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!

The 6 Million Dollar Pet Store

In an AP article from 2008, Wisconsin was called a "magnet for large-scale puppy mills". The state's governor, Jim Doyle, had just signed a new "puppy mill bill" into law.

The animal shelters must be overflowing, you'd think. There must be stray dogs left and right.

Uh....No.

The Ozaukee Humane Society in Saukville, Wisconsin (a division of the Wisconsin Humane Society) is cutting the ribbon tomorrow morning in an opening day ceremony for a lavish new animal shelter. This shelter cost $6 million, and encompasses 22,000 square feet. It incudes such amenities as solar hot water panels, classrooms, an adoption center, and a veterinary clinic.

The older shelter nearby is being closed, it's paltry 40 animals transferred to the new "Taj Mahal" shelter. But, it seems the demand for dogs in Wisconsin outstrips the supply. 49 dogs have already been imported from a shelter in Kentucky. The imported dogs included Australian shepherds, Labrador mixes, rat terriers, blue heeler mixes, Chihuahua mixes and beagle mixes.


"I'm sure they'll all be adopted this weekend" said Angela Speed, director of community relations and development for the Wisconsin and Ozaukee Humane Societies  She admits that the typical length of stay in the shelter is just two to three days.

Well, they must be killing dogs due to Pet Overpopulation, right? Even if it is just a few, no one should breed or buy, while shelter dogs die! Right?

"We never euthanize for space or time" Speed admits.

Amazing! All those "large-scale puppy mills" in Wisconsin, yet there aren't enough dogs to go around; they are importing dogs...all of which sell like hot cakes! And they have to travel across several state lines just to find them!

And how simple! No breeders to complain about, no requirements for genetic testing, none of those strict standards for health and welfare to worry about when these dogs come in! Not a care at all! None of the regulations that they are so proud to have enacted to clamp down on "puppy mills" in Wisconsin. And it seems, anyone in Wisconsin who sells 25 dogs in a year is considered a puppy mill. What about an entity that sells, oh, say a thousand or so dogs in a year? Perhaps a mill of sorts?

But hey, no sweat, just product that flies off the shelf. Good deal! 

Wisconsin's fantabulous $6 million pet store!

http://tinyurl.com/482ybmc

Wisconsin governor signs anti-puppy mill bill into law http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2009/12/wisconsin-governor-signs-antipuppy-mill-bill-into-law.html

"Save a Dog, Euthanize a Breeder"

It had to happen sooner or later. Someone spotted a shopper at a mall wearing a T-Shirt emblazoned with the motto, "Save a Dog, Euthanize a Breeder!"

THIS is what we are up against, folks. These animal rights fanatics, who really don't love dogs so much as they HATE their fellow human beings.

Within moments of that information finding its way onto a pet law email list, outraged dog owners contacted Zazzle, the guilty party hawking these wares on their website. The "Save a Dog, Euthanize a Breeder" shirts have since been removed, but the "Save a Pit Bull, Euthanize a Breeder" shirts remain up for sale. Similar designs are offered up on Cafe Press as well.

 Should we really find any of this surprising? It seems the roots of animal rights extremism infiltrate deeply. Some internet businesses seem to be run by those who not only sympathize with the goals of extermination of animals through spay/neuter, but are also willing to support such heinous hate rhetoric as as calling for the DEATH of people who are are deeply connected to animals. In fact, these internet businesses not only sympathize with these fringe fanatics, but financially support them as well.

Zazzle recently teamed up with HSUS to sponsor "Spay Day 2011." Here's part of the notice I got a month or so ago from Zazzle:

Zazzle has teamed up with The Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society International to create awareness and raise funds for homeless pets around the world. Submitting your pet's best photo in the Spay Day Pet Photo Contest will help spread the spay and neuter message and help save an animal's life - so enter the contest today and compete to win great prizes!

One must PAY to enter this contest; it is a fund-raiser.

So, it would appear that Zazzle has already swallowed the HSUS line about spay/neuter saving lives and other such complete propaganda and lies. (See previous posts on spay/neuter)

I also recently received an ad in my mailbox from CafePress; lo and behold, they are donating to PETA and other fanatic groups....here is the message I sent to some dog lists....and then my letter to CafePress, and their stock response that was sent to several people.

I know some clubs do fundraisers using CafePress. Just want to let you all know that CafePress considers PETA to be a "charity" and are donating thousands of dollars to them. They are also giving them some sort of matching funds for the sales on their site. This is really disturbing.

http://shop.cafepress.com/charitees-2010

"CafePress, on behalf of its users, is making a donation to Operation Gratitude (www.opgratitude.com), Breastcancer.org (www.breastcancer.org), NORML (www.norml.org) and PETA (www.peta.org), through its "Chari-Tees" program. Each organization will automatically be given a $5,000 donation. In addition, from December 17, 2010 through December 31, 2010, CafePress, on behalf of its users, will donate $10 for every order sold through each of the charities' shops, up to a maximum of $50,000 collectively."

My letter to CafePress:

PETA kills animals. Don't you read the newspaper? They were convicted of killing puppies and kittens and dumping them into dumpsters.....as soon as they picked them up in their van!

They are hypocrites. They are nut case fanatics. One thing they are NOT is a charity.

I will not support Cafepress in any manner if you donate to animal rights groups like PETA. And I will be spreading the word about Cafepress to all my friends and acquaintances.

And here is the stock response I received (the same message that several others also received)

Dear Starbreeze,

We work with numerous non-profit partners on many different levels, and the causes they support have a wide range. Just as we do in our diverse marketplace of user designed merchandise, we try to support the causes that appeal to the widest range of CafePress members, knowing well that many customers will not like or agree with the missions of all our partners. We're sorry to hear our partnership with PETA has disappointed you, we hope you'll find our affiliations with other non profit organizations (such Green Peace, Carbon Find, Rock the Vote, Operation Gratitude, March of Dimes, ASPCA and many others) will be more palatable.

If there is anything else I can do for you please let me know.
We hope we have answered all of your questions. If not, please chat with us now.(Mon-Fri)

Best Regards,

Jennifer S.
CafePress.com Support Representative

1-877-809-1659 Toll-Free (US)
1-402-517-4480 International
9:00 AM - 9:00 PM EST, Monday - Saturday
(0800) 073 1484 Toll-Free (UK)
9:00 AM - 9:00 PM GMT, Monday - Friday
www.cafepress.com

Gosh, I don't know about you, but the only group among the above that I find "palatable" is the March of Dimes.

So much for Cafe Press and Zazzle! Thankfully, we still have other print services to use, such as Clearsky24 and VistaPrint. Hopefully, some of these other companies with be more discriminating in their affiliations!

Refuse to patronize organizations that promote such heinous hate crimes. Just Say No to Zazzle and Cafe Press.

 

Always one step ahead of us

Another "surprise"! Don't you just love that there's never a dull moment when fighting the relentless assault perpetrated by these animal rights extremists?



Here's the latest news from "PawPac", an AR fanatic legislative group in California. They support two new bills related to spay-neuter (of course)...one is a tax form donation fund, the other bill has to do with.....(drum roll)


Decreasing the number of license plates they need to have for their minimum to get them onto the back end of cars!!! Instead of 7500, they want to be able to have those cute little plates roll out once they reach just 2500 orders.

The cheek of these sneaky PETArds!


Here's part of the notice from PawPac:

AB 564 by Cameron Smyth re: Spay/Neuter Tax Check-Off. Support.


Re-authorizes the tax check-off for spay/neuter and requires tax preparers to tell their clients about the opportunity to donate to the fund for spay/neuter.
To Be Heard: Assembly Revenue and Taxation. April 4
Tell legislators the check-off is a great way for tax payers to fight pet overpopulation .

Oh, my. We certainly must continue to bombard legislators with that Big Lie of pet overpopulation. Can't let up on that! But, here is the REALLY big ambush of the year:

AB 610 by Jose Solorio re: Spay/Neuter License Plates. Support.
Lowers the number of license plate orders from 7,500 to 2,500 required for the program to begin and allows for private donations to the fund for spay/neuter.
To Be Heard: Assembly Transportation. April 4.
Tell legislators the Spay/Neuter License Plates are a great way for the public to support spay/neuter and other programs covered by the special license plates.

"And OTHER programs? Gee I wonder what THOSE might be. Hmmm...funny how we aren't hearing anything about what those OTHER programs might be. Another big surprise in store for California's pet owners in the near future, no doubt!
 
I guess if one can't get enough public support, just officially lower the minimum standards to the whatever-it-takes level. Shouldn't be too difficult to get those "ay" votes after lining the pockets of plenty of liberal legislators.

It's Raining Dogs.....from Other Countries

Frequently, strays are "humanely relocated" from other countries to the US. This, to meet the demand for dogs, as the pet population in our country plummets. That's correct, the supply of pets is not sufficient to meet the demand here in the US.

Let me repeat that again. In case you didn't hear the first time.

There aren't enough dogs to meet the demand!

Think I'm kidding? Read on.

Ever hear of "Compassion without Borders", "Save a Sato", "Save a Mexican Mutt", "Dogs Without Borders"? These are just a few of the many groups who make a living importing dogs from other countries. There is even evidence now surfacing that some of these dogs are intentionally bred for export to the US!


Visit the website of the Taipei Abandoned Animal Rescue Foundation. The director of this group lives in...surprise! CARLSBAD California. They place dogs all across the United States.....from from Snohomish County, Washington, to "Pets Alive", a no-kill shelter in Middletown, NY.

The New England States in particular have a severe shortage of dogs. They rely heavily on groups like "North Shore Animal League" and "Save a Sato" to supply them with pets. But, many other other areas import as well.

Shelters are exempt from many import laws and have no federal requirements to quarantine the dogs or ensure that they are free of parasites and diseases before they place them.



Six Massachusetts residents had to receive rabies treatments because a shelter imported a rabid puppy from Puerto Rico. The puppy was too young to
have his rabies vaccinations completed, but shelters need puppies to satisfy their customers.

Here's some recent headlines documenting this phenomenon.

"Filling Empty Dog Pounds"

http://time4dogs.blogspot.com/2011/05/filling-empty-dog-pounds.html


http://enews.tufts.edu/stories/946/2003/02/06/FillingEmptyPounds/

(story has now mysteriously been removed from the AR-leaning Tufts enews. Thank you California Federation of Dog Clubs for archiving the text)

"Potcake puppies" imported from the Caribbean:

http://www.potcakeplace.com/



http://www.bahamasb2b.com/news/wmview.php?ArtID=3517


"Compassion Without Borders" mostly imports from Mexico to Northern California:


http://cwob.org/rescue.html

"Save a Mexican Mutt" imports pets to the USA and Canada:


http://www.saveamexicanmutt.org/

"Save a Sato" brings dogs from Puerto Rico to the New England states and have done so for many years. In 2003 they hit a glitch when they brought in a dog with RABIES. Oops.


http://www.saveasato.org/


There is a ton of documentation on imports...here's a recent report estimating conservatively 300,000 imports every year.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3765973&tqkw=&tqshow=&page=1

A total of 1470 dogs have been rescued since 2004 by this particular group. They are sent to the USA to be "adopted" here.

http://focustaiwan.tw/ShowNews/WebNews_Detail.aspx?Type=aLIV&ID=201012120015

The Helen Woodward Humane Society (San Diego) imports dogs regularly from Romania:


http://www.10news.com/news/9330939/detail.html

And here is the latest info on a relatively new group: "Pets for Paradise"


http://www.cannonfalls.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=19682

http://www.gotostcroix.com/petsfromparadise/index.php

Fostering hope year 'round 

Connie Bickman
Friday Dec 24, 2010

"Several years ago a shelter called "Pets for Paradise" in the U.S. Virgin Islands sent out messages to shelters and rescue groups in the U.S. that could help them place dogs. This plea resulted in sister shelters in Missouri, Georgia, Florida, New York, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Minnesota."

It's no secret that dogs are frequently re-shuffled here in the US. Just one of the many articles about that here:

"Shelter dogs make trip from Texas to New Hampshire, where they are in great demand"



http://www.boston.com/community/pets/articles/2010/12/14/shelter_dogs_make_the_trip_from_texas_to_new_hampshire/


Well, the evidence is in, and doesn't it make you wonder? Why do so many people in our country believe that we should be forced to "adopt" stray or rescued dogs...even if they are from other countries? And at the same time, they believe it's a great idea to pass laws that make breeding here a practical impossibility. Scratching my head here.

Why ask why? It's DogGone Nuts!

Yet another article about importing strays:
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/april072008/pet_rx-4-7-08.php