Protecting those who protect us

Sick and tired of fighting the "animal rights" movement? You really want to get your life back? Try this. Help keep HSUS and Wayne Pacelle on the ropes. My post today on HumaneWatch.org Facebook page...


Tina M. Perriguey

Protecting those who protect us - in counterterrorism, and working the street - our German Shepherd Dog.

Here's a contest. How many of you will call the editor of your nearest MAJOR newspaper today- and DEMAND that they run a story on the RICO lawsuit against HSUS?

http://humanewatch.org/index.php/site/post/press_release_racketeering_lawsuit_fingers_humane_society_of_the_unite/

Can we get in 10,589 calls before David takes the stage in Orlando?

Please comment here after you speak to the editor. My comment is below. Hopefully, if you live in California, you'll be dialing (916) 321-5249 before you finish reading...

On March 1st, I couldn't help noticing that the Sacramento Bee Capitol Report had completely ignored the fact that HSUS had a RICO lawsuit filed against them. The Sacramento Bee faithfully prints every HSUS-issued press release. So I gave the Bureau Chief, Dan Smith a call that morning to politely inquire about their journalistic standards. I pointed out that the Sacramento Bee is always all too happy to print what HSUS tells them, without questioning or investigating the merit of HSUS's claims. And now that there's a huge scandal-ridden story about HSUS - the newspaper of our State Capitol is ignoring it. He said he'd check it out with their Washington DC office and call me back. I called him about an hour later, and we had a long talk. He said "I checked and although it's been talked about in some blogs, no major newspaper has written it up. If I were to do this, I'd have to put a reporter on it to verify the details. Most people think that HSUS is a good outfit, and I know some people like you may disagree, but..."

Essentially he was getting ready to blow the whole thing off and hang up, but I couldn't accept that. For one thing, I was still processing the fact that the Bureau Chief of the Sacramento Bee had just admitted to me that his idea of journalism is following the herd. (Which explains a lot about the catastrophic condition of our once-Golden State). I hadn't planned to do this, because I wanted a friendly conversation with the guy, but I ended up venting a bit. Which sounded a lot like this... (Forgive the run-on sentences, this is how I talk when I get fired up)...

"The Sacramento Bee is the newspaper of the state Capitol of California (the 8th largest economy in the world) - and it's disconcerting when we can't look to them for investigative journalism of an organization so powerful they just wiped out an important industry in our state. Should we tell California egg farmers there's no need for the public to learn the truth about HSUS?

"If I sound angry it's because you're hearing over three years of frustration built up, by reading Sacramento Bee reporters regurgitating HSUS press releases, without doing ANY investigative journalism. I find it interesting that you're suddenly concerned with accurate reporting when you are asked to publish something negative and scandal-ridden about HSUS. Pesky details like accuracy never slows Sac Bee down when you want to print something positive about the deceptively-named "Humane" Society of the United States. Do you know how many Constitutional violations are in the HSUS-backed bills that your newspaper routinely promotes?

"Thank God the Governor vetoed Pedro Nava's HSUS-backed so-called "puppy mill bill." But you know maybe it wouldn't have made it to his desk if Sac Bee had bothered to report that it would have criminalized the most ethical and essential breeders in the state - I'm talking about the men and women who produce top-quality bred and highly-trained assistance dogs for the disabled and law enforcement K9's. You know how much pressure was put on legislators to sign that deceptively-named bill, because of your newspaper's incessant printing of the lies told by HSUS and Pedro Nava? That bill didn't offer one single meaningful provision to protect dogs. It didn't have to, all it had to do was get called the "puppy mill bill" in print enough times.

"Dan, you sound like a nice guy, and a part of me wants to let you off the hook, because I get the sense that you haven't a clue as to the truth about how dangerous HSUS is. But then it hits me during this conversation... That's the most alarming thing of all. How is it possible that the Bureau Chief of the Sacramento Bee can still be in the dark?

"Dan I've got my own press release for you - and here it is. Every time you guys serve as a HSUS PR agency, instead of acting like a newspaper - you're helping the Bill of Rights get kicked to the curb. I don't know where you grew up, but where I grew up - that's called abdication of journalistic standards."

Now mind you, I know this is no way to win friends and influence people, so I got nicer at the end. I don't suggest a tirade. But I'm thinking Dan needs to get a LOT more calls. (916) 321-5249.

How many major newspapers have printed a story covering the RICO lawsuit filed against HSUS? How many of them routinely print stories casting HSUS in a rosy glow?

Is it just me, or is time to start demanding a little thing called journalism from major newspapers NATIONWIDE? If you agree with me, David can tell Orlando about the day 10,589 Americans made sure their newspaper editor read http://www.humanewatch.org/.

Puppy Shortages at Shelters

Where have all the puppies gone?

I just saw the following at the Sacramento Shelter posting area on the internet.

The poster says of the shelter and adoptions: “Not for kiddos or sensitive, easily attached people like myself. There seems to be a serious shortage of puppies in Sacramento. People I know who would never before have considered buying a puppy farm puppy are considering it because they are so few and far between at shelters.

The county shelter has dealt with this by creating wait lists for their puppies. Three people go on, you all show up at 10am on the release date, and the first person on the list gets first dibs at the puppy. Only standing in a room with other people you know are there to look at the same dog is weirdly competitive and icky.

Maybe I'm just too sensitive, but watching someone else happily walk off with the puppy you've been waiting to (maybe) take home for a week is really tough and bawl inducing.”

We don't need more laws restricting dog breeding.

How Much is that Doggie in the Window?

Are pet shops a a bad idea?
Should sales of animals in pet shops be banned?

 The usual rationale cited for banning sales of pets in pet stores is the commonly-held belief that all pet stores invariably obtain their dogs from "puppy mills." The problem is, truisms that "everybody knows" to be so are often proven wrong.

Pet stores must obtain their puppies from licensed commercial breeders, that is true....So is every commercial breeder a "puppy mill?". Commercial breeders are highly regulated, and most do provide good care.


Often, a buyer has specific qualities in mind such as type or temperament when looking for a pet. If you are looking for a specific breed, the best place to obtain a puppy is from a responsible hobby breeder. When you source from a hobby breeder, you can see the environment in which the pup was raised, and get a reasonable assurance of conformation, temperament, health and fitness. The breeder may become a valuable reference source to answer your questions or help with any problem that may eventually arise with the dog. The downside to this is that private hobby breeders often have long waiting lists.They also usually insist on a contract with many intrusive terms and conditions such as showing the dog, co-ownership or even limited registration requiring sterilization in order to buy your dog.

But any concerns about obtaining a dog from a hobby breeder are irrelevant nowadays...the current political climate in California makes breeding dogs nearly impossible for anyone other than licensed commercial entities. This also includes today's Politically Correct popular sources for dogs, shelters and rescues. Sometimes you can find the dog of your dreams at a shelter or rescue, but not always. Age is a factor; young purebred puppies are almost unheard of in rescues. And to top it all off, if you can find the dog you want, you must endure a lengthy application and approval process.

With hobby breeders quickly disappearing, and puppies generally unavailable through "rescue" venues, commercial breeders find themselves with a significant share of the pet market in this country. Yet these commercial breeders are the very sources that are often disparaged as so-called "puppy mills".

The derogatory term "puppy mill" confers an impression of wrongdoing on the part of the supplier. It is fundamentally wrong to restrict trade in pets based upon an unproved supposition of wrongdoing. If a commercial breeder is breaking current animal health and welfare laws, that situation needs to be rectified. However, to enact a knee-jerk reactive ordinance such as a sales ban is over-reaching and unwarranted.

Currently in California there are several shelters that import pets from other areas... and even other countries....in order to have dogs available for adoption. The Helen Woodward Humane Society in San Diego routinely imports stray dogs from Romania. Other groups such as Compassion Without Borders, Save A Sato and Save a Mexican Mutt import dogs, and many more are smuggled in illegally every year. A recent Border Patrol survey estimates conservatively that over 10,000 dogs are smuggled into California every year from Mexico. Rabies and other infectious diseases sometimes accompanies these imported dogs.

http://petpac.net/news/headlines/importedpuppies/index.html

With the numbers of small hobby breeders rapidly dwindling, pet stores may indeed see an expanded role in society. Should we ban sales through legitimate, licensed and inspected sources such as pet stores, and thereby encourage importing dogs to meet the demand for pets? The answer to that question is a resounding "NO."

There ya go again!

New rules and regulations are being proposed by the LA DACC. These would impose further burdensome restrictions on kennels, pet stores and animal facilities.

 Our legislators are being advised by AR people, who do not have experience with animal care and their suggested changes are not in the best interests of animals or their owners. One thing is clear about these changes. They resemble almost all of the dog law changes sweeping the country. They are composed almost entirely of vague language that can be used selectively to persecute on a whim. Here are a FEW thoughts on some of the language of the proposed ordinance.

 "Housing will be sound and in good repair". What is "good repair"? Fresh paint? Screens on windows? Does flooring matter?

"All animals shall be supplied with good and wholesome food and potable water that is free from debris and is readily accessible and available as often as the feeding habits of the respective animals require" OK who decides what is wholesome food? Raw or kibble? Human grade? Water might get an occasional pet hair in it, can't watch it every second.

 "Animals shall be groomed and kept in a manner that is not injurious to their health" Such as? Are we talking mat-free, or show ring-ready grooming?? Will a flea mean your license gets revoked? Again, who decides?


"Animals shall not be neglected, teased, abused, mistreated, annoyed, tormented or in any manner made to suffer by any person or means" Any person? How about Cesar Milan? Gee, my dog gets annoyed when I ask him to do something he prefers not to do...is that illegal now, to tell your pet to sit, or stay, or behave??


"Tethering of animals is prohibited." Self explanatory, although intrusive nonetheless. Tethering is often a safe effective means of confinement. Can groomers use a grooming arm? Dunno. Can you tie a dog temporarily to attend to another one? Guess it depends on who is watching.


"...shall isolate sick animals sufficiently so as not to endanger the health of other animals." Isolate where? Another room? Another property?


"An animal shall be taken to a veterinarian for examination or treatment if the director finds it necessary to maintain the health of the animal..." Could this be for any ailment that is easily treated, like cuts/scrapes? How about teeth that need to be cleaned or brushed? I'd hate to think that you can be considered criminally negligent if your dog is overdue for a tooth scaling.


"All enclosures....shall be of sufficient size to provide adequate and proper accomodations....large enough....and have a SOLID floor surface, not metal strand or wire flooring" Guess animals will invariably have to muck about in their own excrement?


"The enclosure shall not be placed on top of another animal enclosure." So, no more rows of stacked cages at PetSmart??? These are always rescue animals too, so I guess they will have to bring half as many pets on those adoption days. Hmmm...no stacked crates, anywhere? Are dog shows next on the stacked crate hit list?


"Animals which are natural enemies, temperamentally unsuited, or otherwise incompatible, shall not be quartered together or so near each other as to cause injury, fear or torment." OK, how close is that? No cats next to dogs? No dogs nearby to rabbits? Who is going to decide which is compatible and how far apart they need to be kept?


"Any tack, equipment, device, substance or material that is, or COULD BE, injurious or cause unnecessary cruelty to any animal shall not be used." Such as what?? A broomstick or a hose could be injurious, but might be needed in the course of the day to clean up. What exactly are they talking about here? Again, up to the interpretation of the local AC imperial majesty?


"Working animals shall be given adequate rest periods." Like what, 10 minutes per hour? Will they need to punch out on the time clock? And what work are animals doing in Los Angeles anyway? Herding cattle? Do they need time out from their back yard guard duties? Who is going to monitor this stuff?? It BOGGLES the mind!


"Each dog and cat....shall be provided with minimum exercise period of at least one hour of exercise each day." Again, with the timer. You only have 24 hours in a day....how on earth would a pet shop comply with this? And, if your old dog has arthritis you've gotta drag them around and make sure they exercise?


"All other animals shall be given adequate exercise proper for the individual animal under the particular conditions." HUH? Exactly what is meant here? Who will decide how much exercise my bird or my snake needs and how he'll get it?


"Animals bearing evidence of malnutrition, ill health, unhealed injury.....shall not be displayed." OK what will we do with the rescues? Keep them in a back room until their scars disappear? Which in many cases is...NEVER!


"Any animal whose appearance is or may be offensive or contrary to public decency shall not be displayed." Again, what does this mean? We have to concern ourselves with appearance of a dog or cat being offensive? Maybe a hairless breed is offensive? Maybe someone else doesn't like to see cropped ears? What matters something as superficial as physical appearance?


And here's the final kicker...."may not posses....more than a combined total of fifty dogs or cats..."

Back to that AR dream of limiting possession based on numbers criteria. So, if you want to handle enough animals to actually stay in business, no way, that is now proposed to be outlawed. Boarding kennels will certainly need to raise prices or go out of business altogether. Of course, the number "50" is arbitrary, and will certainly be racheted down in the future.


There are new rules about posting your whereabouts on the door....or the number for the AC dept...when you are not on the premises of your business. A good way to "get" somebody and pull their license when they get turned in by some nut job with a chip on his shoulder.


There are also extensive record keeping requirements that are quite burdensome. Every pet must be microchipped and tracked from birth to death.


These proposed changes were based almost solely on beliefs held by AR people and those not experienced in caring for dogs. They are all " one size fits all" and do not take into consideration the different care requirements needed for each individual breed. Some of them, like the rules for "Retired Females" would have had exactly the OPPOSITE outcome of what they claimed they were trying to prevent. Thankfully that cruel requirement, where only three retired females could be kept at one time, has been resolved. They will stay under the umbrella of the kennel license.


If you care about your rights to keep animals, you simply must start making contact with your local government representatives and start educating them. The AR people are filling their heads with their beliefs. It's not just about educating puppy buyers etc, it is about educating the Government. What they should know and what they DO know are two wildly different things. You have to consider that when only one side of the story is told, that becomes the full story. Start talking to the people who represent you. Attend the hearings!

The proposed changes can be found at http://animalcare.lacounty.gov/cms1_142916.pdf


The current regulations (Title 10) can be found at: http://search.municode.com/html/16274/index.htm

Click here to see full PIJAC PetAlert
http://www.pijac.org/_documents/ca_la_county_title_10.pdf

The Los Angeles Department or Animal Care and Control will hold two public meetings. If you are affected by this proposal you need to attend one or both of the meetings and submit written comments to the Department.


• Also contact your elected County officials


• The two meetings will be held on March 9 and 10:


o Child Support Services


Phillip Browning Room


5500 S. Eastern Avenue, 1st Floor


Commerce, CA 90040


March 9, 2010 -- 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.



o City Council Chambers


38300 Sierra Highway


Palmdale, CA 93550


March 10, 2010 -- 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.



• If you are unable to attend either of the meetings, you may send written comments/questions related to the proposed ordinance changes to:

ACCLegal@animalcare.lacounty.gov

• If you have animals in your facility and the proposed regulations are adopted without any changes, be prepared to go out of business or move to another county!!

Mandatory Sterilization; Bad Idea

The idea of mandatory spay and neuter of pets is rearing its ugly head all across the nation, but has gone particularly viral in California. Consider the following pertinent facts:


Coercive and punitive legislation is unnecessary. Shelter intake and euthanasia numbers have dramatically and steadily declined since the 1970s. This in the face of a burgeoning human population during this same time period.

According to shelter expert Nathan Winograd, there are over five times more homes opening up for pets every year in the US, than there are pets euthanized in shelters.

Forced sterilization, steep license fees and harsh fines disproportionately punish seniors and low income families.


Mandatory sterilization results in increased shelter intakes and deaths anywhere it has been tried. Always! The City of Los Angeles has seen a sharp rise in intakes that coincides with the passage of their mandatory sterilization bill a little over a year ago.

The National Socialist Movement of the 21st Century

PETA is fond of drawing parallels to Nazism as a means to rouse such strong emotional responses that people will fail to actually consider the parallel.


The current Animal Rights (AR) situation has some striking similarities to the Nazi party activities of Germany in the 1930s. Except that the ARs tend to get it backwards. The idea of breeding towards healthful excellence is not what made Nazism so problematic-it was, among other things, the idea that a few people should be able to force their view onto everyone else.