Reappropriation, Baby

PUPPY MILL!!

This derogatory slur has been popularized in the media. It's been hurled at us by misanthropist animal extremists in a very successful effort to marginalize the good work of all dog breeders. The term has also unfortunately sometimes been used by dog breeders to slur the competition. After all, the more one breeds, the better one's breeding skills become, and the more likely one is to become successful (whether that success is measured in quality of dogs and/or in the ability to profit financially). What better way to marginalize the competition than to tar them with a nasty label?

After decades of use, the "Puppy Mill" slur has been picked up and accepted by the general public, and is often quoted by the media in evening news stories. It's become part of the popular culture. Everyone seems to believe they have an understanding of what it means. "I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it." Much like other offensive and sordid crimes like murder, theft and rape, evil grubby animal-abuse and exploitation for profit can be identified by sight. We Know a Puppy Mill when we see one, right?

Or do we? Is it someone who breeds "too much"? Heaven forbid they MAKE MONEY! from their dogs! Those poor bitches never get a rest! They never have any human contact! Their feet never touch the ground! They never see a veterinarian! Blah blah blah, with every other ridiculous lie that can be cooked up.

In a futile effort at self-defense, dog breeders have attempted to define the "puppy mill" term. It's a place where dogs are abused. Or, they explain that  the phrase "puppy mill" shouldn't be used at all since it really doesn't apply to 99.999 % of the dog breeders out there.

Unfortunately, this seems to be the wrong approach. It's not working.

On the other hand, I hear from many sage voices in the dog world that we should NEVER, ever, utter this term. Using it, they say, only promotes the cause of the enemy; the animal fanatics like HSUS's Wayne Pacelle, who don't ever want to see another dog or cat born. We are facilitating their goal of entrenching the term into popular culture by using it more and more.

Unfortunately THIS approach isn't working either. The phrase "puppy mill"  won't go away simply because we ourselves pretend it doesn't exist or that it is not Politically Correct.

What to do? Can't explain that we are the good guys, and can't even mention the phrase they are calling us, as if our not mentioning it will make it go away. HA! Fat chance!

You will be called a Puppy Mill from here unto eternity because you are a dog breeder, and those who don't like dog breeders will continue to sling nasty slurs your direction.

That's a fact, Jack. You can count on it! Animal rights nuts are relentless in pursuit of their goal of making dog breeders go the way of the dinosaur. If calling us "puppy mill" works, they WILL continue the campaign.

I firmly believe we need a new, proven approach. There is only ONE course of action that can work to mitigate the damage that the tactic of name-calling inflicts.

The only way to neutralize this phrase is for us to embrace it.

REAPPROPRIATION, BAY BEE!

Much like racial slurs that have been embraced by those they objectify, and sexually derogatory slurs that have subsequently been embraced by women and gays, the only way to neuter this term is to embrace it. Bathe in it! Say it often and say it loudly! Be PROUD that you, a fine dog breeder, are a puppy mill!

Repeat after me, slowly and proudly:

YES, I AM A PUPPY MILL!

I am PROUD to mill puppies. My mill is the FINEST on the west coast. My mill produces the most EXCELLENT dogs in all the land! My milled puppies are the BEST you could ever find! They will smother you in kisses!

Looking for a new kennel name? How about "Puppy Mill Acres"?

Perhaps set up a billboard along the highway:

PUPPY MILL

NEXT EXIT

FINE QUALITY PUPPIES AVAILABLE!

My puppy mill dogs are excellent pets, fine hunters, fabulous guardians, wonderful herders. Thank goodness I breed plenty of fantastic dogs here at my top-class puppy mill!

Embrace your unique contribution to mankind. Be proud to be a puppy mill! 

Wikipedia: 

A reclaimed or reappropriated word is a word that was at one time pejorative but has been brought back into acceptable usage—usually starting within the communities that experienced oppression under that word, but sometimes also among the general populace as well.^[(The term "reclaimed word" more often implies usage by a member of the group referred to.)
This can have wider implications in the fields of discourse, and has been described in terms of personal or sociopolitical empowerment.
Reclaiming or reappropriating a word involves re-evaluating a term that in the dominant culture is, or at one time was, used by a majority to oppress various minorities of that same culture.
In some cases, this reappropriation is so successful as to turn a previously disparaging word into the preferred term: for example, gay, previously an insult, is now strongly preferred to "homosexual", both as an adjective and a noun.
One of the older examples of successful reclaiming is the term "Jesuit" to refer to members of the Society of Jesus. This was originally a derogatory term referring to people who too readily invoked the name of Jesus in their politics, but which members of the Society adopted over time for themselves, so that the word came to refer exclusively to them, and generally in a positive or neutral sense, even though the term "Jesuitical" is derived from the Society of Jesus and is used to mean things like: manipulative, conspiring, treacherous, capable of intellectually justifying anything by convoluted reasoning.
Reclaimed words differ from general reclamation outside of language because of their deliberately provocative nature. In addition to neutral or acceptable connotations, reclaimed words often acquire positive meaning within the circles of the informed

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."

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.

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!

The USDA Wants YOU!

TO STOP SELLING PETS!

Of concern to all dog owners and breeders in the US are new APHIS rules set to go into effect in November, 2013. The rules are intended to address internet sales, which the USDA alleges are problematic. I'm still waiting to see the facts and figures which provoked that allegation, but am not holding my breath. 

These new rules expand the influence of USDA/APHIS. They will increase the number of breeders who will be forced to comply with USDA regulations. The new rules are ninety-one (that's 91) pages long and are posted on the APHIS website. There is also a Q & A document on the APHIS website, which raises even more questions than it answers.

We do know for certain that anyone who houses more than four intact bitches (or in combination with females of any other covered species) on his or her premises AND who ships any dog by so-called “sight-unseen” methods will now be required to be licensed and inspected by the USDA.

The new rules explanation is vague, leaving many specific questions unanswered. How will breeders be able to comply with commercial kennel guidelines when raising dogs in a home environment? How can I be available during business hours for inspections, when I have a full-time job outside my home? Will rescues be held to these same guidelines? How will that be possible when they do not breed and raise the dogs on their premises? Why is shipping suspect, when all airlines require veterinary health certification prior to shipping? What if you want to sell a dog that is not born and raised on your premises? Why is offering dogs to pet homes considered an undesirable activity, subject to investigation and regulation? What is the definition of a “breeding bitch”? What is the definition of a “working dog”? What proof will be needed for exemption as a breeder working to preserve bloodlines? Why is the Federal government now usurping states' rights to regulate intrastate commerce? Why are small breeders who only sell at retail being subjected to rules meant for wholesalers and dealers?

 
Unfortunately, during the telephone conference calls with USDA officials, the answers to many of these questions invariably reverted to “we will determine that on a case-by-case basis”. Nothing quite as malleable (and subject to being overturned) as vague rules and guidelines.

The USDA employs animal rights activists in high positions, including Ms. Sarah Conant, formerly an HSUS attorney and now the chief of enforcement at APHIS. The USDA under Ms. Conant has demonstrated a crusader-style, anti-breeder bias, and with these new vague rules that lack specific guidelines, we will likely find that our exemptions are not as available as we think they may be.

The advice from APHIS to breeders is to give the USDA a call, to run your “business model” past them, and then they will inform you whether or not you need to be licensed with them.

 
USDA licensed breeders have long been subjected to a campaign of hate and discrimination by animal extremist groups. If licensed by the USDA, your information goes public and you may be vulnerable to attack by animal enterprise terrorist groups. These groups like HSUS, PETA, Best Friends and CAPS have conducted smear campaigns against USDA licensed breeders, and they have driven pet shops out of business and pushed for laws making pet sales in retail stores ILLEGAL in certain locales like California. How long until that “no retail sales” mentality is extended to those who sell dogs as retailers.....us! The hobby breeders who are exempt from USDA licensing, because we are in the same category of retail sellers! So we'll be damned if we do get a USDA license, and damned if we don't.

In addition to Ms. Conant, there are other known radical animal rights activist associations at the USDA. The head of the department is Tom Vilsack. Tom's wife Christie was the recipient of HSUS campaign contributions and a near-million dollar campaign television advertising blitz funded by the HSUS in her Iowa congressional bid against Steve King. Deborah Dubow Press, an animal rights activist who co-founded the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund at Cornell University, and received a grant from the HSUS's PCRM, was also employed by the USDA until just last January as an APHIS enforcment specialist.

The “intent” of the breeder is being judged by the Federal government; if you sell mostly pets, then the USDA feels that you need to be subjected to excessive regulations and red tape. The “intent” of the USDA seems clear enough. Though they deny it, it is obvious that they hope that there will be a chilling effect on the breeding of pets. The goal is to gradually and incrementally eliminate breeding of pets.

As a branch of the United States government, the USDA was created to collect and distribute the best farming knowledge.  In 1862, Congress passed a bill establishing a Department of Agriculture. Its mission was “to acquire and to diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture in the most general and comprehensive sense of that word.” When did we jump the fence and allow the USDA to over-regulate every little agricultural detail? What happened to the mission of EDUCATION?

Who dreamed way back in 1862 that the people at USDA would turn out to be the most threatening animal enterprise terrorists of all?

Read Between the lines - USDA Conference Call

I've got the transcript in front of me from the USDA conference call regarding the new rules for retail pet stores, that took place on Sept 10, 2013, Thanks to the Sportsman and Animals Owners' Voting Alliance! I've also listened to the recording of the call, courtesy of The Cavalry Group. After examining the details of the call, I tried to imagine how it might go with a "read-between-the-lines" interpretation. Here we go!

Kevin:

Welcome, callers. After suffering years of much yammering in our ears from scam groups like the Humane Society of the United States, the Doris Day Animal League, the ASPCA and other radical animal extremist groups, we are posting new rules limiting your exemption from the Animal Welfare Act as a retailer of pets. Dogs, primarily. But of course we will combine different species to "count against you" in order to limit you further.

We've discovered that 80% of breeders out there are hobbyists and are escaping our iron fist. That will never do! We want them to change to a business model.

The humaniac supporters of our new rules claim that USDA licensing is the hallmark of a "puppy mill". We're not so sure about that, but we are really listening to them. It seems that even though they don't like USDA licensed breeders, they want to have thousands more of them. Go figure! But, we need the money so we're anxious to get started. Why, they've already greased the palms of the politicians who appoint us with millions of dollars! We are DETERMINED to please them! Maybe we'll enjoy more of that sweet gravy!

We relied on the HSUS and other animal fanatics to help write up these new rules. They decided that you should be allowed no more than four female dogs on your premises. Any intact bitch "counts against you" as long as she is not too old or too young. But we will be the ones to decide if she "counts against you" or not! It's good to be queen, no? We don't bother with those pesky little details, like whether or not she is ever actually bred.

Further, our good friends, the humaniacs, insist that you must have a face-to-face meeting involving buyer, seller and the pet when the transfer is made. This doesn't need to be at your home, where you could be robbed at gunpoint or targeted by animal rights nuts who enjoy turning breeders in to authorities for any infraction of rules or laws, whether real or imagined.

No problem! You can meet in the WalMart parking lot. Just like all the people who sell sick dogs out of the backs of their trucks that they brought up from Mexico a few days ago.. You just go ahead and model your business practices after them. Many of them claim to be "rescues", so we can be sure that they are more noble than the rest of humanity. We like those "rescues" because they don't intentionally breed dogs. At least, we can't prove that they do, so no point in pursuing them. They are exempt from any and all rules.

Even though all dogs shipped currently are examined by a veterinarian, we have no confidence in the ability of a veterinarian to evaluate health. A veterinary health certificate is useless, even though all airlines currently require one to ship a dog. The buyer knows better than a veterinarian if the pet is healthy or not. Besides, we really don't care about health. It's all about getting snitches into your home in our quest to stop you from breeding.  

We are fully aware that hundreds of thousands of you oppose being brought under wholesale, commercial breeder regulations. We also know of the many concerns you have and exactly WHY you are opposed. We've read all of your comments, petitions and letters; but frankly, WE DON'T CARE. These are the new rules. If you don't like them, then you can just quit breeding dogs. Please.

We are only here today to explain to you, the BREEDERS who sell and ship sick, genetically defective pets to poor, unsuspecting buyers, why you can't do that any more. We will answer your questions if we feel like it. Regarding the questions we don't understand or don't want to be truthful about? Well, we will simply hem, haw and hedge.

Frankly, we don't like the fact that the information superhighway has facilitated sales of pets. Things have just been too easy lately for buyers and sellers. We prefer the days when people had to rely on classified ads in newspapers or the back of magazines to sell pets. That really put a cramp on pet sales, and we appreciated that. We really thought it was terrible that Sears, Roebuck and Co. sold dogs by catalog, but we could never figure our any way to "get" them for doing that.

Until now, that is.

We initially provided estimates on how many more breeders we thought we would be licensing, but we really doubt that will happen. We know that most of you will give up your dog breeding entirely, or at least cut it back significantly. If you want to give USDA licensing a whirl, we anticipate that you will need a one-time investment in an amount to effectively double the size of your current mortgage, to convert your home into a commercial kennel. Of course, your local zoning laws will prevent that anyway, so don't worry! It's all good.

OK let's get right to those questions! Who is first?

Susan from Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs and Breeders:

My dogs both work in the field and are pets and are show dogs, too. Must I become USDA licensed? What do you consider a "working dog" for purposes of exemption?

Dr. Russian:

Let me get this straight, you have a dog who does multiple things?

Susan: Right.

Dr. Russian:
Wow that's incredible! Then you must keep separate kennels. Dogs that work must be kept separately from dogs who are pets.

Susan:

But it's the same breed. It's the same dogs. All my dogs have multiple uses. They are retrievers, they hunt. I don't keep them in kennels. They are house pets too. Would hunting dogs and retrieving dogs be considered "working dogs" for purposes of exemption?

Dr. Russian:

What a conundrum. I really don't understand the concept of dogs having multiple uses and purposes. I suggest you call me and run your "business model" past me. That way I can figure out the best way to harrass you, OK? And make sure to tell all the other people in your group to call me, too! Next caller.

Roland from the National Finch and Softbill Society:

Are birds exempt? What about birds or dogs bred to a breed standard? How many comments opposed your new rules? Will the USDA contract out their inspections?

Kevin:

Birds are exempt. That's why we took your call. Geez, why did you have to ask other questions too? Who the hell is screening these callers?

Well, let me try to tackle the other questions, since this is probably all going on the record. We have no plans to outsource inspections at this time. Why should we when we have HSUS lackies employed right here at the USDA for that purpose? No comment on how many comments were submitted in opposition to the new rules. We frankly don't care. As to standards, we have our own standards, and they are arbitrary and capricious. That suits us just fine. We don't care about you.

Roland:

Again, why are show standards not taken into consideration?

Dr. Russian:

The rules are up, read them and get back to me. We've already told you, we don't give a shit about show standards.

Sarah from HSUS and Doris Day Animal League:

We are SO EXCITED that OUR new rules are going into effect!!! We only hope that they can do enough damage to really cripple pet breeding here in the US before this gets challenged in court. Our group (DDAL) already tried to push retail hobby breeders into the same regulations as wholesale, commercial breeders, but the courts ruled that we couldn't do that. The nerve of those courts, upholding the constitution! But that won't stop us from continuing on our crusade to ban breeding! My question is, how will you make effective use of your time and limited resources? How soon will you jump on board our bandwagon and start reaching out to bitchslap some breeders?

Kevin:

Not to worry, Sarah and other goodie two-shoes. We want to get to the most people as quickly as possible in order to protect animals from being exploited as pampered pets. We will look initially at those breeders we can catch who appear to have high volume, then we will be happy to take complaints from humaniacs such as yourself. So we will be depending on you guys from HSUS, DDAL, CAPS and other to help us out here, OK? Please don't let us down!!

Sarah:

We are ready, Kevin!! We won't fail in our quest to shut down every dog breeder in the US! Thanks again!

Jennifer from the HTPCB:

What is the definition of a "breeding bitch"?

Kevin:

It doesn't matter as long as you let people into your home to inspect you. Why are you breeders so hung up on definitions? We make the definitions up as we go along.

Dr. Russian:

Breeding FEMALE (oh I just can't bring myself to use that "B" word!). I say, it's a dog that can breed. Ultimately, we decide what does or does not "count against you" for your numbers limit. End of story!

Cathy from Animal Welfare Institute:

Hallelujah! Our prayers have been answered! New rules to put more pet breeders out of business. I just want to be sure you cover each and every species of pet. There is too much animal suffering, forcing them to be pets.

Kevin:

Yes, don't worry. All species of pets are covered.

Cathy:

Whew! Thanks again!

Tracy from the HSUS:

We are thrilled that those greedy, evil breeders will now be forced into the USDA system or quit breeding entirely. Thrilled, I tell you! When can we get started?

Kevin:

Well, by law, we have to wait 60 days to start enforcing any new rules. However, our motto here at the USDA is "why wait on legal technicalities"? Let's start right now looking for people to harrass by going through breed registries and looking at people advertising on the internet. We hope they will voluntarily just give up breeding on their own, or turn themselves in for enforcement, but if not, don't worry, we'll be on the lookout for them.

Larry, President of North American Falconers Association:

Are birds exempt?

Kevin:

Another call about birds? Great! Yes, birds are exempt.

Larry:

But you just told the lady from Animal Welfare that all species of pets are included?

Kevin:

Well if you were looking for honesty, Larry, this is the wrong place to be. Birds are exempt. We haven't figured out how to include them "at this point". Our friends at the HSUS are helping us work on getting standards in place to regulate birds.

Larry:

Great!! Birds are exempt! Yay!

Linda, hobby breeder:

Currently buyers all come into my house. I don't ship. So I'm a retail store, right?

Kevin:

You are covered.

Dr. Russian:

People don't need to come to your home for you to be exempt. Don't listen to Kevin, he doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about.

Linda:

Wal Mart parking lot is OK?

Kevin:

Sure, why not? But be careful not to get arrested in the states that have laws against sales in public places. Those new laws are awesome!! Hooray for HSUS! We're so glad to see that selling animals is now a crime in many places.

Linda:

My daughter and I both have breeding bitches, she has three, I have five. I also am a broker for other people. How does all that work? These new rules are confusing.

Dr. Russian:

We see intact dogs on your premises, they are being counted. If you don't ship any dogs you are not covered. But now that we know you are a dog breeder and broker, we are going to definitely have you on our radar screen.

Linda:

But I don't ship.

Kevin:

We will wait, maybe, for a few months or even years before we start to go after people like you. But rest assured, we WILL be coming after you eventually. What we say now, and how the rules are written, may be two entirely different things.

Linda:

I advertise online, sometimes dozens of dogs for sale at a time.

Kevin:

Boy, you are one of those upfront, honest people who will be the first to go. SUCKER!!

Since you say you don't ship, we will be leaving you alone. Temporarily. Rules will be tightened up in the future to better protect dogs and persecute breeders.

Deborah from ASPCA:

Thank you thank you! How can we make sure that everyone is licensed within 60 days? How will we go after people who don't apply for a license?

Dr. G:

We will outreach beginning immediately. We will try to get the more naïve to turn themselves in and those who don't, we will be on the lookout for them. Rest assured, humaniacs, that your wish is our command.

Carla, breeder of Aussies:

There is an exemption for working dogs. What about stock dogs? And, if I have a state license, why do I need a license with the feds?

Kevin:

We don't care how many layers of bureaucracy you have to contend with. The more, the better. I don't know what a "stock dog" is so I'll let Dr. Russian address that part.

Dr. Russian:

Good God, I don't know what a "stock dog" is either. But if it isn't used for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, exhibition or use as a pet, then we can't sink our meat hooks into it. Darn.

Kara from MPBA:

Can we advertise on the internet as long as we don't ship? What about my stock dogs? What if I say I'm selling breeders? Can't you give us a few loopholes to work with?

Dr. Russian:

We LOVE people who advertise on the net, that's where we will go a-huntin' for breeders. So advertise away! Your business model is what we are looking at. If you sell dogs, then how you do it is OUR decision!

After all these questions about dogs for stock, I am really wondering now what the heck you are talking about. Stocking the shelves of your stores? Making soup? You breeders are really wierd!!

Kevin:

We are from the government, and we are here to help! Restraint of trade is what we do best. Who needs free enterprise? Phooey.

We suggest if you are confused about the rules that you call us so we can begin to investigate you immediately. We need to know about your "business model" even though you are a hobby breeder, not a business. We don't take into consideration your profit or loss, only the fact that you dare to sell pets. At the end of the day, that's all that matters. We are here for the animals, and as long as we draw breath and continue to collect our six-figure salaries (provided by your tax dollars), we are committed to continuing to dream up new ways to screw over anyone evil enough to breed pets.

I will happily refer those of you with further questions to our knowledgeable enforcement division: Sarah L. Conant, former lawyer for the Humane Society of the US, and animal rights extremist Deborah Dubow Press. They are waiting to prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law. They'll even do it with a smile!

And, if we can drive a few breeds extinct, or prevent someone from getting the dog of their dreams, then our efforts will not have been in vain.

The dog of tomorrow, once breeding is stopped.

License Plate Propaganda

You remember PETA, the people who would rather kill dogs and cats than find them homes? Yep, aren't they just too precious. We've blogged about them here on many occasions. Check out www.petakillsanimals.com for some eye-popping truth about the underlying evil nature of PETA.

In 2007, PETA employee Jane Garrison, her buddy Judie Mancuso and their husbands formed an animal rights group in California. They called it “Social Compassion in Legislation”. The goal? Agitate for spay and neuter laws in the state of California. The method? A relentless political campaign for spay-neuter legislation, enabled by well-planned  propaganda to promote public acceptance.

The left wing slant in the state of California has gotten so out of control that we actually had Judie Mancuso, a PETA supporter and founder of “Social Compassion”, recently appointed to the California Veterinary Medical Board! Fresh from her crusades sponsoring failed bills that would have required all pets in the state of California be sterilized, Mancuso continues to push her anti-pet breeding agenda from a position of authority as a member of the CVMB.

“Social Compassion” was behind two recent onerous pieces of proposed legislation; AB 1634 and SB 250. The former would have required all pets in the state to be sterilized, with a few narrow exemptions. The latter would have required mandatory sterilization and would have also prohibited the sales of unaltered dogs and cats. Several other animal rights groups also joined Social Compassion in official support of these bills.

So far, our state legislature has rejected this proposed intrusion into pet owners' rights to choose their pet's reproductive status. However, with a newly-elected Democratic supermajority in both the California Senate and Assembly, the next legislative push for spay-neuter laws will likely be successful. Meantime, as the animal rights groups strategize their next move, the focus has temporarily shifted to spreading propaganda.

And what better way to spread propaganda than on the back ends of thousands of cars?

Almost two years ago, "Social Compassion" began a push to mass produce a California spay-neuter license plate. With "Social Compassion" founder Mancuso sitting on the California Veterinary Medical Board, it was easy to solicit CVMB support for this license plate program. A minimum threshold of 7500 orders is required to begin production of special license plates; that's the break-even on the expenses of printing up special license plates. Yet today, many months later, the animal rights groups can't quite manage to sell the minimum amount of spay-neuter license plates. They desperately pushed a bill attempting to get themselves a special exemption to reduce the numbers of pre-orders down to 2500 to get their “pet project” rolling. When that effort failed, they introduced another bill, AB 610, that passed and successfully extended their pre-order deadline for another year, until June 2013.

Why there's some of the perps now!!

Now mind you, our state has nearly 40 million residents, yet the spay-neuter fanatics can't seem to find more than about 6,300 people gullible enough to pre-order this special license plate. That's only 0.016% of the population, or less than 1 in 6200 people. Understandable, because not only is this plate UGLY, but this license plate promotes the urban legend that sterilization is healthy and beneficial.

Seems that “Social Compassion”, PETA and the HSUS are devoting a great deal of time and effort to promoting these license plates. But don't be fooled; propaganda is the top priority; they don't care about actually funding any pet clinics; nor finding homes for shelter animals; nor setting up programs and policies that help people keep pets in their homes. The priority is to push lies about “overpopulation”and the presumed need for widespread pet sterilization.

This week, “Social Compassion” sent out an email blast with a special offer. Pierce Brosnan, the Hollywood actor/artist who designed the license plate, is offering to PAY for a free license plate for anyone who wants one. He is being joined in this offer by Katherine Heigl, another Hollywood celebrity nutjob. Heigl recently set up a website in support of animal neutering proclaiming “I hate balls”. (www.ihateballs.com) This website demonstrates how misguided, sick, twisted and desperate these animal rights nuts are.
A friend of mine who spoke out against the license plate program received this note by email:

“Can't figure out what was wrong with AB 1634. Also can't figure out what is wrong with the California Pet Lover's license plate. Proceeds from the plate provide funding for free or low-cost spay and neuter surgeries across California and do not go to PETA or HSUS. They also help to raise awareness about the importance of spaying and neutering.”

“I want to emphasize that the sponsor of this program is the California Veterinary Medical Board. Yes, HSUS is listed as one of the “supporters” but there are many other supporters...None of these supporters receive financial benefit from this license plate program. Proceeds from the plate would provide funding for free or low-cost spay & neuter surgeries across California. They will also help to raise awareness about the importance of spaying and neutering. So, its up to you to decide whether you want to show an “ugly” and distinct license plate in support of what I think is a worthwhile endeavor … And you can get it now for free!”

Uh, OK. Where do we begin to address what is “wrong” here?

First off, if Brosnan and Heigl were really interested in spay and neuter as a presumed cure for the imaginary problem of pet overpopulation, their money would be much better spent in directly providing for free spay and neuter clinics. But no, their main interest is advocacy for the cause of animal rights; the elimination of pet breeding and strictly limiting pet ownership. Brosnan is also seeking the ego boost of seeing his great art masterpiece plastered about the state.

Secondly, there is no guarantee that any funds beyond the cost of production will go to any spay-neuter program. ZIP. ZILCH. NADA.

IF there are profits from the license plate program, the sponsoring agencies collect the money in a License Plate Fund. Per the text of the agreement “ the sponsoring agency shall expend all funds received under this section exclusively for projects and programs that promote the agency's official policy, mission, or work.” And, "to allow the Veterinary Medical Board to support the critically important efforts of city and county animal shelters to address serious animal care and control problems facing the state."

You may have noticed that the words “spay-neuter program” are nowhere to be found. Imagine that!

The VMB may collect the profits and use them as they see fit. Why, they could even decide to funnel that money to [wink wink] Mancuso's “Social Compassion” group.

Funny thing about "Social Compassion" is that those who work for them are unpaid “volunteers”. Volunteers who have endless resources and time to travel thousands of miles back and forth across the state of California, to produce multiple propaganda websites, to lobby incessantly in Sacramento and at the local levels. Mancuso owns a lovely house near the ocean in Laguna Beach. How does she pay her mortgage? How does she support her lobbying lifestyle? Perhaps now that she is on the CVMB, Mancuso does actually receive some sort of salary, but where has her support come from in the past? It can only be from animal rights groups such as HSUS and PETA. They are paying her for her tireless work toward the extinction of pet ownership and breeding.

It is disgusting that an unscrupulous lobbyist like Mancuso has wormed her way into an influential position in state government. It's galling and appalling that this woman, a vegan animal rights fanatic, has weaseled her way onto the California Veterinary Medical Board.

The admitted goal of animal rights groups behind these initiatives is NO BREEDING. They prefer to force us to import mutts from other countries, especially from nearby Mexico, but also from as far away as Taiwan, the Caribbean and Europe. These dogs are often street dogs who bring with them other special bonuses like parvo and rabies. So you can forget about finding an intentionally-bred healthy puppy, a purebred dog, or a “designer” dog bred on purpose, if the animal rights groups have their way. Breeding laws here in the US are now so restrictive that it is difficult to find a puppy of any sort....purebred or street-bred. And in an animal shelter? No puppies. When they occasionally enter they are stolen by staff, snapped up by “rescues” and sometimes even raffled to the highest bidder.

Despite being touted by animal rights groups as being “healthy”, sterilization surgery, especially when performed while the dog or cat is immature, is ironically responsible for many health problems..... everything from spay incontinence, to a depressed immune system, hypothyroidism, and orthopedic disorders as a result of abnormal bone development. This is just the tip of the iceberg; we have detailed many of those problems here in the past, check our tags “spay/neuter” and "rethinking spay neuter".

These license plate proclaim "Spay-Neuter Saves Lives"? There is absolutely NO data to support such a ridiculous claim. Spay-neuter is certainly not a "PRO LIFE" agenda. It is ANTI BIRTH. And it is certainly not "PRO CHOICE." The extremists want to take the CHOICE of spay-neuter away from the person who owns the animal.

Considering the adverse health effects of spay-neuter, we should use the existing excellent tools readily available for doggie birth control. They are called DOORS and LEASHES. These amazing tools are very reasonably priced. Even low-income individuals have access to them. As an added benefit, these great tools are highly effective in preventing death from a car or a coyote. They also work perfectly to prevent your dog from chasing the neighbor's cat or using the neighbor's lawn for a toilet.

Where is the license plate educating about the need to confine your pet? I sincerely doubt that Judie Mancuso, Pierce Brosnan, Katherine Heigl or anyone at PETA or HSUS give a flying fig about your dog being hit by a car.

And then there is the obvious disingenous nature of this offer. If these celebrities and PETA people really do want to subsidize spay and neuter clinics, why don't they just open some up themselves? Or donate directly to those already in existence? We all know the real agenda here. Propaganda regarding spay and neuter is the priority. Control the public psyche and you win the debate. The public must fervently and earnestly believe in “pet overpopulation” in order for the animal rights groups to pass more laws regulating pet ownership and breeding rights. If state-sponsored license plates urge us to support spay-neuter, it reinforces the public perception that more laws are necessary to address a “problem”.

And if you believe in the notion of supposed “overpopulation”, then do I have a bridge to sell you.

Check our posts on this blog for articles that blast the notion of “pet overpopulation” right out of the water.