A Fox in The Henhouse - PIJAC hires Ed Sayres

When I wrote my last post on August 8, I had no idea just how prophetic it was. In that post, I pointed out how the animal rights philosophy is seemingly pervading and perverting the essence of PIJAC, a group that is supposed to represent the pet industry. PIJAC was glorifying an "adoption" event in a park. The title of the post, "PIJAC HIJACKED?" asked the question, and now we have a definitive answer....YES! This week comes the news that PIJAC recently hired Ed Sayres, former CEO of the ASPCA to lead their organization.

You probably remember this guy Sayres. He's rabidly anti-breeder, rabidly anti-pet store. 

Mr. Sayres, in his tenure as leader of the ASPCA, also blocked "Oreo's Law" for years until it finally died. Oreo's Law would have required shelters to turn over animals to rescues who were willing to accept them. This makes sense, because we have observed for a long time how most "shelters" would prefer to kill animals than find them homes. "Oreo's Law" would have changed that and saved many lives. But, Sayres made sure it didn't pass, making him directly responsible for the deaths of an estimated 100,000 shelter animals.

 http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?tag=ed-sayres

But let's back up first, back to August 8. There was a message on my home answering service that day from someone who identified himself as a Vice President of PIJAC. He was calling in regard to my blog post, and said he couldn't understand my objections to their advertising this park event, because NOBODY was going home with a pet. It was NOT sales being conducted in public, he claimed.

So absurd! This guy had completely MISSED THE POINT that PIJAC is supposed to be representing the industry and lobbying for the right to participate in the pet trade. Why would they be involved at all with "adoptions?" Bigger question, why do they have a problem with sales being conducted in public? I didn't bother to return the call because this guy was oblivious.

Next we get another sucker punch, financed by PIJAC, in the way of an upcoming Purdue study that is meant to push even MORE regulations on dog breeders. Candace Croney, an associate professor of comparative patholobiology and animal science who focuses on the behavior AND WELFARE of animals says: 

The public is becoming increasingly concerned that existing state laws, typically written as minimum standards, do not fully address important elements of dog care and well-being, such as health, genetics, reproductive soundness and behavioral wellness. The ethical issues involved, including lifelong obligations to the animals, must also be addressed.

Oh dear. PIJAC and Purdue think that we need more regulations involving health, genetics, reproductive soundness, "LIFELONG OBLIGATIONS" and other animal rights drivel.  USDA's APHIS is also an integral partner in producing this study. 

Surprise surprise! Government bureaucrats love nothing better than more rules and regulations to make their worthless jobs secure. 

And then came the news a few days ago that Ed Sayres was being hired by PIJAC. Not just hired, but will be their President and CEO!!

Holy Apoplexy, Batman! Dogs and cats.....living together! Gobsmacked, I say!


Now Mr. Sayres writes a self-defense piece after the public outcry for this new appointment, claiming that he just didn't realize at the time that most breeders were good! Dang! He's finally Come to Jesus.

Here is an excerpt:

I know I have the skills necessary to reduce the polarized dynamics
between animal welfare organizations and the industry. I know, after 40
years in animal welfare, that regulations that are well thought out
protect animals and facilitate commerce. I also have a core belief that,
when managed responsibly, companion animal ownership provides mutual
benefits. The benefits, given and received, which are best described in
studies about the human-animal bond, obviously depend on owners who are
well educated on the medical and behavioral needs of their animals.
These are two priorities of the PIJAC mission, and I believe that my
deep experience in the field would add reasoned input to this vital
conversation.

I am especially interested in the challenge of breeding pure-bred dogs
on a large scale with humane care standards that prioritize the care and
conditions that matter most to the well being and lifetime care of the
dog. I may be the only person in the animal welfare field that believes
this is feasible. After spending two days visiting the Hunte
Corporation, I now know it is possible. Importantly, the Purdue
University study comes at the right time, and will provide us with the
data we need to accelerate the process of defining standards so we can
begin to meet the demand for dogs with a humane, transparent system.

If this message from Sayres doesn't blatantly scream ANIMAL RIGHTS, nothing does. 

 More REGULATIONS? For WHAT?  

The "medical and behavioral need of animals"? 

"Humane care standards that prioritize the care and conditions that matter most to the well being and lifetime care of the dog." 

Why are we expecting breeders to to be responsible for the lifetime care of the dog? That is NOT EVEN POSSIBLE. 

And what the devil is a "humane, transparent system"? 

I'll tell you what it is, it is total government control over every aspect of breeding and selling animals. 

That's great if you are one of those MORONS who believe that more government regulations are good. That's BAD if you believe in the individual's right to pursue their business or hobby unimpeded by government numbskulls. 

Andrew Hunte apparently hosted Sayres for a tour of his facility and the two are now fast friends. Mr. Hunte wrote a plea for unity, one for all, and all for one, and whoever PIJAC hires is just dandy with him apparently, because, well, they are PIJAC!

IDIOT!!!

And we also hear from other bastions of the pet industry, including a representative from the Pet Expo, who seems to feel that there is no harm, no foul, and that more regulations are helpful to society. He would like us to "wait and see" how the study goes.  

NAIA also weighed in recently regarding more regulations for imported animals, health certificates and so forth. Seems like a no-brainer to require animals be healthy in order to enter the country, and that's great, but why the embargo on importing animals for resale if they are under the age of six months? What will follow? 

Just like all other government claptrap, regulations expand like The Blob and engulf us all until we are eliminated by them. Some "progressives" think the new rules are great because they exempt hobby breeders. How many times do these people have to be shafted before they realize that NO regulations exempt anyone for very long, and that any rule that contains "exemptions" should not be in force in the first place. What's good for one is good for all. And rules for one group will eventually be rules for all. 

I may not be a smart person, but I know what love is. And this ain't it.

PIJAC HIJACKED?

Today I read a post from PIJAC on Facebook in support of going out to a park in Washington DC where "rescue" pet adoption was being offered. That's rather odd, coming from PIJAC, the "Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council;" a group that is supposed to be an advocate for the pet industry. I would assume "industry" might include commercial breeders, licensed private breeders, and the like. Supporting "industry" would seem to be at odds with "rescue" unless, of course, pet "rescue" with their commandeering of the pet store niche, importing animals for retail sales in the US and the like, is finally being recognized as part of the "pet industry."

Funny that in 2011, PIJAC joined the HSUS to also publicly support California's SB 917, a measure that prohibits sales of animals in public places. If "rescue" is an industry like any other, why is PIJAC supporting "rescue" sales in the park, when they previously supported a law to prohibit sales in public places? Why is PIJAC colluding with the HSUS on measures that prevent pet sales, yet at the same time promoting sales in the park?

Has PIJAC been hijacked by the schizophrenic insanity of the animal rights movement?

So, here in California we have many cities which allow no pets for sale in pet stores, unless they are from unlicensed, unregulated "rescues." No public sales, unless they are from unlicensed, unregulated "rescues."

A very successful rescue in my area, "Priceless Pets" has been obtaining pets from the Inland Valley Humane Society and SPCA (IVHS) in Pomona, California, and selling them at retail. In fact, they are following the suggested business model here in California cities. They are selling these pets in a retail outlet pet store in Chino Hills, CA.

That's good, right? We are passing laws to outlaw public sales, to outlaw pets in pet stores unless they come from a "rescue." So, our local rescue is going with the trend, rescuing dogs and selling them in a retail pet store outlet.

Hold it right there! The IVHS now is prohibiting Priceless Pets from pulling animals from the shelter. They want to examine PP's "business model." They are afraid that Priceless Pets is operating as......hold on to your hat.....a PET STORE!!

OH NO!

But wait, we all thought that's what the public wants? Pet stores selling rescued animals for adoption? Our legislators are passing laws giving rescues monopolies on sales. And now, they don't want the rescues to operate as "pet stores?" It's a bit late to change your mind about that, now, isn't it?

Maybe the plain truth of the metter is that they simply don't want ANYONE to sell pets. Not pet stores, not breeders, not rescues, not anyone!

We want you to sell rescued pets in public places and pet stores....yes, we do....no, we don't.....yes, we do.....no, we don't.......yes, we do.....no, we don't....

In fact, this very same rescue group, Priceless Pets, has been persecuted unmercifully by the Inland Valley Humane Society and SPCA. In 2011, the owners of Priceless Pets WENT TO JAIL FOR FIVE DAYS, at the insistence of the IVHS, for zoning violations!

Yes, they really want to find homes for the animals, don't they? NOT! They'd much rather kill them. The animal rights faction really does live up to the motto:

 

"Animal Rights Means No Animals Left."

This entire "pet store vs rescue" fiasco coming to the forefront this week reminded me that I had never posted the article to this blog about California's SB 917. It went to "The Dog Press," but not here. So, here it is now, three years later. Thanks, PIJAC, for helping the HSUS push this one through!

California approves ban on public sales of animals – SB 917

 

Sale of an animal in public will now be a criminal offense

 

 

Geneva Coats, R.N.

Secretary,California Federation of Dog Clubs

July 27, 2011

 

SB 917 was signed into law yesterday by Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” 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, torturing and cruelly killing an animal. The law will go into effect in 2012.

 

The notorious CA SB 917 has been promoted by supporters as a ban on "roadside sales" of animals. In actuality, this bill prohibits any public animal sales activities unless specifically exempted….roadside or not. No animal sales may transpire in any public place. Offenders would face a fine on a first offense, and misdemeanor criminal charges thereafter. SB 917 adds to the current criminal animal cruelty statue. Current law describes animal cruelty offenses (such as torturing, tormenting, cruelly beating, mutilating, or cruelly killing an animal) and specifies that such activities can be charged as either misdemeanors or felonies, with possible jail time. SB 917 doubles the maximum allowed penalties for these offenses.

 

Equating heinous, abusive actions with animal sales sets the bar for animal cruelty at a very low threshold. Under the language of this bill, selling puppies will become as unfavorably regarded by the public as selling such contraband items as illegal drugs or stolen merchandise. This bill also establishes a worrisome precedent by criminalizing the very act of sales itself. The act of selling is not inherently abusive by any stretch of the imagination. Where will this lead in the future? It is frightening to contemplate.

 

Dog club meeting at a coffee shop? Transferring ownership of animals in the parking lot is now a criminal offense. Do you live 200 miles from your buyer? Be careful! Meeting midway to sell a puppy in any public place could now earn you a rap sheet. Giving kittens away at the local supermarket could be considered a misdemeanor offense under the provisions of this bill, as that could be construed by overzealous officers as “giving away as part of a commercial transaction”. Hey, the kid has change in his pocket? He must have been selling those kittens!

 

In a practical sense, what does this mean for animals? Sadly, it means that many people will be afraid to place animals at all, and instead of animals finding good 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. 

 

SB 917 was crafted with some specific exemptions. Shelters, nonprofit rescues, SPCAs, and pet stores are exempt, as are events held by 4-H Clubs, and Junior or Future Farmers Clubs. Agricultural/county fairs are exempt. Stockyards, public livestock sales, and live animal markets are exempt. Dog shows, cat shows and bird shows are exempt.

The fact that certain groups can be exempt from the “crime” of selling, or that the “crime” is OK in some locations but not others, demonstrates that the act of selling itself is not inherently undesirable or criminal.

But beyond that, what does the exemption for "dog shows" mean for us as dog hobbyists?

 Not much. In order to comply with this law, the dog sale must occur on the confines of the showground. As we all are aware, AKC has a strict policy of no dog sales at dog shows. Further, in order for the sale to occur legally, the show must ensure that all exhibitors comply with all applicable federal, state, and local animal laws. This requirement would be a practical impossibility. Exhibitors travel from different cities, counties and even different states to the showgrounds. Different areas have different animal control regulations. In addition, the exhibitors must carry proof of their paid entry fee. This last requirement seems to indicate that animal control personnel intend to police showgrounds. 

And there is good reason to believe that animal control personnel intend to police this new law, determining administration of violations and penalties. The bill states: "A notice describing the charge and the penalty for a violation of this section may be issued by any peace officer, animal control officer......or humane officer". Many animal control officers have an adversarial attitude toward dog breeders, and will now have the power to serve them with criminal charges and penalties simply for conducting an honest and honorable business transaction. Criminal records adversely affects an individual's employment eligibility and credibility in general and should not be imposed lightly by an animal control officer with an ax to grind and little education in constitutional law.

 

If the dog show exemption is completely meaningless for dog hobbyists (and it is), what venue for sales is left to California dog breeders? Sales in public is prohibited, and AKC dog shows do not permit on site sales. The only alternative is to conduct dog sales from private residences. The dangers of an individual selling anything from his home are well-known. Home invasion robberies, assaults and even murders have occurred during private party sales gone awry. There have been documented incidents where puppies were stolen at gunpoint from individuals conducting sales at their residences.
   

Putting aside the danger involved, dog breeding and selling is already laden with multiple onerous regulations and is rapidly becoming cost prohibitive in California. Many localities including Los Angeles City and County limit breeders to one litter per year, and an expensive breeding permit is required. In the city of Los Angeles, it costs $335 per year to license ONE intact dog; and this only IF you meet the requirements to qualify for the intact exemption! The very survival of dog breeding in California is tenuous at best.

 

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is the sponsor of SB 917. That fact alone should tell you that the bill is part of a larger agenda to stifle animal ownership. This same legislation was brought forward in previous sessions in 2009 and 2010, and did not pass. In 2009, then-governor Schwarzenegger returned the bill, AB 1122, writing: 

 

"I am returning Assembly Bill 1122 without my signature. I am concerned with the scope and unintended consequences of this bill and that it does not assure the humane and ethical treatment and welfare of animals. This bill has unknown costs associated with the enforcement and implementation of prohibiting the sale of live animals in specified venues and could drive the selling of animals underground or to private sites. For this reason I am unable to sign this bill."

 

A similar measure banning roadside sales was recently nixed by Texas Governor Perry, who wrote in his veto statement:

 

"House Bill 1768 would encroach upon the rights of private enterprise and property owners while fundamentally altering and expanding the role of county government....... As a state, we should not raise barriers of entry into the marketplace, stifle competition or hinder the entrepreneurial spirit."

 Those involved in breeding and raising animals heartily concur!

 The HSUS, the sponsor of SB 917, has an admitted agenda to make animal breeding incrementally more expensive and inconvenient. This bill is another weapon in the anti-dog breeder arsenal. Couple the ban on public sales with other bills presented this session that require sellers to report buyers information to animal control (AB 1121), that require microchipping of any dog that is impounded (SB 702), and that prohibit anyone convicted of an animal offense from residing with animals for a period of 5 to 10 years (AB 1117), and we can see the pieces of the puzzle fitting together. With HSUS sponsoring the bill, the intent is clear. Criminalize dog owners by any means possible, and then prohibit them from future animal ownership for a good long time.

 

The Animal Council and California Federation of Dog Clubs opposed SB 917 early on, and other groups in the state soon joined in the effort as well.

But sadly, the AKC chose to remain silent on this bill, citing lack of an official policy on public sales. Dwindling numbers of AKC registrations and declining sales by private parties does not seem to be sufficient motivation to spur AKC into active opposition of all anti-dog ownership proposals.  

 

The Farm Bureau also naively did not oppose SB 917, pointing to exemptions in the bill for public sales of livestock. Don’t farmers use herding, hunting and guard dogs? Do farmers realize that under SB 917, they could now be arrested for selling a puppy at a fair or livestock show? Creeping incrementalism in these animal rights-sponsored bills will hasten the day that working dogs cannot be obtained at any price.

 

PIJAC (Pet Industry Joint advisory Council) actively supported SB 917. It seems that PIJAC was delighted at the thought of eliminating any competition for pet stores and heavily-regulated commercial breeders. Unfortunately, the animal rights groups in California are also lobbying intensely to ban sales of purpose-bred pets in pet stores and replace them with unregulated “rescues”. Combine a pet store sales ban with a ban on public sales, and consumers in California will have limited options for obtaining the pet of their dreams.

 

On August 2, 1776, at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin said "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately” – meaning that if they did not band together in the fight against the British, they would all be hanged separately. These words still ring true today, 235 years later. We need all the animal interest groups to work together to oppose anti-dog ownership legislation.

So be warned, Californians. Soon you can be a criminal just for selling a dog.

 

  

New crimes created by CA SB 917

 

 SEC. 2.  Section 597.4 is added to the Penal Code, to read:

   597.4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully do

either of the following:

   (1) Sell or give away as part of a commercial transaction, a live

animal on any street, highway, public right-of-way, parking lot,

carnival, or boardwalk.

   (2) Display or offer for sale, or display or offer to give away as

part of a commercial transaction, a live animal, if the act of

selling or giving away the live animal is to occur on any street,

highway, public right-of-way, parking lot, carnival, or boardwalk.