Animal Rights Agenda, AKC, and Aging Breeders

What will become of the dog fancy in the future?  As other, more eloquent writers have noted, we have the “perfect storm” brewing that could mean the end of purebred dogs as we know it.

Years ago, quality dog breeders were viewed with respect and admiration.  Large, elegant, fully-staffed kennels boasted fit, healthy, and happy dogs.  The proprietors of these kennels were considered to be knowledgeable, responsible dog men and women.

Enter the Animal Rights Agenda.  Suddenly, dog breeders as a whole became evil puppy millers, out to make a buck, indifferent to a dog’s health and happiness.  Pet limit laws, bandied about by the Animal Rights agenda, were put into motion, severely limiting a breeder’s ability to continue producing the happy, healthy, sound dogs that had been so sought after in the past.  Fearful of being branded a “puppy mill,” established kennels curtailed their breeding operations, downsized, and as a result, made puppies of quality less available to the general public.  Even so, the Animal Rights Agenda continues to seek to restrict the breeding of purebred dogs even further, using their very deep pockets (a result of misguided donor support) to lobby legislators to pass their anti-breeding agenda.  In many areas of the country, restrictions on breeding are so burdensome and costly that only the very wealthy or the very corporate breeders continue to breed dogs.

The American Kennel Club, perhaps in an attempt to reverse the declining number of dog registrations (which is likely a direct result of the onslaught by the Animal Rights Agenda) designed the Breeder of Merit program.  This program was intended to offset those breeders who strive to produce healthy puppies from those who do not provide health testing or gain breed or working titles on their dogs.  Breeders of Merit must agree to provide health testing as recommended by their Parent Clubs on all dogs used in their breeding program, and must have a history of obtaining breed or working titles on their dogs.  In addition, Breeders of Merit must be “demonstrate a commitment to ensuring 100% of the puppies produced are AKC registered.”

The response to this program has been mixed, with some breeders not willing to be identified as Breeders of Merit simply because of the threat from the Animal Rights Agenda; others signed on willingly thinking the distinction might assist in the fight against the Animal Rights Agenda.  Unfortunately, after many breeders achieved the Breeder of Merit distinction, AKC chose to increase its litter registration fees, locking Breeders of Merit into a nearly 100% increase in their registration fees.

The fancy is quickly becoming a privilege accorded to only those wealthy enough to afford it.  The Animal Rights Agenda continues to push for ridiculous legislation that would force unrealistic engineering standards on small breeders, continues to lobby for additional licensing for breeders, and continues to paint all breeders into the same dim light as the substandard breeders (who do exist, but not in the enormous numbers touted by the Animal Rights Agenda).  Those few hardy breeders who intend to continue with their passion find that compliance with the ridiculous engineering standards and the cost of multiple licenses (city, county, state, breeding, foster, rescue) has become prohibitive.  The cost of showing a dog to its championship, essential to an excellent breeding program, has far exceeded what the average family is able to spend.  And now litter registrations will become prohibitively expensive.

Truly, the dog fancy is fast becoming a sport that only the wealthy can afford.  At a recent regional specialty, the youngest active breeder was 40.  This, unfortunately, makes sense, in that young couples or individuals just starting out on their own don’t have the financial resources to take part in the fancy.  Space requirements implemented by many municipalities are out of reach for many people (such as the requirement for at least an acre of land in order to have a kennel of 3 dogs – even if they are Chihuahuas). Multiple licensing requirements (city, county, state, federal, and in some cases, foster home licenses), and unfathomable housing requirements (which are so prohibitive that the raising of a litter in the home is impractical – and in the home is where they SHOULD be raised) all contribute to the nearly insurmountable expenses involved in the breeding of dogs.  And even the AKC, our friend and ally, has shifted the burden of expense onto us, the responsible breeders, by implementing higher registration fees.

The Internet has made the names and locations of breeders readily available to the Animal Rights Agenda.  While the Internet is a valuable tool, it has also been shown to work against the dog fancy – including rescue groups.  In fact, this author overheard a conversation in which a community officer told a shelter worker that he wanted to use Facebook to track down people who he could ticket for having dogs “running at large” – in other words, he wanted to use “lost” postings on Facebook to issue citations to people who have lost their dogs.  In Wisconsin, a dog that was posted multiple times by a rescue as adoptable was “counted” in their total each time it was listed, and as a result the rescue organization was fined for not complying with their local limit laws.

The sport of purebred dogs has reached a precipitous fork.  We who hold our hobby and fancy dear to us must make a choice.  We either run away from this awful storm, or we batten down our hatches and prepare to fight it.

We need to welcome and nurture new breeders into our fold.  We need to communicate with our registry when their increased fees threaten our own financial ability to continue to breed and show our dogs.  And we need to fight the Animal Rights Agenda, as a united front.  Not as piecemeal, “oh, someone else will do it.”  We need to fight it as an army united in our quest to continue our hobby and passion.

We should not feel the need to unload our dog food in the dark of night lest we be branded puppy mills.  We should not feel the need to defend our decision to have a litter of puppies.  We should not hang our heads in shame when someone asks us if we are breeders.

We should not apologize for who we are and what we do.

Share
Posted in AKC, Animal Activists, Animal Ownership, Pet Laws, Pet Owner Bill of Rights, Showing and Owner Handling | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Animal Rights Means No Animals Left

In 2010, more than half the US population (62%, or 71 million households) owned at least one pet, and the US population spent almost 48 billion dollars on pet care.

Most pet owners in the US have heard of HSUS, PeTA, and other animal organizations. Their names are household words.  But are they pet-friendly? Here are some quotes from our animal rights organizations:

My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture. — J.P. Goodwin while executive director of the Coalition Against the Fur Trade (As quoted on AR-Views, an animal rights Internet discussion group).

It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership. — Elliot Katz, President, In Defense of Animals, “In Defense of Animals,” Spring 1997.

Liberating our language by eliminating the word ‘pet’ is the first step … In an ideal society where all exploitation and oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA’s policy to oppose the keeping of animals as ‘pets.’ — New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance, “Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!” Good Dog! February 1991, p.20.

I don’t use the word “pet.” I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer “companion animal.” For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance — Ingrid Newkirk, PETA’s President, quoted in The Harper’s Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.

We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. …One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding — Wayne Pacelle – Former National Director of Fund for Animals.

How dare we, as pet owners, lobbyists, and politicians bow down to these words!  Humans and animals have had a mutually compatible relationship for eons.  In the process of human history, we have selected animals for traits that were beneficial to us.  The elkhound helped the Vikings hunt moose – thus staving off hunger for humans.  The shepherding dogs tended our livestock against wolves – thus staving off hunger for humans.  The arctic dogs provided transportation in desolate areas of the world – thus staving off hunger for humans.  Every breed of dog has been bred for a purpose.  The haughty arrogance of the Animal Rights movement fails to acknowledge that our various species – including domesticated livestock – are a part of human history – a history that should and MUST be preserved.  Conscientious breeders are truly historians, preserving a part of our human history.  In the process, they also produce companion animals who love and adore them, and are loved back.

I hope every pet owner, breeder, lobbyist, and politician will realize that the Animal Rights movement means just that….ANIMAL RIGHTS MEANS NO ANIMALS LEFT.

Share
Posted in Animal Activists, Animal Ownership | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Animal Rights Extremists Nearing Victory in California By Diane Amble

July 7, 2011

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_animal_rights_extremists_nearing_victory_in_california.html

http://tinyurl.com/432kgco

July 7, 2011
The Animal Rights Extremists Nearing Victory in California
By Diane Amble

It is becoming clearer with each passing day that something is terribly,
terribly wrong in California. Gradually, unnoticed by most, California
is slowly deteriorating over time like a grand old mansion with a
steadily crumbling foundation. The California Dream is slowly dying and
what seems to be rising from the ashes is a nightmare. Why? How did
this happen? The answer is quite simple. Deliberate and strategic
social and political engineering by motivated special interest groups.
These groups seek to force their agendas upon us via carefully crafted
and legislated mandates.

The most powerful, dangerous, and influential of these groups are found
in the realms of environmental activism (green groups) and animal
rights. Homeland Security has identified in an official national
security report that these groups constitute one of the most dangerous
terrorist threats to America on a par with Muslim jihadists. While we
have been busily pursuing our livelihoods and enjoying our families and
animals, these dangerous groups have been stealthily working behind the
scenes to gain more and more political power and influence over us all.

Share
Posted in Animal Activists | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

MA legislation would affect companion animal events


— On Mon, 7/11/11, AKC’s Government Relations Department <mba@akc.org> wrote:

From: AKC’s Government Relations Department <mba@akc.org>
Subject: MA Update: Committee to Consider Requiring Licensing for Dog Events on July 19
To: apete1962@yahoo.com
Date: Monday, July 11, 2011, 3:25 PM

July 11, 2011
A Massachusetts legislative committee is scheduled to consider House Bill 1023 on July 19 – a bill that would significantly change the definition of kennel to encompass training facilities or any dog event with more than 12 dogs.  All those meeting the new criteria would be required to comply with all state and local licensing and other regulations currently reserved just for large kennels.
This would mean that any daytime activity where more than twelve dogs are present (including dog shows, training facilities, companion events, etc.) would now be considered a kennel and required to comply with all state and local kennel licensing and regulations. Read AKC’s previous Legislative Alert for more information on House Bill 1023, including AKC’s letter to the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure.
It is essential that the committee members hear from responsible dog owners, exhibitors, trainers, and breeders who either reside in the Commonwealth or participate in Massachusetts dog events:
  • Attend the committee hearing on July 19. The meeting information is as follows:
Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure
Date: July 19, 2011
Time: 1:00 p.m.
Location: Massachusetts State House, Room A-2
**If you plan to attend, please contact the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners so they can know how many plan to testify and can provide you with any last-minute information:
Virginia Rowland – blackslate@aol.com or
Julie Rembrandt Seeley – jrembrandtseeley@charter.net
The AKC will continue to closely monitor this legislation.  For questions or more information, contact the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs & Responsible Dog Owners at the e-mail addresses listed above, or the AKC Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720 or doglaw@akc.org.
If you would rather not receive future communications from The American Kennel Club, let us know by clicking here.
The American Kennel Club, 8051 Arco Corporate Dr. Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27617 United States
Share
Posted in Animal Ownership, On the National Front, Pet Laws, Pet Owner Bill of Rights | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Your Dog’s Best Friend May Be His Attorney

TX-RPOA E-News
>From RPOA Texas Outreach and
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance
“Animal welfare, not animal ‘rights’
and, yes, there is a difference.”
Crossposting is encouraged.
July 15, 2011

Excellent article below from The Dog Place: www.thedogplace.org . Thanks,
Diane! Animals are being seized in Texas on a regular basis by law
enforcement officers assisted by local humane societies that house the
animals. Many times offers to help from national purebred dog and cat
rescue groups are refused and the seizures turn into major fundraisers for
the humane societies. If Animal Control knocks on your door, know your
rights as animal owners. Do not let them in without a Search Warrant even
if you feel you’ve nothing to fear.
…………………………………………………
http://www.thedogplace.org/RIGHTS/Illegal-Animal-Seizure-1107_Amble.asp
OR Tiny URL:
http://tinyurl.com/64ap3z7

Your Dog’s Best Friend May Be His Attorney
by Diane Amble I July 12, 2011

Dealing with illegal animal seizures and the consequences; the expert’s
handbook, part 1.
(EXCERPTS), read at URL above for rest of the story!)

Warrantless seizures plague animal owners! If contacted by animal control
authorities SEEK LEGAL COUNSEL IMMEDIATELY to prevent illegal seizure.

In fact, you may want to find a good attorney now.

“Why?” you ask. The answer is by the time the knock comes at your door, it
may be too late to protect your animals and prevent them from being seized.
Often times, seizure of animals results in the injury and death of the
animals by the same authorities that claim to be “rescuing” said animals.

Too many believe that the law protects their rights and their property as we
were taught in Civics and Government class in middle school.

Too many believe that because they provide optimal care for their animals
and live in a nice neighborhood or a rural countryside that they will never
be subjected to the onerous raids one hears about. “Those people” you assume
did not properly care for their animals. We are told “those people” are
hoarders.

The reality is that even people with four animals have been labeled
“hoarders” by rogue raiders. Once they release often contrived raid details
to the press, you will be presumed guilty by the media and the public.
<MORE AT http://tinyurl.com/64ap3z7

Share
Posted in Animal Ownership, Guardians? Or Owners?, On the National Front, Pet Laws, Pet Owner Bill of Rights | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Pet limit laws – good article

http://forums.petdocsoncall.com/entry.php?171-How-Many-Pets-Can-You-Own

Share
Posted in Animal Ownership, Pet Laws, Pet Owner Bill of Rights | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Update on Murder Hollow Bassets (July 2011)

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/21/38327.htm

Woman Says Dog Police Acted Like Gangsters

By REUBEN KRAMER

PHILADELPHIA (CN) – A breeder of basset hounds claims gun-toting officers from the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals broke her heart and “decimated” her pack of dogs, seizing 12 of them after illegally searching the dogs’ heated barn without a warrant, and threatening to “return with television cameras.”
Wendy Willard sued the PSPCA and two of its officers, George Bengal and Tara Loller, on constitutional charges in Federal Court.
Willard, a retired public school teacher, Ivy League graduate and volunteer for conservancy organizations, says she “has loved and worked with sporting hounds for more than 40 years.”
Willard says she is an “internationally recognized” breeder of dogs known as the “Murder Hollow Bassets.” An Internet search this morning turned up a trove of comments on the case from dog groups.
In her 26-page complaint, Willard says she has spent tens of thousands of dollars to care for her dogs, $30,000 on the heated barn she built for them, and has raised 17 litters of “highly regarded hounds.”
Willard’s attorney Emily Bell told Courthouse News that Willard, a cause célèbre in some dog-breeding circles, is “a really lovely woman who has endured some pretty terrible things” at the hands of the PSPCA. Bell is an attorney with Clymer, Musser, Brown & Conrad, of Lancaster, Pa.
The Murder Hollow Bassets get their name from a grisly 19th-century triple homicide that occurred near the dead-end, single-lane, wooded private road where Willard lives.
Until July 27, 2009, Willard lived in her home with a pair of older hounds and another 21 dogs lived in the $30,000 heated barn she built for them on her 2-acre Philadelphia property, which includes “100-foot runs and an exercise area,” according to her complaint.
But Willard says her world was turned upside-down that summer day when a group of gun-toting PSPCA officers paid an unannounced visit and asked for permission to enter the barn.
“When Miss Willard refused them permission to search without a warrant, the officers and wardens temporarily left her property,” but not before an officer “threatened Miss Willard that if she did not consent to a warrantless search of her property, the group … could return with television cameras,” according to the complaint.
“Rather than seek a warrant, the officers and wardens, however, simply entered the adjoining property of her neighbor, crossing from that property’s grassy area to trespass onto the wooded area on Miss Willard’s property,” according to the complaint.
Willard says the manager of the 340-acre preserve next door had told the PSPCA officers they were trespassing, but the officers responded “that they did not care and that as PSPCA agents they would go wherever they pleased and do whatever they wanted.”
“From their trespassing vantage point, the wardens and officers observed the fenced-in area behind Miss Willard’s barn and spied on Miss Willard as she went about her daily chore of cleaning her dogs’ exercise runs,” the complaint states.
Warrants were subsequently issued “in spite of the fact that the officers and wardens had observed no criminal activity from an area in which they were not authorized to be,” Willard says.
The crew returned at about 5 p.m., handed Willard a search warrant, and raided her dogs.
“Miss Willard’s hounds had sensed danger and begun to bark,” the complaint states. Willard says the PSPCA crew searched and photographed her barn, and a fleet of eight law-enforcement vehicles parked outside her home.
Willard says defendant PSPCA officer Tara Loller falsely accused her of violating Philadelphia’s “Limit Law,” which prohibits having more than 12 dogs in a single residence.
“Defendants improperly brandished this ‘Limit Law’ as the pretext to seize Miss Willard’s hounds from the heated barn. This inapplicable ordinance was used to oppress and badger Miss Willard into complying with defendants’ demands.”
Willard says the 12-dog limit applies to a “residential dwelling unit,” which the Philadelphia Zoning Code defines as a building “intended to be used for living or sleeping by human occupants.”
“Miss Willard’s barn is not a dwelling; no human occupants use it for living or sleeping and it was obvious to anyone on the property that the barn was not a residential dwelling. In fact, Miss Willard’s barn is a private stable under the Philadelphia Zoning Code. As no business is conducted on the property, her barn is not a kennel,” Willard says.
Willard says she involuntarily signed “surrender agreements” for seizure of 11 of her dogs after officers threatened to take all 23 of them “if she refused to sign over the others.” She says the officers told her “that the forms had to be signed immediately because one of the dog wardens was going into diabetic shock and needed medical attention; that if she did not sign the dogs over she would get so many citations that PSPCA would ‘own her home;’ and that defendants Bengal and Loller would not leave her kitchen until the documents were signed.”
Meanwhile, defendant George Bengal was a quarter-mile uphill, telling Willard’s neighbor that Willard was “running a puppy mill,” the complaint states. Willard says that charge is bogus, as she “does not sell her hounds, preferring instead to give them away to people she knows will provide warm homes and good care or to keep and raise them herself.”
She says the PSPCA claimed its raid was precipitated by “unattributed complaints about barking,” and that it forced her to make a “heart-rending” decision: “After defendant Loller informed Miss Willard that she would be seizing 10 of her dogs because she was violating the law, she directed Miss Willard to choose the dogs that would be seized.”
Tearful pleading didn’t sway Loller: “As night fell, Miss Willard was forced to undertake the traumatic task of choosing which of her dogs – most of which had been whelped in her home and spent every day of their lives with her – to hand over to the PSPCA.
“As Miss Willard tearfully decided which of her dogs to part with, defendant Bengal threatened her that defendants could give her enough citations to take her house,” the complaint states.
Willard says the officers’ heartless behavior continued. She says Bengal scoured her house with a flashlight until he found Hansel, Willard’s 12-year-old “house hound.”
“Defendant Bengal then demanded that Miss Willard surrender yet another of her dogs. Miss Willard was then forced to say a hysterical goodbye to the other dog who lived in the house with her, taking off the dog’s identification collar and Invisible Fence collar as defendants Loller and Bengal pulled her away.
The complaint continues: “Incredibly, although defendant Loller had previously stated to Miss Willard that Nellie, one of the hounds, would be seized because of the length of her toenails, while Miss Willard stood beside the impound truck while Nellie was being loaded and promised the dog she would do whatever she could to get her back, defendant Loller relented and permitted Miss Willard to choose any other dog to ‘swap’ for Nellie.”

Willard adds: “While in Miss Willard’s kitchen, defendant Bengal began to look through Miss Willard’s mail. When Miss Willard asked defendant Bengal to stop reading her mail, he retorted, ‘We got a warrant. We can look through anything we want.’”
The arbitrary abuses did not stop with the seizures, Willard says. She claims that for months, PSPCA acted as if all the seized dogs were still alive, though it knew that one had been euthanized after a botched surgical procedure.

And “Incredibly, defendant PSPCA records list 11 hounds being spayed or neutered in its facility, despite the fact that two of those seized hounds had previously been spayed,” Willard says.
“Not content to destroy Miss Willard’s pack of hounds and steal her animals, the PSPCA began a campaign of harassment by irrelevant ordinance,” slapping Willard with multiple code-violation notices for alleged “animal sounds,” which were later dismissed, she says.
Those citations were followed by a barrage of 22 citations concerning animal welfare, none of which resulted in conviction, Willard says.
Willard says her “pack of hounds was irreplaceable and her loss was tremendous.”
She adds: “The loss of genetic material is significant because those particular hounds had participated in recognized hunts, been bred with hounds of other packs and traded for generic diversity.”
The PSPCA did not return a phone calling seeking comment.
Attorney Bell told Courthouse News that nearly 2 years after her client’s ordeal, “We are not sure where these dogs are,” a painful uncertainty “that Ms. Willard faces every day.”
Willard seeks compensatory and punitive damages for constitutional violations.

Share
Posted in Animal Ownership, On the National Front, Pet Laws | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Crazy breeder permits in LA County

may be cross-posted from Sharyn Hutchens:

I received permission to forward this with the writer’s name removed. (I
also removed other identifying information) You know all those scenarios
we predict when stupid laws like this are passed? How are they going to
define “show dog”? How will you prove the dog is showing? How about a
dog too young to show? What about if the person with an intact dog is
showing but does not EVER plan to breed? Read on…it’s all happening.

PS “schutzhund and all that garbage”??????????

============Original message text===============
Just had an interesting phone discussion? confrontation? with an animal
control nazi in City of LA. I live in —— county (– miles outside of LA
County), but placed a not quite 6 month old imported puppy with a family
in LA last week. Deal is they have to keep him intact, I own all
breeding rights, and I knew I would have to show him to get the
exemption from their “breeding permit”, even though I have not decided
if he is show quality yet.

So, they get his rabies, go to the shelter to get his license. They took
a copy of our contract. Woman at the counter says, have to pay the
intact licensing fee, but also have to get a breeders permit for $235
per year. They say, we aren’t breeders. Well, no exceptions, if he is
intact, have to have permit.

Calls me, I talk to the woman, get handed off to an officer. She tries
to bluff every way she can.

1) Dog is already illegal, should have been licensed at 4 months.
No – he’s been living in —— County. Finally has to admit the dog has
to be in LA for 30 days continuously to need a license. Was like pulling
nails to get her to admit that. She was sure she could tack a late
penalty of some kind on them.

2) No exceptions, any intact dog means a breeders permit is needed. Hmm
- No, don’t think that’s right. Finally admitted that if the dog was
being shown, no breeder’s permit was needed. Well, he’s too young to
show. Doesn’t matter, have to have proof of showing or get the permit.
(Just curious – if he had been 4 months old, what then?) So, I ask what
is proof? Copy of an entry? No, “breeder’s are always lying about that”,
with “schutzhund and all that garbage”. Have to have a “receipt” from
the show, a “real show”, saying he was there. Tell her there is no such
thing, that the only proof a dog was there is a catalogue page showing
he wasn’t absent. She had obviously never been to a show in her life.
OK, they would take that. I may pursue this, see if an entry should be
proof. She could have been lying about that.

3) Dog has to be showing regularly.
OK, define regular. He’s young (and not pretty right now), so I won’t be
showing him regular. How often – once a month, every 6 months, every
year – what is regular? Give me a definition. Well, turns out no such
requirement. Provide proof of showing when licensing, all that is
needed. Another thing she hated to admit.

She tried to turn herself inside out lying about what the law said. I
had followed the regs when passed, remembered enough of the details to
get to the truth (mostly). But she didn’t just withhold information, she
actively lied about it. Makes me so pissed off. I think my coowners
could have walked in with a child with a black eye in rags, and been
considered better people than anyone wanting to keep a dog intact. I
know this in the abstract, but hadn’t had my nose rubbed in it in a
while. She was so incredibly rude, kept talking over me, threats, etc.
Finally told her I had been in meetings with the head of LA City Animal
Control and several captains (job related), was also in the animal
regulation business, and she at least let me talk.

Upshot, next show is 37 days after they got the dog, so he will probably
have to come back here since it won’t be in the 30 day period, and they
are now on the radar of animal control. Coowner suggested she should
just pay the $235 this year, I told her no way did she want to be in
their records as a breeder! An invitation to be harassed for years.

Share
Posted in Animal Ownership, Pet Laws | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

New Trends in Breeder Legislation

NEW TRENDS IN ANTI-DOG LEGISLATION

By Amy Peterson

Having faced strong opposition across the nation from the animal-loving public to whom animal ownership is dear, the anti-animal forces – or the Animal Rights agenda – has adapted to our opposition and is changing tactics.

New breeder limit laws being introduced include the concept of co-ownership, regardless of where the dog may actually reside.  Here is an example of how this could affect any breeder having co-ownership of a couple of dogs:  Breeder A lives in a jurisdiction in which “high volume laws” limit her to a total of 20 puppies annually.  She co-owns a bitch with Breeder B and Breeder C.  Breeder A has a litter of 7 puppies.  Breeder B has a litter of 8 puppies the same year, and Breeder C produces a litter of 7 puppies as well.  Now Breeder A, who co-owns the two bitches, will suddenly become a “high volume breeder” simply because of her ownership interest in the bitches owned by Breeder B and Breeder C, subjecting her to the “high volume breeder” regulations of her state, which could include unreasonably expensive and intrusive licensing (such as a criminal background check, bank references, professional references), bringing her “breeding facilities” in line with state regulations (regardless of the fact that she whelps her litter in the house), and subjecting her home to state inspections.

A newer tactic is the “hoarder” bill.  These bills seek to criminalize the act of “hoarding.”  Seemingly a harmless bill, right?  After all, no one thinks well of an “animal hoarder.”  However, those bills that have been introduced have very low thresholds – 7 animals in one state, 5 animals in another – as the threshold at which you are a criminal “hoarder”, unless, of course you buy a state license.  There is no distinction across species, so this would include cats, ferrets, guinea pigs, hamsters, rabbits…Penalties range from simple misdemeanors to felonies.  Included are vague phrases such as “inadequate care”  and “is unable to recognize their actions.”  What is inadequate care?  Is it an older dog that is losing teeth because of age?  Would your friendly ACO find that a sebaceous cyst on a dog proves “inadequate care?”  What if you are feeding a BARF diet and the ACO doesn’t feel it is adequate nutrition?  And what if you simply disagree with the ACO about the living conditions of your dogs?  Will they find that you are “unable to recognize” your actions?  What about a family with 2 dogs, a cat, and a son who has a ferret and a daughter with a guinea pig?  Are these people hoarders?

Regardless of how good a piece of proposed legislation may appear based on its title or summary, it is in the best interests of all dog owners, breeders, and lovers to delve into the bill and truly understand what it is they are legislation.

AKC maintains a legislative tracking page at http://www.akc.org/news/sections/legislative_alerts.cfm.  Please take the time to visit and see what legislation may be affecting your state, as well as AKC’s position on the legislation.  And, more importantly, please contact your legislators expressing your concern – your voice can make a difference.

Share
Posted in Animal Activists, Animal Ownership, Pet Laws, What is a puppy mill? | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Yikes! Performance dog folks in Cecil County, MD

This is frightening in its ramifications for dog owners

Cecil County, MD May Consider “Exhibitor Licensing” May 10  

From AKC Government Relations:

May 6, 2011

The Cecil County (MD) Board of County Commissioners will likely discuss numerous changes to its kennel and licensing laws during its 2012 budget public hearing on May 10, 2011.  While it is not certain that a final vote will be taken on these changes on Tuesday, it is important that the commission hear that residents are concerned with the proposal.

Background:

Current law requires a kennel license for anyone “engaged in the business of breeding, buying, selling, boarding, grooming or training” five or more “customary household pets” over four months of age.

A proposal released in February would significantly broaden these requirements by requiring those that meet this definition to obtain an annual commercial kennel license, an individual license for every dog they own, and a business

License.  Commercial kennels must schedule annual inspections with the Animal Care & Control Authority, the Department of Environmental Health and the Department of Permits and Inspections.

These kennels may be given a special exemption to exist in certain residential zones, provided they comply with numerous requirements, including having a minimum of 5 acres if the dogs are kept outside, or 2 acres if the dogs are kept in a soundproof building.  

Among other provisions, the proposal would also require a higher individual dog license fee for owners of intact dogs.

Licensing/Inspections for Dog Sport Participants?

Since February, a task force has been assigned to examine this proposal and present amendments to the commission.  The AKC has learned that these amendments may include changing the definition of “commercial kennel” to those who breed two or more litters and buy or sell any dogs for compensation.

Furthermore, these amendments may propose a “hobby kennel” license for anyone who keeps dogs for hunting, tracking, participating in dog shows, performance events, or field or obedience trials.  Even if dogs are not being bred and sold, those meeting this definition would be required to obtain an annual hobby kennel license and individual licenses for every dog they own, obtain site approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, develop a program of veterinary care and exercise for dogs and display them in a prominent location, and submit to annual inspections prior to renewing the license.

Both commercial and hobby kennels may also be subject to unannounced inspections at any time.

Share
Posted in Animal Activists, Animal Ownership, On the National Front, Pet Laws, Pet Owner Bill of Rights | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment