Words MATTER - SHOP! Don't "Adopt!"

Think it's "cute" to say you "adopted" a "rescue" who is now your "furkid?" Well, it's not really "cute" at all if you give it some thought.The words we use matter.

 Did you know that the state of California passed a law a few years ago that removed the word "pound" or "impound" from all prior animal legislation and replaced it with the word "shelter?" Like it or not, words have definite meanings that affect public opinion and form the cultural zeitgeist. Why do you think they legally changed the word "pound" to "shelter?".....even though they maintain the right to capriciously kill in the so-called "shelter?" Because the name you tag something with forms it's public image. Perception becomes reality.

Animal Rights people co-opting the terminology we use is very dangerous, it's not benign, and it's aimed squarely at legally removing our ownership rights. "Rescue" implies animal abuse. "Adopt" infers a status equal to humans. "Guardian" instead of "owner" means the pet has inherent rights that supercede your right to determine his care and destiny. If pets are "fur kids" the state can step in and mandate how you care for them down to minute details. Kiss your pet ownership rights goodbye.

The "Adopt don't Shop' mantra has been very successful at demonizing breeders. it's time to turn it around! Get a great pet....SHOP! Shopping is a good thing. Most shoppers thoughtfully research before they make a purchase. When it comes to a pet, research prior to purchase is important. Avoid those "adopt-a-thons" where impulse buying is encouraged, and you might just end up with a dog who doesn't suit your lifestyle or home situation. SHOP...and get the dog that is right for you to OWN!!

.

The Big Lie from ASPCA

The ASPCA sent out a post via email blast this week:

It'll be a cold day in hell when I donate anything to this group.

Imagine this scene: More than 100 dazed and frightened puppies are picked up one-by-one out of filthy, cramped, wire cages and crammed into a windowless van. Missing their mothers, they spend a week hurling across Interstate highways—crying, yelping, barking and suffering—until the van pulls up to deliver them through the back-door entrance of a shopping mall pet store. In the pet store, the cute but likely malnourished, impaired, disease-carrying or emotionally scarred pups are left to do what puppies have always done: look for love in a kind, smiling face. They are bought by an unsuspecting person, and the cycle begins again.

Wow, this sounds horrible! Why, they just described the cycle of abuse perpetrated by Retail Rescue! This is EXACTLY what happens when so-called "rescues" truck dogs across the country, and subject them to thousands-of-miles-long journeys into the US from around the world! These dogs are intended to replace puppies in pet stores sourced from breeders. And yes, predictably, many of these "rescued" dogs are sick and malnourished. Some have even been infected with RABIES! 

Yep, there is no documented history on these animals at all. No way to know what sort of diseases, inherited or acquired, may be lurking. No insight as to inherited temperament. When one of these "rescued" dogs is bought by some big-hearted but dumb, unsuspecting person (like YOU), he is not covered by any "Puppy Lemon Law" protection. That means, when he bites your kid or requires expensive veterinary bills, TOUGH LUCK. You have NO RECOURSE. There is NO GUARANTEE, NO consumer protection, and no financial compensation to you.

But wait! ASPCA doesn't care about any of that....in fact, golly gee gosh! I just realized with a little more reading....they actually aren't talking about Pet Flipping "Rescues" at all.  

This is the tragedy of a puppy mill. Animals bred, born and abused in commercial breeding facilities are the very same animals destined for pet store windows in cities and towns all across America. Scenes like this play out week after week, year after year, but these tragic facilities are usually only brought to light when they are raided by animal welfare groups like the ASPCA.

Whoa! The ASPCA is trying to convince us that dogs bred by licensed and inspected breeders are all abused!  What a crock of manure! If commercial breeders are heavily regulated (and they are), how many do you think need to be "raided"? How many of their puppies are "diseased"? Do they regularly starve and beat their puppies? REALLY??

In fact, pet insurers charge much lower premiums for commercially-bred pet store dogs than they do for dogs from any other source. The reason? Pet store puppies receive more veterinary care in the first weeks of their life than puppies from any other sources, and as a result, the dogs who come from pet store have FEWER INSURANCE CLAIMS. 

Got it, ASPCA?? Commercially bred puppies are HEALTHIER than dogs sourced from small breeders and shelters. How do you like them apples, you lying scumbags? 

But wait! The ASPCA isn't finished just yet! They set the stage with fraudulent lies, and NOW.... the HOOK!!! 

With your support today, we can strengthen our work to advocate against puppy mills. We can assist in raids to expose their cruelties, fight as hard as we can to regulate commercial breeders and, most importantly, find loving homes for every innocent animal. Imagine how much suffering we could stop, and how many dogs, cats and other animals we could save, if we eliminated puppy mills in our country. That is what your gift to the ASPCA can help make possible. Please make a donation right now.

Sorry, you two-faced sheisters at ASPCA,  but when you LIE claiming that commercial breeders are not already heavily regulated, claim that their puppies are sickly and abused, and slander the name of dog breeders in general, you won't get a dime from anyone who has two brain cells to rub together. 

No breeders=no pets. 

The real goal of the ASPCA....PET EXTINCTION. 

Big Bucks in Retail Rescue!

How would you like to own the beautiful dogs pictured above? Friendly, healthy, happy, well-groomed, tail-wagging purebred Cavalier King Charles Spaniels. RAISING MY HAND here! I'd like to have ALL of them.

The owner, a USDA licensed breeder, has obviously taken very good care of them. And apparently just got paid off, BIG TIME!

Several "Rescue" groups heard that these dogs would be made available by the owner at public auction. One rescue group actually set up a "Go Fund Me" page for the purpose of bidding on the dogs. In less than two weeks, this one rescue group raised......are you ready for this?......over $183,000!

I'm not sure how many dogs this one particular group bought for the purpose of reselling at retail, but if they bought all 108 of the dogs mentioned in the article, they would immediately have available about $1700 to spend on each and every dog! I'm sure the original owner is laughing all the way to the bank, for getting a big price for these retired breeding dogs.

Not to mention, the "rescue" will be SELLING them soon to the public. Probably for several hundred dollars apiece. 


That's ends up netting them over $2000 per dog. Pay for a dental, a quick-snip castration, and WALA! A fast and easy profit.

And they say dog breeders are money-grubbing "puppy mills"! Pot, meet kettle!

Dog breeders don't have bleeding heart donations from fraudulent "Go Fund Me" pages to help them pay their mortgages and veterinary expenses. 

Dog breeders must pay for a Federal license. They have to be inspected. They are required to provide proper care and treatment of their dogs, BY LAW. They have to pay a LOT of money to keep their premises in acceptable conditions, to provide regular veterinary care, to pay for permits and fees. They have people watching to make sure that drinking water is fresh, that any medications used are in date, that accommodations are roomy enough.

"Rescues", who in cases like this are really nothing but Retail Rescue pond scum, have NO REGULATION. No care standards, nobody watching to make sure they take good care of their charges. And indeed, we have seen MANY rescues in recent years busted for animal neglect and cruelty. 

Any other pet dealer has to be licensed by USDA, but apparently not if you are a self-proclaimed "rescue".

Yet, in the eyes of the public,dog breeders are the "greeders", the bad guys! Dog breeders want to MAKE MONEY!!!!

I ask you, how else can one pay for dog food?

But that doesn't stop people from justifying this insane action. Why, they are saving these dogs from a fate worse than death! Being used for BREEDING!  The awful original owner had 100 dogs and was a PUPPY MILL!!

And they are putting this horrible, dog-abusing "miller" out of business.....how? By paying him big bucks for his dogs? 

Good plan.

Maybe he can retire...or maybe, he can take that money and go out and buy a whole bunch of new dogs to continue his breeding program. 

Good for him! Take the money, because you sure ain't gettin' no respect. Hey, maybe you can get the rescue groups to buy dogs from you again! A lot more profitable than breeding, and easier, too.

The donations for the PET STORE DEALER oops, sorry, I mean "Rescue", continue to stream in from John Q. Public. I guess Obamacare's "architect" Gruber was right after all when he said people are stupid. You can check here to see how much money to date the "rescue" group has raised from all the bleeding heart dummies out there. Maybe it'll be up to a $$ quarter million $$ in another week or so. 

That'll buy a whole lotta halo polish.


The 'abused' dogs one day after purchase. So sick, neglected and terrified due to their awful lives with an EEEEEVIL
PUPPY MILLER!

 

News flash..... had to update this as I find out more. There was actually raised a total amount of over $350,000 to buy these hundred dogs! Sucker born every minute!

You Can't Serve Two Masters

Here's some deeply disturbing news. At a time when literally thousands of dog clubs and owners are fighting a legal battle to stave off the new APHIS rules for breeders, NAIA's Julian Prager, a bulldog breeder, AKC judge, lawyer and former NY animal control director, announced yesterday that he is now working for USDA-APHIS. He just can't get enough of government rules and regulations. Especially when he is getting fed in the process!
 Do animal owners have any hope for the future? I don't think so. My crystal ball tells me we can only look forward to more red tape strangulation.
The USDA was not founded as an agency meant to regulate anyone, it was initiated to educate and advise farmers on good practices. But like most anything involving the government, it has expanded like the blob, feeding off of our human rights. Congress passed a law in the 1960s allowing USDA to regulate "commercial" dog breeders, and wala, here we are a few short decades later; now anyone who owns a few bitches and who sells even one dog by remote means like air shipping, is under their iron fist. Quite a nauseating turn of events here in a land where our freedoms are supposed to be a priority. 
A letter rife with baloney like how he will help develop government guidelines for "preserving bloodlines" and squelching "bad actors" was released yesterday by Mr. Prager. 
Now aside from the fact that the USDA could not produce even ONE example of a "bad actor" when requested to do so, what business is it of the government how anyone breeds, be it for the purpose of "preserving bloodlines" or crossbreeding to create a new breed? Will we now have minimal daily requirements for dog breeding? Get them OUT of where they don't belong! 
You just can't make this stuff up. Although it would have been nice to awaken and say, "oh gosh, it was only a bad dream."

I wanted to be sure that Delegates who were not at the meeting today and all club legislative liaisons received word of the announcement I made at today’s meeting.

Small hobby and show breeders have all been concerned about the implications of the revision to the “Retail Pet Store Rule" by APHIS and the implication for that group. APHIS has heard your concerns. At last year’s NAIA conference the APHIS Deputy Administrator met with about 20 of us after the session to discuss our concerns and issues. He committed to work with us to work to resolve these issues.

Two weeks ago, I was hired by Animal Care within APHIS as part of it central policy staff. My position, Canine Program Advisor, was advertised to bring in someone who would facilitate communication among APHIS, the breeder community, rescue groups and related animal interest groups. I will be providing APHIS staff with technical guidance on dog issues, assist in training their field staff, participate in developing program information material, conduct outreach and education and, most significantly, work on developing related policies and rules.

Both the amendment to the Animals Welfare Act in the Farm Bill and Conference Committee Report provide an opportunity for APHIS to clarify the existing rules and provide for a more clear structure for exemptions from licensing. APHIS was asked to clarify the definition of “breeding female” and I will be working with other staff to do that. The changes to the law give the Secretary the authority to exempt from licensing those whose activities have a minimal impact on interstate commerce and the welfare of animals. Both the AKC GR staff and NAIA are aware that the additional authority granted by Congress was, in large part, directed at addressing concerns expressed by smaller breeders who were breeding to preserve bloodlines.

I have asked for feedback from the Delegates and all clubs regarding what fact-based standards would work for your breed in your real world activities. APHIS needs solid data, not conjecture, to bolster each type of exemption and the exemptions should be tailored, to the extent possible, to a range of situations, not just a particular breed. For example, what data are there to provide a basis for determining when the number of animals being bred is insufficient to maintain breed existence? For all of the concerns expressed during the process of adopting the new rule, real world, grounded examples are needed to support an suggestions made to provide for exemptions.

As I said at the Legislative Caucus, drafting rules to include one group of require licensing of another group are fairly easy. What is difficult is writing a rule that the bad actors can’t wiggle around while still permitting those properly caring for their animals through. This all started because large breeding facilities that were previously excluded from the retail pet store definition because they sold wholesale, began selling dog of questionable health directly to purchasers through internet sales. That was the target of the rule revision. It is your mission (in your own self interest) to provide APHIS with the information that justifies including one group under licensing requirements, while exempting another group. And it can’t be “because we are the good guys.” It has to be some fairly objective criterion or criteria that are unassailable. Because you know there are those out there who will claim that just because you breed, you are suspect.

I can be reached at Julian.D.Prager@aphis.usda.gov. I look forward to your assistance in developing clear rules and meaningful exemptions for activities which have a minimal effect on interstate commerce. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions, please let me know. This is a complex process and it will take time to address Congress’ changes to the law and requests to the agency. In the meanwhile, the current rule is being enforced. Since discussions are just starting internally, I cannot tell you where this will wind up, but there is a way forward and I ask for your help in establishing a clear path ahead.

Julian Prager

NO WONDER Mr. Prager has pooh-poohed the legal challenge to the new APHIS rules. He LIKES the new APHIS rules!
Sort of creepy how we see prominent people doing their political power dances. First the USDA hiring from the ranks of the HSUS, then we had Ed Sayres and PIJAC, and now Julian Prager and the USDA! I'm afraid to see what will happen next!

Here's an old and wise precept about conflict of interest. Matthew 6:24: 

"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money."

Or we could revise it for today: 

"You cannot serve both the breeding community and the USDA-APHIS."

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.

Puppies Are Products

Puppies are products. They are a commodity that the animal shelter pet stores should relocate according to supply and demand. At least, that's the opinion of an ASPCA senior director, who was quoted in a news article yesterday about the reasons that dogs and puppies are shuffled from shelter to shelter. She said:

"It is a supply and demand issue. If you had a store and you had extra widgets at one store, and people were buying up widgets at another store, wouldn't you move your widgets?"


So, puppies are widgets, and shelters are pet stores. Glad to see them finally admit it.

However, we should all be outraged.

This is hypocrisy of the highest order, because shelters and rescues often claim that their motives are altruistic and not based on money. They urge us to "adopt, not shop". Yet, now they themselves are admitting that there is no difference in "adopting" vs "shopping" and purchasing from any other source, be it a breeder or a pet shop. A sale is a sale, and even shelters and rescues are in business to sell their product.

Yes, Puppies ARE  Products.....

There has been a dramatic decline in shelter admissions across the nation. In certain areas, shelters don't have ANY adoptable dogs to offer the public for "adoption" (SALE). Puppies are imported from other states and even other countries in order to stock the shelves.

The decline in shelter admission is a huge success story. Education has worked! Shelter killing is at an all-time low. Hooray!

But, if you were a business, say the sheltering industry, and you saw your market declining, what would be your response? You'd work your butt off trying to extend the life of your current product and expand your offering. And one of the most effective ways to do that is to eliminate the competition.

So, you perpetuate the myth of overpopulation. You tacitly encourage the importation of dogs from Mexico, Puerto Rico and Taiwan to ensure a continuing revenue stream. You claim that there is a big problem with greedy, evil breeders. You sensationalize shelter killings. You sling arrows at "hoarders" and "backyard breeders."  You denigrate dog owners as "irresponsible." You try to convince people that only "rescued" animals should be available for the pet market. You popularize slogans like "Don't breed or buy while others die"!

Also, if you're a business in trouble, what else do you do? You reach out to the government for help. Monopolies, exemptions, subsidies, new laws to enforce against your competitors.

Unfortunately, the sheltering industry model has one additional facet - the compulsion of law. Other businesses ultimately survive because people choose to do business with them as suppliers or customers. The sheltering industry has the ability to compel a portion of the community to involuntarily provide product and then make themselves the only store in town.

You shut down the competition, seize their animals, call it a "rescue" and voila! Free widgets for the store.

It doesn't get any sweeter than that.

ASPCA: Puppies Are Widgets in our Stores

The rescue relocation shuffle among animal shelters, the new pet stores, is being justified by this statement from an ASPCA senior director:

"It is a supply and demand issue," Monterose said. "If you had a store and you had extra widgets at one store, and people were buying up widgets at another store, wouldn't you move your widgets?"

Ah, NOW I understand. When the humaniac rescuers at the ASPCA and elsewhere claim that "Puppies AREN'T Products" what they really mean to say is, "Puppies ARE Widgets". Glad they cleared that up for us.

www.adn.com/2014/01/22/3285442/map-pinpoints-shelters-with-too.html#storylink=cpy

KEEP OUR DOMESTIC ANIMALS

We've become accustomed to “White Lies” from the popular media and from our government. Most of the time we just laugh and dismiss them as irrelevant. But sometimes, these lies take on a life of their own.

Take, for example, the recent revision of USDA-APHIS rules. The reasons cited for the revision include:

1. Recommendation from an audit from the USDA's Office of the Inspector General (or “OIG”)
2. Response to a petition to the White House from supporters of the Humane Society of the US (“HSUS”); and
3. Many complaints received by the USDA from consumers who received sick pets after buying “sight-unseen” over the internet.

The response to these three reasons cited includes a revision of rules to require anyone who owns more than four breeding females of any species and who ships pets to even one buyer, must now fall under the licensing requirements of the USDA.

The problem with this is that hobby breeders, who often own more than four breeding females (particularly with small breeds) and who frequently ship pets, are generally unable to comply with USDA licensing requirements meant for commercial breeders, dealers and exhibitors like circuses, zoos and animal parks.

We don't keep dogs in cement kennels with impermeable surfaces. Instead our dogs are housed in areas with grass, carpeting and even upholstered furniture. We don't rely on our dogs as a primary source of income, so we have a “real” job, and are not home during business hours to submit to unannounced inspections. We don't sell in order to make a net profit, and we sure don't have the money to pay for additional structural modifications and licensing over and above our local requirements.

A further claim by USDA is that FEW breeders will be affected...about four thousand at most, they claim. However, in their own OIG report, they claim that: “more than 80% of breeders that OIG sampled were not licensed under the Animal Welfare Act, because they sold pets over the internet and claimed retail pet store status.”

Make up your mind, which is it? A few thousand, or 80% of the hundreds of thousands of breeders in the US?

But let's back up a bit. How was this impeccable USDA OIG research done?

By internet searches. Must have taken a whole hour-and-a-half one afternoon. Your tax money at work, folks.

OIG report, page 37: “We used two search engines to identify how many of these breeders were licensed in two of our eight sampled states. We identified 138 breeders that had more than 3 breeding females or handled more than 25 dogs a year. We found 112 of the 138 (81 percent) were not licensed by APHIS. If the breeders had sold their dogs wholesale (i.e. not retail through the Internet), they would have needed a license.”

First off, how do you accept at face value ANYTHING that's simply information gleaned from an internet website? Someone could embellish their website to include dogs they bred who are now owned by others. Or, information could be out of date. People DIE and their websites still live on.

Most people with common sense contact sellers, ask for references from previous buyers or from their veterinarian. They ask for recent photos to be sent to them or ask to see the dog(s) on skype or Youtube. But not the USDA OIG. Nope, we get our information the quick, lazy and unreliable way, via GOOGLE.

The plain fact is that it is not possible to know for sure how many dogs a person owns (intact or otherwise) or how many puppies they sell or if they actually do ship dogs, simply based on a website.

The USDA further admits in their own report that selling directly to the public via the internet is by definition RETAIL. Retail sellers have always been exempt from the AWA. This has been upheld in court! Look up DDAL v. Veneman.

Most all hobby breeders have a website and sell remotely. That DOES NOT make them terrible, horrible, no good really bad animal exploiters who need to be regulated by the USDA. In fact, it is a violation of our rights to personal privacy to have government workers traipsing through our homes unannounced simply because we have a hobby that involves breeding our pets.

Then there's the question of sample size. 138 websites in 8 states? Hardly a representative cross-section of the nation's breeders.

And HOW do they know that those breeders whose websites they perused sold even ONE animal sight-unseen? THEY DON'T.

And even if the web seller in question did sell pets remotely, SO WHAT??

Ah, but the USDA claims to have received many complaints about people receiving sick animals when purchasing and having the pet shipped to them. See reason #3 above.

My first instinct in reaction to this is to say, BUYER BEWARE. Do your homework, research the seller and his or her reputation. Make your purchase thoughtfully. It is YOUR responsibility to choose your next pet, after all. Not the government's responsibility to protect you from your own choices.

But upon reflection, my second instinct is skepticism. Sick Dogs? WHERE ARE THEY?

PROVE IT!!!

A friend of mine was way ahead of me there. She wrote to the USDA and demanded that they PROVE their assertion that people are receiving sick dogs when buying sight-unseen via the Internet. Here is the response she received:

Dear Ms. XXXXX:

This is in response to your July 16, 2012, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for copies of complaints concerning the welfare of dogs and other pets received by APHIS directly from members of the public as referenced in that statement. Your request was received in this office on October 13, 2011, and assigned case number FOIA 12-03007-F.

Animal Care (AC) employees conducted a thorough search of their files and did not locate any information responsive to your request.

AC has informed this office that they have no records concerning the welfare of dogs and other pets received by APHIS directly from members of the public as referenced in the APHIS issued Regulatory Impact Analysis & Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis Proposed Rule, APHIS-2011-0003 RIN 0579-AD57 because they do not record complaints regarding retail sales as it is not an Animal Welfare Act (AWA) covered activity.

You may appeal our no record determination. If you chose to appeal, your appeal must be in writing and must be received within 45 days of the date of this letter to the following address:

Administrator

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Ag Box 3401
Washington, DC 20250-3401

Please refer to FOIA 12-03007-F in your appeal letter and add the words “FOIA Appeal” to the front of the envelope. To assist the Administrator in reviewing your appeal, provide specific reasons why you believe modification of the determination warranted.

If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Kacie Edwards of my staff at (301) 851-4084.

Sincerely,

Tonya Woods

Director
Freedom of Information & Privacy Act
Legislative and Public Affairs

BTW, an appeal was sent but was never answered. Funny, eh?

So, there is absolutely NO documentation to support the assertion that even ONE complaint about internet sellers was ever received by the USDA!

We can see that the audit itself was a farce, and there is absolutely no validity to the claim of complaints about sellers shipping sick dogs. What about the petition?

A petition by the radical animal rights group the Humane Society of the US was acted upon by the current administration. Yet what was it that this petition requested? It requested that “PUPPY MILLS” (a legally undefined entity) that sell puppies via the internet be regulated under the AWA.
A reasonable reaction to anyone using such an emotion-laden term as "puppy mill" would NOT include lending any sort of consideration to their nonsensical request.

And hey, if you ship a dog and own more than four intact females, now you are automatically a "puppy mill"? Good to know.

The current group of USDA-APHIS licensed breeders are slurred as “puppy mills” by these same animal rights activists, and laws are being passed in many locales to prevent the puppies from licensed, inspected breeders to be sold! But these humaniacs want even MORE breeders regulated under APHIS, so they can agitate to prevent them from breeding and selling any puppies at all!! Pretty clever tactic, I'll admit. And in today's current United States of Idiocracy, they seem to be getting away with it so far.

Oddly enough, major dog organizations...the very groups that should be on the front lines supporting our rights as breeders.... have so far refused to challenge these new APHIS rules, which clearly violate the intent of the Animal Welfare Act by regulating non-commercial, hobby breeders. Instead, these groups are urging their supporters to try to seek out loopholes for exemption. If we don't go along with these new rules, they say, then Congress will pass PUPS and we'll be in an even worse situation. In fact, these major groups have been cooperating with USDA-APHIS in formulating and implementing the new rules! A horrible betrayal of all of our rights, sadly enough.

Animal Rights "humaniacs" won't stop at redefining retail pet stores and new APHIS rules. They are going to push for an easy score like PUPS regardless of what happens with the new APHIS rules. When that happens, we will have to be on the front lines fighting that atrocity of PUPS as well.

A large group of independent dog breeders and owners (over 21,000 to date) have decided to mount a legal challenge to these new rules. You can read more about that process here:

 www.keepourdomesticanimals.com

The new USDA-APHIS rules are based on a trifecta of lies....a report cobbled together by the USDA from internet searches, a petition to the White House from the ever-disingenuous HSUS, and the completely unsustantiated claim of "complaints" about sick puppies being shipped to buyers.

Please support “KODA” and the effort to protect our domestic animals from excessive federal government regulation.

Surely he needs to be regulated by the Federal government!

Animal Shelters - the new Puppy Mills

Truth is generally stranger than fiction, but no more so than here in the US where trite sound bites become a perceived reality. "Save a tree" was a motto in support of using plastic bags. Now plastic bags are taboo! "Make love not war" sounds good in theory but of course doesn't quite reflect the reality of defending against aggression. "An apple a day keeps the doctor away" Seriously?

Here are a few more recent slogans that do their part to twist reality to suit the animal rights agenda:

"Don't breed or buy while shelter dogs die"

Heard that one? Or how about:

"If you breed, rescue. If you don't breed, rescue anyway!"

And then there's:

"For every dog bred, a shelter dog dead!"

These cute little cliched maxims ring just a bit hypocritical in the light of current events in the wonderful world of animal sheltering.

I don't want to cover ALL the atrocities covered in the name on "sheltering", but let's present a quick review of current routine practices . It's a fact that, an a regular daily basis, "shelters" kill healthy animals while blaming "overpopulation" and while blaming those who choose to breed. Shelters kill animals with minor and easily treatable illnesses. There's no money for antibiotics or vaccines or even decent food, but there is an endless supply of pentobarbital. They kill because they budget money for fancy new office space, while there is no funding for more or improved kennel space. Shelters kill friendly animals, neutered animals, and pets who dared to stray too far from home. They kill community feral cats, denouncing them as menaces to society. They kill because they can't be bothered to scan for microchips or look for owners. They kill when owners are unable to immediately come up with hundreds of dollars in redemption fees. The vast majority of the time, shelters can't be bothered with organizing low-cost adoption fairs or advertising. Killing is much quicker and easier, and at the same time the killing allows them to inure themselves with a false sense of moral superiority.

So it is rather ironic and somewhat surprising to read in the past few weeks that shelters...MAJOR public shelters....are currently brainstorming ways to get their meathooks into more puppies. Los Angeles Animal Services own Brenda Barnett presented a proposal to take in and foster out to 'selected rescues' pregnant bitches, allowing the puppies to be born, raised to salable age and then sold to raise money for the shelter.

There was actually an ad recently placed on Craiglist by a shelter in Idaho. (You know, that Craigslist where NO responsible breeder would ever EVER offer a dog for sale <rolls eyes>.)

Well this shelter was offering to buy puppies for $25 each from people in the community, so that they could turn around and re-sell them for a profit. Seems they just don't have enough puppies to go around up there in Idaho.

Shelters need puppies to sell. They need to make profit. They are GREEDY. They are LIVING OFF THE BACKS OF ANIMALS; the very offense of which they accuse breeders.

By their own twisted logic, for every dog that a "shelter" or "rescue" imports from overseas or across the border (yeah, they do that all the time) one more shelter dog dies. But, sadly, this trite expression comes to life in the reality of shelter operations. They are the ones controlling the killing and they also seek to be the sole source of pets for sale....be they imported or bred on the premises or sought out from the local community.

Since when is it OK to cherry-pick the animals you want to have on hand to sell while summarily killing anything that is older than a puppy?

Los Angeles, along with other nearby cities like West Hollywood and Glendale, has enacted a ban on retail sales of animals unless they are from "shelter" or "rescue".

Hmmm.. so now we will not only have the Shelter Pet Store but the Shelter Breeder too. San Diego is apparently next in line for this sort of monkey business, having approved a retail sales ban unless the animals are sourced from "shelter" or "rescue". How long before they look to start breeding their animals or trucking them in from Mexico?

The actual text of the ad from Craigslist. It has since been removed, but those of you with "wayback" talents may be able to pull the ad up:

http://boise.craigslist.org/pet/3856286135.html

===========

Our dog adoptions at Canyon County Animal Shelter are doing great and we

have a large demand for puppies right now. If your dog has had puppies,

we will pay $25 per puppy and spay the mother for free. We are trying to

make sure that puppies adopted in the Nampa-Caldwell area are vaccinated

and spayed/neutered before being adopted to cut down on the pet

overpopulation. If you are interested in having us find homes for your

puppies, please TEXT Andrea at 208-258-5208 for all the details, or call

the shelter at 208-455-5920. Some restrictions apply. We are located at

5801 Graye Lane, Caldwell ID and our hours are Mon-Sat 10-6:00 and Sun

10:00-4:00.

============

And here is the info about LAAS considering breeding their own puppies.

http://tinyurl.com/LAASBarnett

General Manager of Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS) Brenda Barnette, issued a report on June 23, 2013, recommending that the Department:

Make dogs in late-term pregnancy available to New Hope partners (rescues) as Department fosters OR to Department foster volunteers if fosters are available.

(1) Prohibit third-trimester spaying if a foster is available; and

(2) New Hope partners (rescuers) could also serve as foster volunteers for the Department for the pregnant mother and subsequent litter.

In her Fiscal Impact statement in the report, Barnette contends:

"Fostering puppies until they are eight weeks old, and returning them to Animal Services to be adopted out, represents additional revenue opportunities through adoptions to the public or through pet shops."

However, earlier in this report, GM Barnette states, "If the New Hope partner (rescuer) chooses, they can return them [the puppies] to the shelter for spay/neuter surgery and then adopt them for the regular fees." OR "The New Hope partners can have the dog and the puppies altered and after the Department receives proof…they can be transferred to the New Hope Partners at no additional charge."

From: "Brenda Barnette | Department of Animal Services" <Ani.LAAnimalServices@lacity.org>

Subject: Commission Meeting 7-9-2013

Date: July 3, 2013 7:22:03 PM PDT

* Board of Animal Services Commission Meeting Tuesday, July 9, 2013 @ 10:00 a.m. Reminder: The Commission meeting is Tuesday at 10 a.m. at City Hall, 200 North Spring Street in Los Angeles, CA 90012. Our normal meeting room is 1060. We have been advised that the City Council may need that room and we may be moved to another room. Since we do not have the location yet, please come early and we will post the meeting room on the door. This will be a presentation and a discussion of SPAYING DOGS IN LATE TERM PREGNANCY. Please join us to get your questions answered and give your input. The meeting materials can be found at http://www.laanimalservices.com/about-us-2/commission/. Sincerely, Brenda Barnette General Manager

LA Animal Services 221 N. Figueroa Street, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 482-9558