Tuesday, October 29, 2013

A Question of Identity

This article was originally published in the October 25, 2013 issue of DOG NEWS. It is reprinted here by permission of the author.

A Question of Identity
Carlotta Cooper

Since September, when APHIS announced the final version of their regulation affecting dog breeders, there has been much discussion about what to do, who it affects, and what it will mean for breeders in the future. I don't think it's stretching things too much to say that this rule is a turning point for dog breeders. It calls upon us to ask ourselves who we are going to be. Are we going to remain traditional hobby breeders, generally breeding according to the ethical guidelines of breed parent clubs? Or, are we going to become regulated commercial breeders operating under the rules of the Animal Welfare Act? In short, it's a question of identity.

Bear with me while I relate a little history, please.

While most people are aware that the Irish came to the United States in great numbers, they usually think that this happened in the 1840s, as a result of the potato famine. In reality, the Irish, and Scotch-Irish from Northern Ireland, had been coming to America since the 17th century in large numbers. This was largely because of something called the Penal Laws in Ireland. These laws were passed by Britain, which ruled Ireland (it's a long story), with the explicit intention of stamping out resistance to British rule.

Under the Penal Laws Catholics, Presbyterians, and other dissenters from British rule were singled out and punished with the following acts (among others):

  • Exclusion of Catholics from most public offices (since 1607), Presbyterians were also barred from public office from 1707.
  • Ban on intermarriage with Protestants; repealed 1778
  • Catholics barred from holding firearms or serving in the armed forces (rescinded by Militia Act of 1793)
  • Bar from membership in either the Parliament of Ireland or the Parliament of England
  • Disenfranchising Act 1728, exclusion from voting until 1793;
  • Exclusion from the legal professions and the judiciary;
  • Education Act 1695 – ban on foreign education; repealed 1782.
  • Bar to Catholics and Protestant Dissenters entering Trinity College Dublin; repealed 1793.
  • Ban on Catholics inheriting Protestant land
  • Prohibition on Catholics owning a horse valued at over £5 (in order to keep horses suitable for military activity out of the majority's hands)
  • 'No person of the popish religion shall publicly or in private houses teach school, or instruct youth in learning within this realm' upon pain of twenty pounds fine and three months in prison for every such offence. Repealed in 1782. [5]
(Source: Wikipedia, “Penal Laws, Ireland”)

According to British statesman Edmund Burke, writing at the end of the 18th century, "The Penal Laws were a machine of wise and elaborate contrivance, as well fitted for the oppression, impoverishment and degradation of a people, and the debasement in them of human nature itself, as ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man.”

Some of these laws were not repealed until Ireland separated from Britain following World War I. They undoubtedly played a role in stirring Irish anger and rebellion throughout the 18th and 19th centuries.

You can see from reading these laws that in many cases the purpose was to strip the Irish population of their identity. Beyond practical measures like depriving people of a good horse, the government was making sure that the Irish Catholic point of view was not represented in Parliament; that Irish Catholics were not well-educated; and they were making it as hard as possible to carry on with their religion and other ways of life. The only way for advancement was to become a Protestant and embrace the British rule of Ireland.

Looking back, we know that these efforts were unsuccessful. However, for approximately three centuries they brought pain and suffering to millions of Irish and caused many Irish to leave the country for America, Canada, and other places where they could be free.

Does the APHIS rule rise to the level of the Penal Laws? Well, perhaps not. But it certainly shares elements with them. I would also say that, taken as a whole, the laws that have been instigated by the animal rights movement to deprive breeders and pet owners of their rights are made with the same purpose as the Penal Laws. Animal rights laws are being made with the intention of making it as hard as possible to continue breeding dogs or other animals; and the new APHIS regulation falls into that category. These laws are also made with the intention of depriving us of our identity. The APHIS rule would change us from small home breeders to commercial breeders subject to the Animal Welfare Act laws. That means that you couldn't have a litter of puppies in your bedroom or kitchen or interact with your dogs in the same way you do now. It would break the close bond you have with your dogs.

While there are some possible exemptions under the APHIS rule, they are mostly found in the 88 pages of commentary that accompanies the actual rule which renders them somewhat “squishy.” They can be read as agency intent but, if push comes to shove when you are dealing with an APHIS inspector, the inspector can follow the letter of the rule. If you are claiming an exemption because you breed for “breeding purposes,” yet you sell some of your puppies as pets, you might find yourself being investigated by APHIS on a “case by case” basis.

Even if APHIS is lenient with these exemptions in the beginning, it seems likely that this honeymoon period won't last. How long before HSUS threatens to sue APHIS to force them to adhere to the actual rule and disregard the rosy commentary and the gauzy exemptions? We know that HSUS has its own team of lawyers and they are more than willing to sue government agencies at the drop of a hat. They will sue to make APHIS enforce the rule more strictly, if necessary. That would mean an end to most of the feel-good exemptions that APHIS has been peddling in order to soothe breeders and prevent an injunction prior to the rule going into effect on November 18. Everything that seems ambiguous now can and will be read as HSUS wishes it to be read after November 18, even if they have to take APHIS/USDA to court to make that happen. There is no reason to think that won't happen. That is the HSUS track record. When has HSUS ever been satisfied with a rule, regulation, or law? Even in the initial conference call announcing the new rule, HSUS and ASPCA officials stated their disappointment with some aspects of the new rule while praising APHIS for regulating breeders.

This new rule does strike at the identity of dog breeders. Will you become USDA licensed and kennel your dogs? Will you convert part of your home to an area that can house dogs under AWA rules? Will you have unannounced inspections of your home or property? Will you allow the USDA to turn you into a commercial breeder? What will happen to hobby dog breeders? Unlike the Irish, we can't take up our belongings (or our dogs) and head for another country.

Sure, if you have four or fewer bitches and/or you never ship a puppy, you probably have nothing to worry about. You can keep your head down and ignore everything going on around you. But if you care about your breed at all, you should care about what happens. How many people in your breed will be affected by the new rule? Every breeder who is affected means someone – and their dogs – could be stopped from breeding. That means a loss of your breeding options. It means a stud dog you can't use or a puppy you can't buy in the future. Most of our breeds already have small gene pools. A rule like this, which will make it harder for many people to breed, will harm our breeds. It affects every single one of us who loves intentionally-bred dogs.

I believe that we should choose to remain hobby breeders. Those who claim that this rule will not harm hobby breeders are mistaken or living in denial. There are options. You can write to your congressman. You can write to the House Agriculture Committee. You can contact AKC Government Relations. You will likely get back form letters in reply. But over 70,000 people signed the AKC's petition against the APHIS rule last year. Breeders oppose this rule. If a case can be made, we need AKC to step up and speak for us now to stop this rule. Otherwise, hobby breeders are going to cease to exist as we know them now.

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

We Found The Money You Donated To HSUS

Want to see something interesting? Take a look at the report that was recently filed with the Tennessee Ethics Commission by lobbyists working on behalf of the Humane Society of the United States.









Lobbying Expenditure Report (ss-8011)

Contact Information

The Humane Society of the U.S.
2100 L Street, NW 
Washington
UNITED STATES
DC
20037
850-386-3435
850-386-4534
nkrzycki@humanesociety.org

Company Leadership Information

Wayne Pacelle
Gwen Crane
Laura Bevan
Regional Director

Nature of Company Business

agriculture
crime & criminal procedure
environment/public lands
law enforcement
parks & wildlife

nonprofit organization

Total Aggregate Lobbyist Compensation

$25,000 - $50,000

Lobbying-Related Expenses

$50,000 - $100,000

Aggregate Total of All In-State Events

None

Lobbyist Information

Name Address City State Zip Country In-House Date Added
Leighann McCollum 1011 Buckingham Circle Franklin TN 37064 USA In-House 08/07/2013
David McMahan 211 7th Ave North Nashville TN 37219 USA In-House 08/07/2013
Anna Richardson 211 7th Ave North Nashville TN 37219 USA In-House 08/07/2013
Caroline Straight 211 7th Ave North Nashville TN 37219 USA In-House 08/07/2013
Beth Winstead 211 7th Ave North Nashville TN 37219 USA In-House 08/07/2013
Back




That's how much money -- and how many lobbyists -- HSUS had working in the state during the six month period from January to June when our legislature was in session. Of course, HSUS will tell you that they only care about animals and they're not a political organization. They just spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in a state with a population of 6.5 million people -- quite small in terms of population -- because they like to spend money, right? Maybe the truth is that they like to control people and what they do with their animals. And they like to try to buy public opinion and sway lawmakers to spread an anti-agriculture agenda.


These figures are probably on the low side anyway. HSUS publicly boasted in the news when they were fighting Andy Holt's bill to require someone secretly videotaping animal abuse to share the video with law enforcement that they were spending over $100,000 on their media campaign in the state. They also took in a $25,000 contribution from Ellen Degeneres when Wayne Pacelle appeared on her show to talk about the the bill. The figures also don't include the hiring of "outreach director" Eric Swafford to lobby the Walking Horse community in the state during this same time. We wonder if these reported figures would bear much scrutiny from the Ethics Commission?

By the way, HSUS is listed as an "Employer of Lobbyists" in 40 other states besides Tennessee. That's a lot of lobbying for a group that claims it doesn't lobby.

We mustn't forget the ASPCA either. They use the same lobbyists in the state and they kicked in $25,000-35,000 for lobbying and lobbying expenses during this period.



Tennessee Ethics Commission

Lobbying Expenditure Report (ss-8011)

Contact Information

ASPCA
424 East 92nd Street 
New York
UNITED STATES
NY
10128
646-291-4559
212-860-3560
beverly.jones@aspca.org

Company Leadership Information

Matt Bershadker
Mark Abrahams
Nancy Perry
SVP, Government Relations

Nature of Company Business

charitable & nonprofit organizations

animal welfare

Total Aggregate Lobbyist Compensation

$10,000 - $25,000

Lobbying-Related Expenses

Less than $10,000

Aggregate Total of All In-State Events

None

Lobbyist Information


ASPCA does have a lobbyist who is active in Tennessee named Sherry Rout but she is not reported here which is odd since she apparently lives in Memphis.

Of course, ASPCA doesn't lobby either. It's all about the animals, right? So, just where do your donations go when you see those sad commercials on TV? Why, they go right here, to Tennessee when these charlatan organizations want to poke around in agricultural affairs. Did you really think they went to help puppies and kittens?

Friday, August 2, 2013

Knoxville WARNING: Knoxville to tighten limit on cats and dogs

This is just like the situation in Chattanooga. If you don't want these changes, you need to speak up and contact the Knoxville City Council NOW, before August 6, or they are going to set it at four animals. That is a *combination of four*. So, if you have two dogs and two cats, you are at the limit. As it reads here, you could have two dogs and two hedgehogs and you would be at the limit.

The Knoxville City Council and their contact information are listed following the article. Contact these members and tell them that you do not want these changes.


Knoxville to clarify limit on cats and dogs
9:22 AM, Aug 2, 2013 | 8 comments

Heidi Wigdahl


(WBIR-Knoxville) How many pets is too many? Knoxville already limits the number of cats and dogs allowed in a home and that rule may tighten ever further.

The city ordinance, at the moment, states that each person can have a combination of four cats and/or dogs.

The City of Knoxville Animal Control Board hopes to make the law more clear, and more strict, by limiting the number to four per household.

For some, that could mean fewer pets would be allowed in their home.

Megan Knoll visits Knoxville's downtown dog park every day with one of her four pets.

"We have a dog who's just over a year, and then two cats and a hedgehog, crazy," she said.

Knoll wants another dog, which would put her at the limit if city council approves the amendment.

"The original intent of the ordinance for the last 20 years had really been to limit a reasonable about of animals to any particular household," explained Jeff Ashin, CEO of Young Williams Animal Center and member of the City of Knoxville Animal Control Board.

Ashin said there was confusion with the ordinance because it focused on owners, instead of households. The ordinance also does not apply to animals under six months old.

Animal owners outside of the city in Knox County have different rules that depend on the amount of land they own.

If a home sits on less than an acre, they can have up to five cats and/or dogs; 1.5-2 acres, 11-20 cats and/or dogs; 5+ acres, 21 or more cats and/or dogs.

All animals must be vaccinated.

City Council will vote on the change on Aug. 6.

Ashin said the change does not apply to those who are fostering animals or have them on a temporary basis.





Council Members
Vice Mayor Nick Pavlis - First District
3815 Admiralty Lane
Knoxville, TN  37920
Home: 865-579-2055
npavlis@comcast.net

George C. Wallace - At Large Seat A
7208 Rotherwood Drive
Knoxville, TN 37919
865-414-7102
gwallace@cityofknoxville.org

Marshall Stair - At Large Seat B
707 Market Street, No. 5
Knoxville, TN 37902
865-771-9215
marshallstair@cityofknoxville.org

Finbarr Saunders - At Large Seat C
102 Herron Drive
Knoxville, TN 37919
865-604-2536
fsaunders@cityofknoxville.org
Duane Grieve - Second District
3640 Iskagna Drive
Knoxville, TN  37919
Home: 865-522-4393
dgrieve@cityofknoxville.org

Brenda Palmer - Third District
7816 Ellisville Lane
Knoxville, TN  37909
Home: 865-951-1546
bpalmer@cityofknoxville.org

Nick Della Volpe - Fourth District
5216 Crestwood Drive
Knoxville, TN  37914
Home: 865-525-2880
ndellavolpe@cityofknoxville.org

Mark Campen - Fifth District
P.O. Box 27093
Knoxville, TN 37917
865-414-5593
mcampen@cityofknoxville.org

Daniel T. Brown - Sixth District
2318 Dillon Street
Knoxville, TN  37915
Home: 865-637-7553
dbrown@cityofknoxville.org


Thursday, July 25, 2013

The New Business Model For Selling Dogs

The article below appeared in the July 12, 2013 issue of DOG NEWS. It is reprinted here by permission.

One reader wrote to me to make sure it was clear that the Idaho shelter referred to was not actually in Boise. It is simply in the Boise area. The last I checked, a couple of days ago, the re-worded ad mentioned here is still on Craigslist but it may have been removed by now.

Also, San Diego voted to put in place their ban on pet stores, though there seems to be some hope that this issue can be revisited in the future. Some people seem to be excited that there are some exemptions but I do not share their enthusiasm.

Add Reno, Nevada to the list of cities that is trying to ban pet stores while offering homeless dogs and cats for sale in pet stores instead.


The New Business Model For Selling Dogs

Carlotta Cooper



As purebred dog breeders most of us are familiar with the codes of ethics for our parent breed clubs or our kennel clubs. Those codes typically spell out how we should care for our dogs and state something to the effect that we are supposed to put the welfare of the dogs and the breed above personal gain. I believe most purebred dog breeders take these goals seriously. That doesn't mean that it's unethical to recoup your costs on a litter or that people who breed dogs full-time and do it well are doing anything wrong. There is no particular virtue in losing money on a hobby if you can do things better.



But hobby breeding and even breeding purebred dogs for profit are the old business models when it comes to pets. Thanks to some of our more creative animal shelters and local governments, there is now a new business model for selling dogs as pets.



Consider, for example, the shelter in Boise, Idaho, that wants to pay $25 per puppy to anyone who will sell them. As stated in their ad on Craigslist, the shelter intends to spay and neuter the puppies and then sell them at the shelter for “adoption.” The shelter thinks this will cut down on pet overpopulation. It's hard to see how. The shelter would be acting as a broker for puppies and encouraging irresponsible breeding to meet their demand for “rescue” dogs. After an outcry from breeders, the ad was removed though it has reappeared, more carefully worded.



Then there's the situation with the pet shop in the Freehold Raceway Mall in New Jersey. The lease of the pet shop was not extended – because they sold dogs. That didn't stop the Monmouth County SPCA from taking over the shop. They now use the space to – sell dogs. The dogs come from other shelters as well as from Puerto Rico. It also functions as a pet store and they sell leashes, beds, toys, pet clothing, and so on. They have a full line of pet products from popular brands. Just don't expect to find any registered dogs there.



Many people have seen this trend coming for several years as animal control and legislation have made it harder to breed purebred dogs while at the same time encouraging people to get their dogs from shelters. Shelters have literally become pet stores today where people are supposed to go to buy their dogs and accessories. A visit to PetCo or PetSmart can often give you the same insight as these companies are supporters of HSUS. They often welcome shelter dog adoption events in their stores and are not friendly to dog breeders.



Approximately 34 municipalities in the U.S. have banned pet stores in their precincts. While some dog breeders might erroneously think this is a good thing, it's only a small step from banning pet stores to banning purebred dogs and hobby breeding. Local governments don't distinguish between a commercial dog breeder and a hobby breeder. They can easily ban all breeding once they set their sights on the selling of pets.



The San Diego City Council is in the process of trying to ban pet stores in their city, leaving shelters free to operate as the only source for dogs in the city. Pet stores in California are regulated by state law and hobby breeders in the state are covered by the puppy lemon law, but shelters are not regulated. Anyone who completes the IRS paperwork can become a non-profit rescue group and there is no oversight, according to Kay A. Henderson, PhD, Legislative Liaison for the Del Sur Kennel Club. More than 10,000 puppies from Mexico come into California every year. These puppies have no paperwork and they may have no vaccinations. They can be poorly bred, malnourished, and unsocialized. They are a health risk. They're brought in to be sold to meet the demand for cute puppies, partly because current legislation has made it so difficult for American breeders to breed, especially in California. These imported puppies often end up in local shelters where purebred hobby breeders are blamed for them, with talk of “pet overpopulation.” Imagine that.



If the ban on pet sales in retail stores succeeds in San Diego, this will be the kind of dog that is available to people in SoCal, with few other options unless they look elsewhere for a pet. Every new law that is made reduces options for breeding and keeping dogs.



Finally, there's the case of LA Animal Services General Manager Brenda Barnette who says shelters need puppies to increase their revenue. Barnette wants to change the policy of LA shelters which currently requires late-term spaying for pregnant bitches. Instead, Barnette, a former breeder, has recommended that pregnant bitches be taken in by fosters and allowed to whelp their puppies. She wants the puppies to be fostered and raised until they are 8 weeks old when they can be spayed/neutered and then adopted out through the shelter or one of its pet shops. Oh, yeah. I forgot to mention that Barnette also collaborated on and supported an ordinance that prohibits any pet stores from selling puppies, kittens, dogs or cats from puppy mills or local breeders and mandates that ALL dogs and cats sold in any pet store MUST be animals taken from a Los Angeles City shelter.



Ms. Barnette makes clear in her report to the Department of Animal Services that keeping the puppies to sell would be a good way to raise revenue: “Fostering puppies until they are eight weeks old, and returning them to Animal Services to be adopted out, represents additional revenue opportunities through adoptions to the public or through pet shops.”



This amounts to a monopoly for the city on the sale of dogs. Commercially-bred and home-raised puppies are not allowed to be sold in pet stores. Yet the city is seeking its own ongoing source of puppies to keep these pet stores supplies with “merchandise.”



Barnette, the former CEO of the Seattle Humane Society, is, or was, an AKC Legislative Liaison. As you might imagine, her former existence as a dog breeder and Legislative Liaison caused some concern when she was being considered for the position of LA Animal Services General Manager. In response to those concerns, Barnette told the Los Angeles Times:



I'm a member of the Seattle Kennel Club,” she said, explaining the extent of her job as legislative liaison for the club. "Every now and then I get a press release from the AKC saying 'This is the legislation,' and I hit forward and send it to all the other members.... I have shown dogs, and you may see me at a show."



Either Barnette wasn't doing a very good job as Legislative Liaison or this raises some questions about what club LLs are doing and how effective they are.



So, what's wrong with allowing bitches to come to term and whelp their litters? I admit, I don't personally like the idea of late-term spays, even though many vets say they are perfectly safe for the bitch. But the point is, if an animal shelter is trying to reduce the number of dogs produced, it makes more sense to spay the bitch and place her in a good home instead of involving foster families, raising a litter, and then spaying/neutering the puppies – or waiting until they are older when they might or might not be altered. Especially when all of this effort is being done to make money for the shelter. Aren't shelters supposed to do what's best for the animals instead of using them to make money?



One thing is abundantly clear from all of these cases: shelters are actively seeking dogs, especially puppies, to meet the public demand. This should tell us something about “overpopulation.” What overpopulation? There are clearly plenty of people who want puppies and dogs, especially if you have what they are looking for. There are still too many unwanted dogs in some areas – too many big, black dogs; too many “pit bulls” or bully breeds people are afraid to adopt; and too many Chihuahuas now in California. But there are shelters all over the country actively seeking dogs to meet demand. And they are trying to suppress purebred dog breeders because they see us as their competition, whether the dogs are in a pet store or we sell online or simply through word of mouth.



There is a new business model and shelters are acquiring and selling dogs. These “non-profits” are turning into for-profit entities and they certainly are not always doing what's best for the animals. They aren't responsible to buyers in the same way that a pet store business is or a hobby breeder is. They offer no guarantees. They don't have to know anything about the puppy or dog's history or health clearances. Basically, shelters can act free of any regulation or oversight and wash their hands of a dog as soon as he's sold. They don't face any of the restrictions placed on breeders. And some of these shelters are running breeders out of town. Watch out for it.



Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Update: Proposed Chattanooga Animal Ordinance

The ordinance has been pulled from tonight's agenda and will be "edited, changed and hopefully improved" per information from one of the city council members. Thank you to everyone who contacted the city council! This was a draconian ordinance, drawn up by the animal control authority in the city, and I don't think the city council was really aware of how harmful it would be to breeders and owners.

We'll be keeping in touch with the city council as they go forward with their revisions. Many thanks to the city council members who have been receptive to hearing from us the last few days.

Saturday, July 20, 2013

AKC ALERT: Chattanooga, Tennessee

Please contact the city council members listed below and tell them that this ordinance is too vague and obviously anti-pet in tone. It should not be adopted as it is currently written.

You can read the proposed new ordinance here. The section on urban chickens has already been shot down by the city council.

In case you're wondering, the old ordinance is now essentially invalid because of a lawsuit with a pet store that was raided by McKamey Animal Control. The old ordinance had no provision for an appeals process. The city had to re-write it before someone else sued them for more millions of dollars.


AKC Chattanooga, TN The ordinance would outlaw all breeding of pets in your house in the city. Read more

The Chattanooga City Council may hold a second vote on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 on a proposed animal ordinance that would redefine “kennel” under city code, require $300 annual permits and unlimited inspections of kennels, and establish problematic provisions for any person who sells or gives away a cat or dog. The vague definitions contained in this ordinance have the potential to outlaw all breeding of companion animals on residential properties in the city. The ordinance has already passed first reading.

Provisions of concern include, but are not limited to:

● “Kennel” would be defined as any building, structure or property wherein any person engages in the business of boarding, breeding, grooming, training for a fee, or hunting with a companion animal, maintaining an animal daycare, or providing any similar service for or with a companion animal. (The definition excludes those who rescue a limited number of animals per year.) Companion animals include dogs, cats, small domesticated mammals, pet rabbits, miniature and potbellied pigs, aquatic animals, amphibians, reptiles and birds. It is unclear if a person who breeds and sells a single companion animal or who accepts a fee for a stud service would be consider to be engaged in the business of breeding.

● A “dealer” would be defined as any person who engages in the business of selling, buying, brokering the sale of, or bartering animals in any manner, including through the Internet. It is unclear if a person who sell a single animal would be considered to be engaged in the business of selling animals or how this would impact a person who purchased, and later sold, an animal.

● Both “kennels” and “dealers” would be required to apply for and obtain a permit at a fee of $300 per year, comply with relevant regulations, and agree to submit to random inspections of all premises where animal are kept. Permits would be granted at discretion of the Animal Control Board.

● Under existing city code, a kennel may only be approved in certain commercially zoned areas, therefore, no residential property could be issued a kennel permit. Consequently, only commercial kennels would be able to comply with the provisions of the ordinance.

● Any dog sold, exchanged, or given away would be required to have documentation of having received vaccinations and anthelmintics against a list of specified diseases and internal parasites. No exceptions are provided for dog owners who, on the advice of a veterinarian, have been advised to decline such treatments. With the exception of state-mandate rabies vaccinations, the American Kennel Club believes that animal health care decisions should be made by an animal owner in consultation with a veterinarian and not dictated by city code.

● All dogs and cats sold in the city would be required to be microchipped and registered with The Animal Center prior to sale, and the seller would be required to provide the new owner’s personal information to the city within 48 hours of the sale.

What You Can Do:

Immediately contact city council members to express your opposition to this ordinance.
Contact your city council member and ask to be allowed to state your opposition to the ordinance at the council meeting prior to any vote.

Chattanooga City Council Meeting

Tuesday, July 23, 2013, 6:00 p.m., 1000 Lindsay Street, Chattanooga, TN 37402 (map)

Contact Information for City Council Members

Chip Henderson, Phone: (423) 425-7858, Fax: (423) 757-4857, E-mail: henderson_chip@chattanooga.gov - note: there is an underscore between henderson and chip.

Jerry Mitchell, Phone: (423) 757-5334, Fax: (423) 757-4857, E-Mail: mitchell_jerry@chattanooga.gov - note: there is an underscore between mitchell and jerry.

Ken Mitchell, Phone: (423) 757-5344, Fax: (423) 757-4857, E-Mail: smith_ken@chattanooga.gov - note: there is an underscore between smith and ken.

Larry Grohn, Phone: (423) 757-5346, Fax: (423) 757-4857, Email: grohn_larry@chattanooga.gov - note: there is an underscore between grohn and larry.

Russell Gilbert, Phone: (423) 757-5332, Fax : (423) 757-4857, Email: gilbert_r@chattanooga.gov - note: there is an underscore between gilbert and r.

Carol B. Berz, Phone: (423) 425-7852, Fax: (423) 757-4857, E-Mail: berz_c@chattanooga.gov - note: there is an underscore between berz and c.

Chris Anderson, Phone: (423) 425-7856, Fax:(423) 757-4857, E-Mail: anderson_c@chattanooga.gov, - note: there is an underscore between anderson and c.

Moses Freeman, Phone: (423) 757-5364, Fax: (423) 757-4857, E-Mail: freeman_m@chattanooga.gov - note: there is an underscore between freeman and m.

Yusef Hakeem, Phone: (423) 757-5367, Fax:(423) 757-4857, E-Mail: hakeem_y@chattanooga.gov - note: there is an underscore between hakeem and y.

For talking points: The Value of Responsible Dog Breeders

For questions or more information, please contact AKC Government Relations at (919) 816-3720 or doglaw@akc.org

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

What's With All The Dog Food Recalls?

This article isn't specifically about Tennessee but it is related to pet law, or at least pet food laws. There's a lot of confusion about what kind of laws govern pet food manufacturing and whether commercial pet foods are safe. This confusion isn't helped when we have frequent recalls. Maybe this article will help a little. It originally appeared in the June 21, 2013 issue of DOG NEWS.


What's With All The Dog Food Recalls?

Carlotta Cooper



If you buy dog food – and most people reading DOG NEWS probably fall into that category – then you've probably noticed that there have been a lot of dog food recalls in the last few months, especially over concerns about Salmonella. In fact, there has been a notable increase in Salmonella investigations in dog food recently. I've heard lots of dog owners speculating that they can't trust any dog foods now. People seem to be becoming rattled by the frequent voluntary recalls issued by various dog food companies. It would probably sound like nonsense if I told you that increased recalls over this issue were a good sign, right?



Actually, there have been some things going on behind the scenes in the world of the Food and Drug Administration and dog food companies that should make you feel better, even if it's temporarily resulting in more recalls.



For one thing, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Veterinary Medicine announced plans in March to investigate the incidence of Salmonella contamination in pet foods – which has meant increased scrutiny of the pet food industry. They made a similar announcement in November 2011: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/02/pet-food-salmonella-fda_n_1071850.html In March the FDA indicated that they had given an assignment to all of their district offices throughout the country to collect an undisclosed number of samples of domestically manufactured petfood products for analysis. The samples do not cover imported products in either import status or domestic imports. This sampling includes both petfoods as well as treats and nutritional supplements. The instructions were to collect samples from a wide variety of manufacturers and from different locations. Samples are collected from manufacturing sites, from distributors, and from retailers around the country. Canned foods are excluded from the assignment but all other kinds of foods are included – extruded, baked, smoked, frozen, and refrigerated. Inexpensive as well as super premium foods are included. The FDA doesn't care how much the food costs.



Note that the American Pet Products Association (APPA) http://www.americanpetproducts.org/newsletter/issue.asp?id=721#article5735 , a marketing survey group, reported at the time of the FDA's press release that 300 official samples would be collected. This information is not on the FDA site and I can't verify where it came from. According to APPA each district is supposed to collect six official and six investigational samples from non-canned petfoods. The sample foods will be foods for ALL PETS. They will collect five official and five investigational samples from pet treats; and, three official and investigational samples from vitamins, minerals and/or other nutritional supplements. The sampling will continue until September 30, 2013.



Again this information comes from the American Pet Products Association and they attribute it to the FDA. However, it is not found on the FDA site or with other information about the program.



The FDA seems to primarily be concerned about public health – human health. Petfoods are much more likely to be handled by humans than other animal feeds. Children, the elderly, and people who might have a compromised immune system can handle petfoods, leaving them susceptible to pathogenic microorganisms. There have been cases where Salmonella infection in people was traced back to exposure to pet products.



The FDA's concern about Salmonella in petfood isn't new. The agency has taken the view that animal feeds that contain Salmonella are contaminated and subject to enforcement action for decades. It's part of the Code of Federal Regulations. There is also a Compliance Policy Guide (CPG) that states that Salmonella-contaminated dry dog food is considered to be adulterated.



Once the findings for this assignment about Salmonella are collected, the FDA will probably use them to make further policy decisions regarding petfood. However, the FDA has made it clear that in the course of collecting their samples they will take action against any pet products they find to be contaminated. That's what's been happening in the last few months with the voluntary petfood recalls. The FDA agents have been collecting their samples and, if they find evidence of Salmonella, FDA “suggests” to the company that they issue a voluntary recall to take care of the problem. (FDA can do more than suggest if the company is not compliant. Most companies prefer to issue a voluntary recall.)



As mentioned, canned foods are not being examined at this time because these products are presumably produced in accordance with low acid canned food regulations so they are commercially sterile and don't pose any kind of risk to the public. However, the kibble, raw food, and treats you buy your dog that are manufactured in the U.S. are subject to testing by the FDA for Salmonella, at least for the near future. So, there may be some more recalls but at least you will know what the FDA is doing.



There could be another reason for an increase in recalls lately. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (Pub. L.110-085), section 1005 directed the FDA to establish a Reportable Food Registry for Industry. http://www.petfood.aafco.org/RFRReportableFoodRegistry.aspx The Reportable Food Registry (RFR or the Registry) is an electronic portal for Industry to report when there is reasonable probability that an article of food will cause serious adverse health consequences. The Registry helps the FDA better protect public health by tracking patterns and targeting inspections. The RFR applies to all FDA-regulated categories of food and feed, except dietary supplements and infant formula. It is the company's responsibility to determine if the food has a reasonable probability of causing a severe adverse health consequence or death to humans or animals. Once this has been determined to exist, the company must notify the FDA using the RFR system within 24 hours of the determination. So, it's possible that in some cases a petfood company may be notifying the FDA about possible serious health consequences due to something in their food.



There may also be increased vigilance and testing by state feed control officials which are leading to more recalls.



And there's more. All of this testing by the FDA, as well as the Reportable Food Registry, could be to help support a proposed rule on Preventive Controls for Animal Food that will implement part of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). The proposed rule is expected to closely mirror the proposed rule for Preventive Controls for Human Food published in January of this year. http://agfdablog.com/tag/food-safety-modernization-act/ According to the FDA, the “Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), the most sweeping reform of our food safety laws in more than 70 years, was signed into law by President Obama on January 4, 2011. It aims to ensure the U.S. food supply is safe by shifting the focus from responding to contamination to preventing it.” I think it's safe to say that one reason petfoods are taken so seriously in these regulations is because of the 2007 petfood recalls.



So, to sum up, the FDA is currently taking samples of petfoods and actively testing for Salmonella. This is a good thing. It doesn't mean that dog food companies are making worse food than they used to make or using worse ingredients. It means there is more testing. It also means there are going to be more regulations concerning petfoods. I know everyone is tired of recalls and worried about what to feed their dogs but the end result should be safer petfood.



In case you're curious, here's the FDA web site listing of the petfoods that have been recalled so far in 2013: http://www.fda.gov/animalveterinary/safetyhealth/recallswithdrawals/default.htm




Monday, June 10, 2013

Inspector General Agrees to Review IRS’ Handling of Luetkemeyer’s HSUS Requests

Thank you, Rep. Luetkemeyer, for continuing to press on this important issue!

 

Inspector General Agrees to Review IRS’ Handling of Luetkemeyer’s HSUS Requests



Washington, Jun 10 |



The U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) has agreed to review the manner in which the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) handled U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer’s (MO-3) requests for an investigation of the Humane Society of the United States’ (HSUS) tax-exempt status and will specifically look into IRS Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner and her staff. 
The U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) has agreed to review the manner in which the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) handled U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer’s (MO-3) requests for an investigation of the Humane Society of the United States’ (HSUS) tax-exempt status and will specifically look into IRS Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner and her staff.

In both a letter to Luetkemeyer and in discussions with the congressman’s staff, the TIGTA’s office confirmed that a formal review would take place and that the congressman would be notified upon its completion.  If the findings of the review indicate that his previous requests were, in fact, mishandled, Luetkemeyer intends to renew his call for the IRS to launch a new, unbiased, investigation into the HSUS’ alleged inappropriate involvement in political and lobbying activities.

“I am encouraged that the Inspector General for Tax Administration is taking these allegations seriously by looking into the way Lois Lerner and her staff conducted themselves with regard to the investigation of HSUS’ lobbying and political activities,” Luetkemeyer said. “We know that Ms. Lerner and her staff inappropriately targeted conservative organizations, so the American people deserve to know whether these same IRS officials turned a blind eye to the activities of left-leaning groups such as HSUS.”

The TIGTA’s decision to look into allegations came following a May 17 letter from Luetkemeyer requesting an investigation into the manner in which Lerner, who is an active member of the HSUS, handled his inquiries regarding HSUS’ abuse of its tax-exempt status. Lerner was recently placed on administrative leave after her admissions that her office had targeted conservative organizations and following her refusal to answer questions before a congressional oversight committee.

Luetkemeyer first corresponded with the IRS regarding the HSUS’ political and lobbying activity in March 2010 following numerous requests from constituents.  Until receiving the letter from the TIGTA’s office, Luetkemeyer was unsure if anyone in the Obama Administration was taking his requests seriously.  Luetkemeyer also has sent letters requesting an investigation to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, both of whom have yet to respond.

Sunday, May 26, 2013

Sponsors vow to revise, bring back vetoed 'Ag Gag' bill

Sponsors vow to revise, bring back vetoed 'Ag Gag' bill
Sponsors vow to revise it, bring it back


    • By Tom Humphrey
    • Posted May 13, 2013 at 9:47 p.m.



NASHVILLE — Sponsors of livestock surveillance legislation known as the “Ag Gag” bill say they will let stand Gov. Bill Haslam ’s veto and instead seek passage of a revised version next year.

The plans of Rep. Andy Holt, R-Dresden, and Sen. Dolores Gresham, R-Somerville, are in line with Haslam’s professed thinking in vetoing the bill.

“Some vetoes are made solely on policy grounds. Other vetoes may be the result of wanting the General Assembly to reconsider the legislation for a number of reasons. My veto here is more along the lines of the latter,” Haslam said in announcing his decision Monday.

His first concern, Haslam said, is that Attorney General Bob Cooper has deemed the bill “constitutionally suspect.”

“Second, it appears to repeal parts of Tennessee’s Shield Law without saying so. If that is the case, it should say so. Third, there are concerns from some district attorneys that the act actually makes it more difficult to prosecute animal cruelty cases, which would be an unintended consequence,” the governor said.

“For these reasons, I am vetoing HB1191/SB1248, and I respectfully encourage the General Assembly to reconsider this issue,” Haslam said.

Holt and Gresham had argued their bill, which would have required anyone making photographs or video of livestock abuse to turn the unedited material over to law enforcement authorities within 48 hours, would mean stopping abuse more quickly. They had criticized, for example, a Humane Society of the United States video, taken by an undercover operative over a period of months, showing abuse of Tennessee Walking Horses. The video led to successful prosecution on animal cruelty charges.

Holt and Gresham did not return reporter phone calls but issued a joint statement saying there would be no override attempt. Instead, they said a new bill will be filed in 2014 with revisions aimed at meeting objections from Haslam and questions about the bill’s constitutionality raised by Cooper.

“There were thousands of people who weighed in on this issue, and we plan to work with all interested parties in the coming months to draft a bill that will protect animals and ensure those people who abuse livestock are brought to justice,” the joint statement said.

Haslam’s office received thousands of emails, phone calls and letters on the bill — almost all urging a veto — after the Humane Society spent more than $100,000 on advertising urging citizens to contact him. Several celebrities, ranging from TV talk show host Ellen DeGeneres to country music singers Emmylou Harris and Carrie Underwood, also urged a veto.

Asked if he would play a role in next year’s version of the bill, Haslam said “the thought we had was, if you want to write that bill, there’s a better way to write it.

“I think the attorney general in his opinion said sort of the same thing... He almost gave them a path to write it,” Haslam said.

HSUS, the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Tennessee Press Association and the Tennessee Coalition on Open Government issued statements hailing Haslam for the veto.

“We appreciate that Gov. Haslam recognized the backdoor attempt to repeal the Tennessee Shield Law and stopped it — for now at least,” said Frank Gibson, public policy director for the Tennessee Press Association.

Tennessee’s “Shield Law” says news media can keep confidential their reporting sources. Haslam said that his mention of the law in his formal statement was not advocating it be changed, only that any bill changing another law should specifically say so.

The Tennessee Farm Bureau, which supported the bill, declared: “Although we are disappointed, we are appreciative of his (Haslam’s) recognition that well established, long-accepted agricultural practices on farms are

vulnerable to unfair attacks through misrepresentation and deception.“

The bill is the second to be vetoed by Haslam since taking office in January 2011. The first came last year when Haslam waited until the 107th General Assembly had permanently adjourned to veto a bill that would have prohibited Vanderbilt University’s “all comer’s” policy, which says all campus student organizations must accept any student as a member. Sponsors of the bill said the policy wrongly interferes with religious rights of Christian groups who — at least in one controversial case — were told to accept an atheist as a member.


Related document
Haslam's letter explaining his veto

Monday, May 20, 2013

HSUS and the IRS Scandal on Fox and Friends

If you haven't seen it yet, take a look at this video from Fox & Friends on Monday, May 20. Stuart Varney, of Fox Business News, discusses the IRS, Lois Lerner, and her efforts to protect the Humane Society of the United States from investigation of their tax-exempt status, despite calls for closer scrutiny by Congressman Luetkemeyer of Missouri and other members of Congress. HSUS is smack dab in the middle of this growing scandal with their excessive lobbying. Lerner, a lauded member of HSUS, was unresponsive to calls to investigate HSUS's lobbying activities despite copious amounts of evidence presented.


Thursday, May 16, 2013

HSUS and the IRS

HSUS is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization -- which means they are not supposed to do a lot of lobbying. Frank Losey, lawyer, has been trying to get IRS to repeal HSUS's tax-exempt status for at least 4 years. He has provided over 3,000 pages of evidence of HSUS lobbying. Now we know why his and our letters and appeals and those of various Congress members have had no effect. The degree of rot in our government seems to have no bottom.
5-16-13 NEWS FLASH!! - SHARE WIDELY 
What we are learning about IRS and HSUS - Lois Lerner, IRS Director of Tax Exempt Organizations, and currently in the hot seat for politically motivated hits on various organizations - is a member and strong supporter of HSUS! No wonder Frank Losey's efforts to get HSUS 501(c)(3) tax exempt status revoked have had no success!! 

 LERNER    +   PACELLE       = CONFLICT OF INTEREST

"Ms. Lerner is a past president of the Council on Governmental Ethics Laws (COGEL) and an active member of the Humane Society of the United States where her efforts in performing pet rescues necessitated by the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes were widely acknowledged."
Lois Lerner, IRS Director of Tax Exempt Organizations
and the center of the current IRS scandal

5-16-13 NEWS FLASH!! - SHARE WIDELY
What we are learning about IRS and HSUS: Lois Lerner, IRS Director of Tax Exempt Organizations and currently in the hot seat for politically-motivated hits on various organizations, is a member and strong supporter of HSUS! No wonder Frank Losey's efforts to get HSUS 501(c)(3) tax exempt status revoked have had no success!

LERNER + PACELLE = CONFLICT OF INTEREST

"Ms. Lerner is a past president of the Council on Governmental Ethics Laws (COGEL) and an active member of the Humane Society of the United States where her efforts in performing pet rescues necessitated by the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes were widely acknowledged."


Thanks to Alice Harrington, Frank Losey, and Yvonne Pruett.

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

A Call To Action From Frank Losey

IRS APOLOGY - - "POLITICAL THUGGERY!" - - INTERNAL IRS AUDIT FINDINGS OF WRONG-DOING - - CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION - - "FIRING" OF ACTING IRS COMMISSIONER - - CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT HEARINGS!!!!!

For those who have yet to respond to my Recent Call to Action, now is the perfect time to do so! And then encourage others to do so as well!!!

A Huge "Window of Opportunity" opened on May 10, 2013 that elevates my most Recent Call to Action to a Top Priority for all who wish to help hasten the "Day of Reckoning" for the HSUS. That "Opportunity" occurred when Ms. Lois Lerner, the IRS Director for Exempt Organizations, admitted that the IRS inappropriately targeted since 2011, for increased scrutiny, conservative organizations that sought tax-exempt status, and her admission was compounded by a rather perfunctory "apology." A subsequently released Internal IRS Audit Report confirms the details of Ms. Lerner's "admission."

A growing number of Members of Congress are now calling for Oversight Hearings that would review the dereliction and inappropriate actions of IRS Employees. And the "fallout" from the Firestorm of Congressional Outrage from Conservative Members of Congress could easily suck the HSUS into the Vortex of scrutiny as they become increasing aware of the disparate treatment afforded to "Liberal" tax-exempt organizations, such as the HSUS, which used its surrogate Lobbying Subsidiary to endorse over 1,000 Congressional Candidates, as well as the then Senator Obama for President in 2008! 

"Hell hath no fury like a Conservative scorned!"

And as fate would have it, Frank Losey is a Legal Resident and Registered Voter in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and he has already submitted a sampling of relevant documents to Kentucky Senators McConnell and Paul, with an offer to provide them with more than 3,000 pages of documents that substantiate that the IRS has failed to act upon over the last 4+ years. And these documents substantiate, beyond any reasonable doubt, the abject failure of the IRS to hold the HSUS accountable for its excessive Lobbying Activities; its endorsements of over 1,000 Congressional Candidates, which endorsements are expressly prohibited by the U.S. Tax Code; and the CD Voice Recordings of Mr. Pacelle, who with incredible hubris stated, in his own voice: "We have passed 1,000 laws in the last decade." 
 
Within hours after Ms. Lerner made her admissions and apology, Kentucky Senator McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, used the phrase "political thuggery" to describe the actions of the IRS and he called upon the White House to conduct a far reaching investigation of the actions of the IRS. His outrage has been followed by Calls for Congressional Hearings by other Conservative Republicans and even some Democrats in Congress! For example, Democratic Senator Baucus, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has told Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller that he "is in for serious questioning," and the Committee would accept nothing less than his "complete cooperation and transparency." Then on 14 May, 2013 President Obama described the findings in an Internal IRS Audit Report that was released on the same day to be "intolerable and inexcusable." And on that same day Attorney General Eric Holder announced that he has ordered an investigation to see if there were criminal violations in the Internal Revenue Service! And on that same day, led by Senator McConnell, 45 Republican Senators signed and sent to President Obama a joint letter that expressed their "grave concerns and disappointment." Then on May 15, 2013, President Obama announced that Acting IRS Commissioner had resigned. This is a fast moving train, and a whole lot more fall-out from the IRS Scandal is expected to occur!!!!!! 
 
I could not have written a better script to set the Stage for my most recent Call to Action that is found at www.franklosey.com 
 
Again, for those who have yet to respond to my Recent Call to Action, now is the perfect time to do so! And then encourage others to do so as well!!!

Frank