their shelter 
in Virginia. They also wish to separate people from animals completely. 
Social Compassion has successfully campaigned their mandatory 
sterilization agenda in many localities in California, even thought their 
statewide law failed due to public outcry.

• The Animal Legal Defense Fund, or ALDF; a radical animal rights group 
that boasts on its website about suing the federal government 
"for failure to protect rats and mice under the Animal Welfare Act" and, 
more recently, has engineered ordinances prohibiting sales of animals 
in pet stores in several cities in California. The ALDF is also sponsoring 
legislation in several states attempting to establish animal abuser registries, 
similar to child abuser registries. Apparently, ALDF can not discern the 
difference between rats and mice and human children. The ALDF website 
also includes pointers on how to avoid prosecution when your violent 
activities subject you to prosecution under the Animal Enterprise Terrorist 
Act. 

• The Cities of Long Beach and Los Angeles; notorious for their oppressive 
anti-animal breeding regulations. 

• The Santa Cruz SPCA; champions of their mandatory spay-neuter policy, 
which was exposed as a sham during the California legislature during the 
statewide MSN hearings. 

• PawPAC; an animal rights group headquartered in San Francisco and 
dedicated to promoting laws that place animal rights above human rights. 
They campaign relentlessly to install animal rights legislators into positions 
of power.

• The Humane Society of the US; "humane" in name only and does not 
support local humane societies. The HSUS has been widely criticized of 
late for their hypocritical support of animal rights, even as they collaborated 
with animal torturer Michael Vick in an advertising campaign. In their paid 
"consultations", the HSUS routinely urges shelters to kill animals as soon as 
any mandatory holding period expires. They also campaign against 
implementation of no-kill sheltering methods and fought against legislation 
that would have implemented "no kill" sheltering methods in both California 
and Texas. The HSUS fraudulently raises donations from people who believe 
their money goes to help animals in shelters, as is implied in their television 
ads. Instead, the HSUS uses that money to push for absurd laws like 
mandatory sterilization and numeric limits on animal ownership. 

The fact that our legislators take what these fanatic animal extremists 
groups say at face value is truly shocking. The extremists, the fringe element 
of society, are being given free reign to form our laws! Meanwhile, these 
radical groups are heaping praise and recognition on the legislators who 
vote "their way".

And, no doubt, the extremists are funnelling plenty of campaign 
donations in return for these votes. The net effect of their legislative 
projects are intended to reduce overall pet ownership and animal agriculture.

As we examine the agenda for these groups, we discover the sobering truth: 

Animal Rights means No Animals Left. 





CA SB 702 - REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :

Support 

Social Compassion in Legislation (sponsor)

Animal Legal Defense Fund

California Animal Control Directors Association

City of Long Beach

City of Los Angeles

PawPAC

Santa Cruz Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Take Me Home Animal Rescue

The Humane Society of the United States


Opposition 

California Federation of Dog Clubs

California Responsible Pet Owners' Coalition


The legislators pictured above must be replaced with sensible legislators 
who respect our rights to animal ownership and stewardship. 

VOTE THEM ALL OUT!

California’s Vegan Revolution- Animal Owners, Raisers, and Farmers in the Crosshairs

California has long been a bastion for those who dare to dream, innovate, and strive to create new frontiers whether it is in science, academia, the arts, business, or politics. From these creative forces we Californians have given the nation significant advances in science and technology (the microchip), the movie industry ( Hollywood ), a gifted president (President Reagan), and last, but certainly not least, some of the finest agriculture the world has ever known. At its zenith, all of these wonderful achievements coalesced to form the quintessential "California Dream" and from this wellspring came forth the famous and factual saying "so goes California, so goes the nation".

But, it is becoming more clear with each passing day that something is terribly, terribly wrong in California . Gradually, unnoticed by most, California is slowly deteriorating over time like a grand old mansion with a steadily crumbling foundation.   The California Dream is slowly dying and what seems to be rising from the ashes is a nightmare. Why? How did this happen? The answer is quite simple. Deliberate and strategic social and political engineering by motivated special interest groups. These groups seek to force their agendas upon us via carefully crafted and legislated mandates. The most powerful, dangerous, and influential of these groups are found in the realms of Environmental Activism (green groups) and Animal Rights. Homeland Security has identified in an official national security report that these groups constitute one of the most dangerous terrorist threats to America on a par with Muslim jihadists. While we have been busily pursuing our livelihoods and enjoying our families and animals, these dangerous groups have been stealthily working behind the scenes to gain more and more political power and influence over us all.

Among the more potent of these special interest groups are HSUS (Humane Society of the United States ) and PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). HSUS is the richest and most politically powerful Animal Rights organization in the world. They seek to synthesize an unnatural world devoid of all animal use including the abolition of pet ownership and animal based farming. Their ultimate goal is nothing less than the extinction of all domestic species.

Here is one of the more infamous quotes from the president of HSUS, Wayne Pacelle, which clearly conveys this horrific goal: "We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding."— Animal People News, May 1993  PETA, funded by George Soros' Tides Foundation, is no less radical in their beliefs as conveyed by their president Ingrid Newkirk:  "There's no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They're all animals."— Ingrid Newkirk, Washingtonian magazine, Aug 1986 and: "Humans have grown like a cancer. We're the biggest blight on the face of the earth."— Ingrid Newkirk, Washingtonian magazine, Feb 1990 Shockingly, PETA kills over 95% of the animals it take into their Norfolk, Virginia "shelter" annually according to state records. One can only assume that they equate death with kindness.

Unbelievably, HSUS, and to a lesser extent PETA, have grown into well funded juggernauts with tremendous political influence at the local, state, and federal levels in the United States . HSUS pushes for a thousand plus laws on all levels per year to usher in their brave new vegan vision. Most of this lobbying activity is illegal and based upon fraudulent fundraising activity. There is an ongoing IRS investigation into this matter. Meanwhile, PETA's focus is the media, education, and influencing public opinion to embrace the Animal Rights agenda. They have been incredibly successful to this end.

It has long been the goal of HSUS and PETA to "capture" California and to mandate veganism through carefully worded and placed state laws. The "capture" of California would be the crown jewel of their Animal Rights movement knowing that "so goes California , so goes the nation". To this end, HSUS has ushered forth SB 917 and AB 1117. SB 917 will legally redefine the term "animal cruelty" with purposefully overbroad and poorly defined law to include the transportation, display, and all sales of animals on public property.  

Think carefully about that.  This would mean that if you walk your dog or if your cat suns herself in your front yard you are, be the strictest interpretation of this law, "displaying" an animal and are guilty of "animal cruelty" which will be a misdemeanor replete with arrest, jail time, seizure of your animal, and punitive fines. If you transport rabbits to a show or take your dog to the vet you would, according to SB 917, be committing an act of animal cruelty. If your child gives away kittens in front of WalMart, she will instantly become a criminal in doing so. AB 1117 further expands the scope and reach of SB 917 by mandating seizure of all animals in one's possession if a single act of "animal cruelty" has occurred (see SB 917). Heavy fines and "upkeep" fees are then levied against the owner for each animal seized.  AB 1117 allows for the killing or other disposition of seized animals before the accused can prove their innocence in court. This bill allows for the destruction of evidence and the theft of real property under the color of law. Furthermore, if the accusation is founded (remember all evidence has been destroyed or disposed of) then the accused will not be allowed to own any animal again for 5 to 10 years. All other people living with the accused are bound by the same mandate. It does not take a lot of imagination to figure out how such bills might destroy all animal based agriculture, pet breeding, and animal ownership in California.

Horrifically, both of these bills have nearly passed through both the California Assembly and Senate. If you find this both shocking and terrifying, then please immediately contact your representatives at the state and federal levels. Contact the governor of California and urge him to veto both SB 917 and AB 1117. After contacting your representatives, it is equally important to inform as many people as possible to do like-wise.  Tell family members, friends, co-workers, and anyone else you can think of about these dangerous bills. Contact your local Tea Party and as many groups who have an interest in animal ownership that you can. Write to the editor of your local paper to get the word out. Knowledge is power. With knowledge and the fortitude to oppose those in power who push for these laws, we can effectively fight back against these highly influential Animal Rights special interest groups (HSUS and PETA) to save animal ownership in California .

Written by Diane Amble

California Animal Voters Alliance

Unfriendly Fire

In today's anti-dog breeder legislative atmosphere, it would be really beneficial if the groups organized to protect our ownership interests would join forces in that effort. Alas, this is not even remotely on the radar of at least one particular group in California. Let's call them, for the sake of discussion, "Group A".


Group A is sponsoring a piece of legislation this session that would allow discounted puppy licensing. This same bill also mandates that pet dealers report their sales to their local licensing bureau.


Enter Group B. Group B notices that this bill would produce many undesirable unintended consequences for dogs and their owners. Several other animal interest groups (I guess those would be groups C, D and so on! LOL) also raised concerns regarding this bill. In many areas we have mandatory sterilization requirements, and oppressive limit laws, as well as differential license fees for intact dogs that are, in most cases, exponentially higher than fees for altered dogs. Mandated reporting could adversely affect dog owners. For example, in Los Angeles, the license fee for a sterilized dog is $20. However, the owner of an intact dog must pay $100 for their dog license, as well as a $235 fee for a breeder's permit. The breeder's permit is NOT optional; if the dog is intact you MUST pay for a breeder's permit. Whether you intend to breed the dog or not. This adds up to a yearly license fee of $335....per year....per dog. IF that dog "qualifies" to remain intact, that is. Is it any wonder that people are not lining up to license their dogs in Los Angeles?


Aggressive licensing is fine when you have a Bill Bruce or a Nathan Winograd in charge of the shelter. Instead, what we in California are stuck with is PETArds like Judie Mancuso and power-hungry vets like Alan Drusys....AC departments lying in wait, breathless with the anticipation of punishing the "greedy evil breeders" (direct Mancuso quote) for some technical violation of licensing, limits, mandatory spay/neuter or... we can now add to the list.... NONREPORTING of their sales to the local licensing agency. Can you foresee the day when an owner with a puppy presents to the local shelter to apply for their license? "And just WHO sold you this dog?" Gotcha, you evil breeder!


Coincidentally, we have ANOTHER bill proposed here in California right now that prohibits anyone convicted of an animal offense from contact with animals for a period of 5 to 10 years! And yet ANOTHER bill proposed to criminalize sales of animals in public places as a violation of animal cruelty laws. Let's connect the dots here. Make laws that are impossible to comply with, criminalize the owner, and then prohibit them from future animal contact! Clever little devils, those Animal Rights Fanatics. You gotta respect their malicious and tenacious spirit.


So, Group B opposes the puppy licensing/seller reporting bill and writes letters to the committees as this bill advances. Group A gets wind of the letter. Instead of agreeing to disagree, and respecting a well-thought out opposing opinion, Group A publicly posts disparaging comments about Group B on their blog. They claim that Group B is a "just say no" group; a LIE because group B is a sponsor of one bill this year and has written in support of another good bill. Group B simply does not support THIS particular bill, because it is NOT a good bill. Group A further maligns Group B, stating in their blog post:

But we were stunned to see them give as a primary reason that all vets are already required to report rabies vaccinations to all local governments. From their letter:
Currently, veterinarians are already required to report any dogs vaccinated for rabies to licensing authorities. THERE IS NO SUCH STATE LAW. And we don't want such a state law.

Now Group A is being rather disingenuous here, because they should know that according to the California Health and Safety Code, section 12169 (e) in reference to rabies vaccination enforcment:

"The governing body of each city, city and county, or county shall maintain or provide for the maintenance of a pound system and a rabies control program for the purpose of carrying out and enforcing this section."

In many counties and cities in the state, particularly in the more heavily populated areas, veterinarians ARE required to report all rabies vaccinations that they administer to the local licensing agency as well as maintain records of the same. This is how the cities and counties comply with state law for rabies vaccination and licensing compliance. Yes, San Diego, Los Angeles, Orange San Mateo and other heavily populated areas DO require veterinarians to report to the government the name and address of owners whose dogs they vaccinate.


San Mateo County states on their website:

" Rabies vaccination reporting is required under the California Health and Safety Code 12169."

And further goes on to quote their own ordinance:

"Every veterinarian who vaccinates or causes or directs to be vaccinated in the County any dog, cat, or wolf hybrid with anti-rabies vaccine shall certify that such animal has been vaccinated. Every veterinarian shall submit to the licensing authority a copy of the County-approved anti-rabies form, within ten (10) days of beginning of each month, for any dog, cat or wolf hybrid which he/she vaccinates or directs to be vaccinated with anti-rabies during the previous month. An Animal Control Officer or Animal Licensing Officer shall have the right to inspect records of rabies vaccination during normal business hours."

www.tinyurl.com/smrabies


Required reporting of rabies vaccination or sales of animals by pet dealers only results in more people avoiding vaccination/licensing. Another unintended consequence could be owners turning their dog in to the shelter when it reaches a year old, is not a cute puppy any more, and all of a sudden has to either have costly sterilization surgery or pay a HUGE license fee. And in Los Angeles, you don't even get that choice, you must opt for sterilization unless you can "qualify" to keep your dog intact. Many people will have no choice but to give up the dog, considering today's tight economy. Spaying a dog costs in the neighborhood of $300 and up, unless you can find some sort of government-sponsored clinic where God only knows what quality of surgical care your dog will receive.


And, to address some other items in this blog post by Group A, I could give a rat's patoot if 77% of owners sterilize their dog by a year old....what about that other 23%? And besides that, we should not be mindlessly encouraging the spay-neuter mentality. The result can be a host of adverse health consequences. Confinement is already the law, which means that if properly confined there is NO risk of unwanted litters, and the owner should make the decision about whether or not to sterilize his dog. NOT be leaned on by the government at gunpoint.


Being intact does NOT equate to being bred. There is absolutely NO justification for lower license rates for sterilized dogs.


As to lower license rates for puppies, license fees should be consistent regardless of age or reproductive status. Differential rates for puppies or intact adults must be vigorously opposed on principle.


But, returning to the issue of the proposed puppy license/seller reporting bill. Instead of considering all the logical reasons to oppose this stupid piece of legislation, Group A attacks and misquotes the opponents of the bill by claiming that they said that ALL vets must report ALL rabies vaccinations to the state; as well as stating that Group B claimed that this is a state law. Which, again, was NEVER stated. No such statement was ever made by Group B.


And why oh why are we fixated on a minor point like who must report dog owners to the state for licensing purposes? It seems in Group A's warped view of the world, everybody must be reported to the state by SOMEBODY ELSE. If not veterinarians reporting via vaccination records, then the seller must get into the act? I don't know how others may feel on the subject, but in my estimation nanny government is NEVER a good idea. People need to be responsible for themselves and their own actions, and we surely do not need tattletale busybodies reporting their neighbors to Big Brother. If my dog needs a license then I am the one responsible to procure said license.


Group A has a history of sniper attacks against other groups with whom they should instead be cooperating to protect our common interests. But with their sponsorship of this bill, and their constant libelous attacks on other animal ownership groups in the state, it is apparent that Group A is no longer working in the best interests of either dogs or their owners.


Well, there is certainly no point in sleeping with the enemy. We can only pray that Group A folds up their tent and goes away before they do further irreparable damage.

Lake County - another Cali-Failure

Here's living proof of the inevitable abject failure of animal policies being written into law California. Lake County has a mandatory spay/neuter law, but apparently no one remembered to tell the cats about it. There's now a cat population explosion! And, oddly enough, the cats are not lining up at the shelter to be sterilized OR killed.

No problem, you might say. Repeat after me:

TRAP

NEUTER

RELEASE

It works!

But no, Lake County does not utilize a trap-neuter-release program. They advise the residents to either shoot the cats, or bring them in to the shelter to be killed! Truly humane animal lovers there. And boy their system really is working for them, isn't it?

The rest of the state should sit up and take notice.

LAKEPORT, Calif. – Everyone has seen them – and many have fed them – but community members learned at a presentation last Friday the depth and scope of the feral and unowned cat problem in Lake County.

The startling truth: Lake County euthanizes more cats per capita than any other county in the state.

http://lakeconews.com/content/view/20377/919/

You know what we continually remind people of on this blog. It ain't "euthanasia" when you kill healthy animals. It's just plain KILLING.

So, how's that mandatory spay-neuter law workin' for y'all there in Lake County? Hmm??? Ready for a Nathan Winograd No-Kill seminar yet? Or will you continue on your current failed course?

The Perry Paradox

Insanity reigns supreme in Texas. Breeders being regulated out of existence, but it's fine to bring dogs across the border to sell on the street....

Perry vetoes roadside animal sales bill

By Matt Stephens | Posted: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 1:56 am

Having passed the other 41 steps to become law, House Bill 1768 failed to pass the 42nd, as Gov. Rick Perry vetoed the bill Friday, which could have prevented the roadside sale of animals in Montgomery County.

"House Bill 1768 would encroach upon the rights of private enterprise and property owners while fundamentally altering and expanding the role of county government," Perry said in his veto statement.

"It would be unfortunate if, through regulation, we unintentionally prevented, for example, the owner of a peach orchard with baskets of fruit or a Girl Scout troop with cartons of cookies from reaching their consumers. As a state, we should not raise barriers of entry into the marketplace, stifle competition or hinder the entrepreneurial spirit."

While Perry vetoed one animal bill, he passed another, as the Puppy Mill Bill, HB 1451, was signed into law Friday. The bill allows the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation to perform annual inspections of breeders who have 11 or more breeding females and sell 20 or more animals in a year. Breeders are required to pay a fee and apply for a commercial breeder's license.

http://tinyurl.com/3gpp8kx

Funny that Perry didn't worry about "the rights of private enterprise and property owners" when he authorized placing most all serious dog and cat breeders in Texas under USDA regulations with the so-called "puppy mill bill". I guess the HSUS didn't grease his palm enough on this one. Well, supposedly he is going to have back surgery soon, so maybe he is under the influence of some heavy narcotics. <SHRUG>

 "As a state, we should not raise barriers of entry into the marketplace, stifle competition or hinder the entrepreneurial spirit."

I love this! and will be using it in my letters to legislators. And, if I have enough room, I might even reference the author, too!!

So, let's get all this into perspective. We don't want the very best breeders in Texas to own or produce more than a handful of dogs, but it's OK for someone to sell puppies out of the back of their pickup truck that they bring across the border from Mexico. And hey, with the ranks of legitimate breeders dwindling, there will be more pups sold out of boxes or truck beds. Lots more. Yep, that's the government "improving" our lives. Aren't we lucky??

FOX LA-Journalistic stupidity

http://www.myfoxla.com/dpp/news/local/los-angeles-moves-to-ban-factory-bred-pet-sales-20110607



This article is so full of lies!! Whatever happened to journalistic integrity?


I do not believe in sitting idly by while fools such as yourselves force out of business those who are licensed and inspected, only to create a black market for pets that is getting worse every year. Many “rescues” these days are importing dogs from overseas to meet the demand for pets. This is happening right now in the City of Los Angeles! A “rescue” group here in LA imports dogs and sells them for hundreds of dollars each. Per the “Dogs Without Borders” website: “We currently rescue most dogs from local shelters and strays, but sometimes we rescue dogs from as far away as Taiwan!....Some of the dogs you see on our site are not here in the States.”

Dogs are currently being imported from the Caribbean, Romania, Taiwan and Mexico. These dogs are produced under unknown conditions and bring with them parasites and rabies! There was a case in 2004 of a dog brought up to Los Angeles from Mexico with rabies. First case of rabies here in over 30 years, but with continued imports of foreign strays, I'm sure we'll be seeing a lot more RABIES. Get rid of those who are licensed and inspected would have many adverse unintended consequences.

If Koretz and Barnette really want to help save dogs in shelters, they should attempt to implement some proven methods; increasing the pet limit ceiling is a good first step. More dogs in homes=fewer killed in the dog pound. Lower the ridiculous license fees for intact dogs. $335 per dog per year is outrageous! Repeal the mandatory spay-neuter law. Mandatory spay-neuter laws only cause shelter numbers to increase. It's a FACT that LA shelter intakes have increased by 38% since the mandatory spay-neuter law went into effect. This, after decades of progress and a steady decline in numbers. Good going, Los Angeles! You are a real model for the country. A model of failure!

Pet stores cannot sell dogs from unlicensed, noninspected breeders. How will this law affect anyone else? You know, those evil people who abuse dogs? They do not sell via pet stores!

Claims of high incidence of illness in pet store puppies are totally unsubstantiated. There is evidence that the pet industry provides more veterinary care for puppies than the public at large. DVM/VPI Insurance Group, the largest provider of animal health insurance, testified during a hearing in California that "preconceived notions" concerning pet store puppies "could not have been more wrong."

After insuring more than 89,000 pet store puppies and kittens and handling health claims from a pool of more than 500,000 insured animals, the insurance company reduced its premiums for pet store puppies and kittens substantially by as much as 22 percent compared to premiums charged for animals from other sources. Why? Pet store puppies receive more veterinary attention during the first 12 weeks of age than any other puppies and, as a result, have fewer claims.

Let's debunk the false claim of high number of pet store puppies ending up in shelters.

A Las Vegas shelter collects data on their intakes. Here is an excerpt from an article written on the subject:

'Officials should focus on finding the origin of the animals that rescue groups, shelters and animal control agencies come in contact with, said Harold Vosko, co-founder of Las Vegas-based Heaven Can Wait Animal Sanctuary. Without accurate information on the source of the crisis, addressing it is impossible, he said.'

'The Lied Animal Foundation, which operates the regional shelter, recently started asking people how they obtained their pets, said Jason Smith, who took over as director of operations about six weeks ago. The data will help Lied shape how it educates the community about responsible pet ownership.'

'Statistics collected over the past two years at Heaven Can Wait showed more than 85 percent of the animals came from a neighbor or friend’s litter, Vosko said. Fewer than 5 percent were from pet stores and no more than 1 percent or 2 percent were from professional breeders.'

'Michael Maddox, director of legislative affairs for the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council in Washington, D.C., says, 'The “overwhelming majority” of pets in shelters come from sources other than pet stores.'

Fox LA, DO YOUR HOMEWORK  and stop printing LIES.

“Los Angeles - The City Council today instructed the Department of Animal Services to draft a law banning the commercial breeding of dogs, cats, rabbits and chickens in Los Angeles and the sale of factory-bred animals in pet stores.

The motion, which was introduced by City Councilman Paul Koretz and was approved unanimously, also asks the department to arrange frequent adoption drives for shelter animals at licensed pet stores...Koretz said he unknowingly purchased a "puppy mill" bichon 20 years ago, and it required expensive medical care.

‘This is frequently the case because these animals are inbred and raised in terrible conditions, and that results in medical problems, behavioral problems ... often that leads to those animals winding up in our animal shelters,‘ he said. “

So let’s see...stop the pet stores from selling animals in pet stores (since commercially bred and factory bred, in L.A. City terms, covers EVERYONE), but “ask” them to sell animals from shelters instead. IOW, yeah, you can sell animals, but only when your inventory comes from shelters. Especially since most animals in shelters come from puppy mills (which, according to Koretz, et al, is synonymous with commercial breeders and factory bred). So the pet stores are continuing to sell the same animals, but all the income goes to the shelters. What a deal! Not for the legitimate pet stores, only for the shelter pet stores, but that doesn’t matter, does it?

All of this, apparently, because Koretz “unknowingly purchased a ‘puppy mill‘ bichon 20 years ago,“ which I guess he knew came from a PM because it required expensive medical care. I guess that would be one of those puppy mill dogs that end up in shelters, which the shelters then get to sell at pet stores now that the pet stores aren’t allowed to sell them. Ain’t guv’mint great?

All of which might have been avoided if Paul “head up his ass” Koretz had purchased his freaking Bichon from a responsible breeder. But he didn’t know to do that because he had his head up his...well, you get my drift.

Apparently, LA City Councilmember Paul Koretz is proposing a ban on the sale of commercially bred dogs, cats and rabbits in Los Angeles. This was presented as a ban on pets from "puppy mills," that undefined term which has lately been applied to breeders of any kind.

Perfect example of that incremental chip-away factor. First it’s puppy mills, then commercial breeders, then pet stores, then anyone who ever breeds a litter. So if Joe Blow’s dog accidentally has an “intimate moment” with his neighbor’s bitch, he won’t be able to make a buck off the puppies, so they’ll be let loose in traffic or dumped at the shelter. Not that I recommend this type of unplanned breeding, but it happens. The how or why isn’t the point. What IS the point is that Joe’s puppies will end up dead.

Wait, I forget, what’s the purpose of this type of legislation? To protect animals? Well, of course, what was I thinking? PETA has always said animals are better off dead than living on this planet with evil humans. When the intention of these laws is to end our association with animals, ALL animals, death is as good a way as any, right?

Hey, Paul, it’s working! Koretz is not Korect, he’s Korupt.

Buy a Puppy, Go to Jail.

Making meth is illegal. Buying or possessing meth is illegal.

Making kiddie porn is illegal. Buying or possessing kiddie porn is illegal.

Making puppies is illegal. Buying or possessing a puppy is illegal.

Sound outrageous? Maybe for now.... But increasingly, making puppies (breeding dogs) is illegal, and is following in the footsteps of other prohibitions, as if it was likewise some great social evil. The day may come when the other half of the prohibition equation is put into effect.

A Nation of Pet Lovers Loses Its Way

This article originally appeared in the April 22, 2011 issue of Dog News. It is reprinted here by permission of the author.

A Nation of Pet Lovers Loses Its Way

Carlotta Cooper

I’ve been an anglophile most of my life. I grew up loving all thing British, or English, from the language to the history of the British Isles. I spent some time in the country when I was in school. Inevitably, I segued into animals that were developed in Britain. I enjoyed the time I spent in Britain and the people I met were universally pleasant, though I do recall a few cab drivers with some rather colorful language.

All that was a few years ago. Maybe things change. That was before I became aware of the animal rights movement and the RSPCA.

The RSPCA has a reputation in Great Britain similar to that of HSUS in this country and is known for seizing pets and other animals unreasonably, based on cases highlighted in the media. If you google “RSPCA seizes pets” you will find hundreds of such stories, including stories about the RSPCA seizing overweight pets from their owners. They are also on record in the infamous documentary Pedigree Dogs Exposed with comments about purebred dogs such as then Chief Vet Mark Evans calling dog shows “a parade of mutants.” Evans is quoted extensively in the program.

In fact, the RSPCA received so much attention for their role in Pedigree Dogs Exposed that they had to set up Question & Answer pages for the public. On these pages you can find such comments about purebred dogs as these:

—The RSPCA is extremely concerned about the unacceptably high levels of

disability, deformity and disease affecting pedigree dogs.

— Hundreds of thousands of dogs are vulnerable to unnecessary illness, pain and

disability or behavioural problems because they’re bred primarily for how they

look rather than with health, welfare and temperament in mind...

—We believe that both the selective breeding of dogs primarily for appearance and

the intensive breeding of closely related dogs for anything other than

scientifically proven welfare reasons is morally unjustifiable...

—When choosing which animals to breed from, there’s often no merit attached to

an animal’s health, welfare or temperament - and often the attributes rated most

highly can result in disability or illness...

— Pedigree dog owners that show their dogs obviously want their animals to do

well at shows and/or produce popular offspring. So the dogs with the most

‘desirable’ attributes (i.e. those that most closely match the relevant breed

standard) are bred from most frequently. The selected features may easily

become exaggerated, causing dogs to suffer more health and welfare problems

and a reduced quality of life...

I think the impression left on the reader is that people who breed and show dogs only care for a dog’s appearance and give little thought to the dog’s health or temperament. There is certainly the impression given, in my opinion, that massive numbers of purebred dogs (or “pedigree dogs,” as they are called in Britain) are sick and deformed.

The RSPCA also commissioned a 76-page study which denigrated The Kennel Club in Britain and the breeding practices of pedigree dog breeders. “The Kennel Club, breed societies, and the pedigree dog showing community have formally endorsed the inbreeding of dogs,” it said. This was stated despite the fact that it was estimated that less than 1 percent of dogs registered with The Kennel Club were the result of first degree matings. “Much of the suffering which some pedigree dogs endure is unnecessary and a substantial part could be avoided with revised practices.”

Some of the suggestions that came out of the report included:

— The banning of first degree and second degree matings (e.g., parent and offspring, siblings, grandparent and offspring or half-siblings).

—Open studbooks.

—Conducting a full ethical review of the health and welfare of current breeds. This could inform decisions, such as to enforce rapid out-crossing or (as suggested by some), in extreme cases even to phase out some breeds.

—Make registration of pedigree dogs conditional upon both parents undergoing compulsory screening tests for prioritised disorders.

—Training and accreditation of judges to prioritise health, welfare and behaviour in the show ring.

—Development of schemes for calculating Estimated Breeding Values (EBVs) for disorders influenced by genetic factors. The EBV of an animal for any trait predicts the average performance of its offspring for that trait.

The RSPCA isn’t an organization concerned with helping sad puppies and kittens. It’s an animal rights group of exactly the same ilk as HSUS, with a similar agenda and the same attitude toward dog breeders and purebred dogs.

I think it’s hard to judge just how the British dog-owning public feels about pets and pedigree dogs these days. Pedigree Dogs Exposed seems to have certainly had a very negative effect on the perception of purebred dogs and dog breeders. A list member of the Pet-Law e-mail group looked up the following comments following stories about dog shows or dog breeding in the British popular press, but comments like these are easy to find on British web sites:

*Dog show-breeding stinks. The people who breed these dogs don't give a toss for their animals' welfare, no matter what they say.

*The people who breed those dysfunctional monstrosities ought to be jailed.

*There's only one breed: DOGS (read: cross-breeds, mongrels). Those which are given the label "breeds" are inbred mutants (sic).

*These kennel clubs are disgusting. The poor creatures are just status symbols for the owners and nothing else; owners who are usually loners - childless, anti-social, eccentric, vain, pompous creeps who are completely ignorant of biology.

-------

And this one:

*Those dog breeders should be ABSOLUTELY ashamed of themselves!!!!!!!

*Crufts breeders can be disgusted all they like, the reality is the rest of the rational thinking public is disgusted with them for breeding dogs with deformities and health problems!

*These people are beneath contempt

*Then quite simply these people are not dog lovers, if they would rather have a sick and deformed dog than a healthy dog. I used to want to go to crufts as a child, as a dog lover, now i wouldnt touch the place.

*What utter morons these dog breeders are, more concerned with "correctness" than the welfare of the dogs they breed as usual.

*Some of these dog breeders really sound like a bunch of Nazis !!! Try to imagine if the same practices were applied to creating genetically pure breeds of humans . . . oh wait, that did happen, in WW2 by . . . the Nazis !!!

As mentioned, comments like these are by no means rare following stories about dog shows or dog breeders or breeding in Britain. There are virulent attacks online about pedigree dogs now, since the film Pedigree Dogs Exposed. Just how common this feeling was prior to the documentary, I don’t know, but Britain does not seem to be a friendly place for dog breeding these days. It’s possible this is a very vocal minority, but there are few people writing in defense of dog breeders or pedigree dogs, at least online.

As if this kind of bashing weren’t enough, it’s not unusual to see headlines like this one in the popular British press: “Nation of animal lovers? Study shows 10m pets suffer mental or physical stress.” Is that really possible, you may ask? Out of a nation with approximately eight million dogs, and eight million cats according to the Pet Food Manufacturers Association in Britain, this study claims that 10 million of these pets are suffering mental or physical stress? Of course, this study, conducted by the PDSA (Never heard of it? Apparently it stands for pets in need of vets, but I can’t figure out the acronym), claims far higher numbers for cats, and includes rabbits in the study. They also sell pet insurance. I’m not quite sure how they are a charity. They take people to task if they don’t feed a commercial dog food; and they are very unhappy if animals are left alone for more than four (yes 4) hours per day. I’m not sure how people are supposed to leave the home and work to buy pet food. They claim that rabbits are “neglected” and forced to live on their own, which leads to boredom and stress. In short, they have their ideas about how pets should be treated, and they want to bash millions of pet owners who have different ideas.

This sort of sensational report is common in Britain and it makes front page news. All too often it seems to lead to changes in the way people actually think about animals and treat them. It can even lead to legislative changes — all based on ideas that are pulled out of the air, with absolutely no science or experience to back them up. There can even be misstatements of facts in these reports, such as the disagreement about the pet population numbers above.

Could it possibly be that the RSPCA, groups like PDSA, and others are following in the footsteps of Jemima Harrison and Pedigree Dogs Exposed? They have seen that the more they can rile the British public about animals, the more they may be able to cash in on the public’s concern for animals? I think it’s true that the British are great animal lovers. It’s just a shame that they have been led so far astray that so many of them no longer recognize when they are being taken for a ride. They think dog breeders are their enemy, and pedigree dogs are mutants. They take advice about caring for pets from organizations like the RSPCA which seizes pets, and the PDSA which has very suspect ideas about how animals should be treated. Whatever happened to British common sense?