Defeat of Controversal Proposed Breeder Registration Laws

Many thanks to the American Kennel Club, the Nashville Kennel Club, and the Tennessee Federation of Dog Clubs for all of their hard work in defeating the outrageous breeder bills that were proposed in Tennessee this year. The bills would have affected anyone who owned 10 bitches. Even people who did not breed dogs would have been affected! They were unbelievably intrusive and controlling. You can read a copy of the 18-page bill here.
 
You can also watch the hearings where the bills were discussed in committee. On the 24th, and on the 31st.

Most of all, thank you to every single person in Tennessee who called and e-mailed the committee members. They said they were absolutely flooded with calls about these bills, most of them OPPOSED! Thank you. YOU defeated these bills.

Carlotta

Tennessee Federation of Dog Clubs - All Members

       This has probably been the toughest legislative year ever in the
history of the Tennessee Federation of Dog Clubs (TFDC).  The animal
rightist. Humane Society of the United States, ASPCA, PETA and a number of other
national and state groups had worked secretly for months trying to craft
legislation they could slip in at the eleventh hour.  We nor the AKC
were ever apprised of the expected legislation. We saw no advance copy
and were never invited to have any input prior to the legislation being
introduced which was just last week.

       The complicated 18 page document was most definitely aimed at us
but under the guise of trying to eliminate puppy mills. Tuesday a
lengthy 14 page amendment to the bill was added to the docket of the
House and Senate committees handling the bill.  (Tuesday was the last
day the committees were to meet this legislative session.  It was a do
or die for the animal rightist organizations.

       This past Tuesday was one of the most drama filled days I have
ever witnessed at the state capitol in my life time.  Here is a sequence
of events that unfolded:

1) The animal rightist brought in folks from all over the state and the
big guns from Washington, DC.

2) The House Business & Utilities Committee met at 1:30.PM.  There was a
packed house with standing   room only. The sponsor introduced the
breeder registration bill.  He also gave notice of his new amendments
which only made the bill worse for us.  The chairman of the committee
then allowed a few speakers from the audience.

3) The lobbyist for the animal rights groups spoke and told lie after
lie.  She said the AKC and our group had worked with them on the bill
and then turned against it at the last moment. Not true.  To hear her
tell it anyone who bred a litter of puppies was the enemy.  She also
implied that the sheriff's and police chief's organizations supported
the bill.  Not true.

4) A lobbyist for the Humane Society of the United States also spoke and told the
same lies.  He also added that we had generated many calls from out of
state with attempts to tell Tennessee law makers how to vote.  Not true.
  He also stated that Tennessee was the only state in the nation that
previously had a breeder bill as state law and then lost it last
session.  That was true and we did it.

5) I spoke on behalf of the TFDC and hope that I did well and corrected
the lies that were told.  One of the legislators on the committee
commented that he had received more calls against this bill than any
other this session.  Two others agreed with him.

6) A vote was then taken on the amendments that were offered up by the
sponsor of the bill.  A couple of legislators immediately walked out for
"parts unknown.  The vote was four to four and died for lack of a
majority.  At that point the sponsor asked to withdraw his bill and roll
it over to the 2016 session.

7) We walked out relieved and the animal rightist were extremely mad,
unhappy.and wanting to know what went wrong.

8) Melissa Bast, our state lobbyist is preparing a report and she will
provide the names of the legislators that voted for the bad legislation
and those that supported us and were against the bill.

9) For the next several hours heavy lobbying went on all over the
legislative plaza until the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee met at
3:30 PM.  Again the even larger committee room was full with the walls
lined with people and even more outside.  Our bill was one of the last
to come up about 5:45 PM.  The sponsor of the bill got up and quickly
asked that the committee vote to defer or roll the legislation over to
2016.  We quickly departed while the animal rightist seemed to be
totally absent.  I think they had received word that there was no way
that the senate committee was going to pass the bill.

10) Now we really go to work and organize every county in our state.  We
are going to need your help.

Regards,

       Dr. S.M. Dick Dickerson, President, Tennessee Federation of Dog
Clubs.

HSUS Moles In Legislative Offices?

HSUS Moles In Legislative Offices?

It seems you can’t trust anyone anymore. Not even when you are exercising your right as an American citizen to contact your representative and express your thoughts about a bill.

On March 5 I posted the latest SAOVA newsletter to the Tennessee Pet-Law list with the following message:

A sampling of legislators has been selected for a special campaign to request they WITHDRAW their support from PUPS. Included are legislators previously endorsed by SAOVA who have strayed. Others profess to be conservatives yet added their names to this expensive, invasive animal rights bill. Some are Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus members. Visit the SAOVA campaign page, click and email these legislators and ask them to STOP supporting the PUPS bill. http://www.saova.org/PUPS.Campaign.html

On March 7 a Pet-Law member reported that he sent a friend to the SAOVA web site. She also clicked on a link to humanewatch.org. After contacting her congressman, Rep. Allen West, at 5:04 pm, to ask him to withdraw support for PUPS, she received a “Welcome” message from HSUS at 5:11 pm.

One such occurrence is interesting. More than one is suspicious.

On March 9 a long-time Tennessee Pet-Law member reported that he had been signed up as an HSUS member:

WTF?? I just received an email thanking me for signing up with HSUS? You have got to be kidding. I wonder what bozo thought I would be interested in that bunch???

When asked if he had contacted any legislators recently he replied:

As a matter of fact, I did respond to the recent request to email various legislators to withdraw support for the PUPS bill. Does someone think they can get us poor misguided souls to see the light if they sign us up for their propaganda? But in my view, NOBODY has the right to put my email on someone's list without my permission.

It’s starting to look like HSUS has moles placed in the offices of certain legislators. They may be diverting e-mails and stealing e-mail addresses. Who knows if the messages people are sending about PUPS are even reaching anyone impartial, or if they are being deleted as fast as people send them.

You can try to contact your legislator and voice your concerns but I don’t know if it will do any good. If an HSUS mole reads your e-mail or answers the phone, it won’t do much good.

If you have heard from HSUS after contacting a legislator, please let us know in the comments section. We’d like to know how widespread this problem is.

The Sale of Puppies Online

This article originally appeared in The Fancy Speaks column in the February 10, 2012 issue of Dog News. It is reprinted here by permission of the author.

The Sale of Puppies Online

Carlotta Cooper

I read the January 20, 2012 DOG NEWS editorial “Regulating The Sale Of Puppies Online” with concern. Although it’s clear that the editorial is well-intentioned, it comes dangerously close to embracing the PUPS bill which is now in Congress. And PUPS, H.R. 835/S. 707, would be very harmful for hobby dog breeders.

The editorial argues that the Internet is used for the sale of dogs, which is true, and that some of these dogs come from places which have no policy or guidelines for their sale. Some even come from “the unregulated commercial breeder.” This is also probably true. The editorial goes on to ask, “Who is there to determine whether or not the seller is responsible? Who establishes the policy to protect the dog in these situations whether or not it is a commercial or homebred sale?”

I would like to point out that people have been selling dogs by means of newspaper classified ads, magazine ads, billboard notices, and other forms of commerce and advertising for generations. No one has been regulating these retail sales directly to the public. The thinking has always been that the buyer needs to be careful when buying anything, from anyone. Caveat emptor has a very real meaning when it comes to buying a pet. The buyer should exercise due caution when buying a puppy or dog, whether they are buying from a magazine, newspaper, or over the Internet. It is not the responsibility of the government to regulate the sale of puppies for the buyer. It is up to the buyer to use some good judgment when making a purchase. This hasn’t changed since people were buying puppies from ads in dog magazines in the 1980s, or buying dogs at any other time in history.

Large commercial breeders who are inspected by the USDA are already regulated and they do report their wholesale sales. However, the retail sale of puppies and dogs directly to individual buyers has never been regulated at the federal level. In many states this kind of sale is now regulated at the state level, if you sell more than x number of puppies per year. In some states it is covered under a sales and use tax, the same kind of tax that covers the sale of Girl Scout Cookies or having a yard sale. If you sell more than a certain number of puppies per year in some states you would be required to get a business and/or kennel license so you could regularly report your tax income from sales.

HSUS calls the fact that retail sales to individuals are not regulated at the federal level a “loophole” and, in PUPS, they are trying to change this situation. But this exemption of retail sales for small breeders is not a loophole. It is the way the law was intended to work. In DDAL vs. Veneman (2003), the case in which the Doris Day Animal League sued the USDA to try to make them inspect retail breeders (home, hobby, show breeders), the judge gave a clear ruling that small breeders were not the same as pet stores and did not have to be regulated or inspected as such. HSUS has been trying to change the law through PAWS and PUPS ever since that time.

These small hobby breeders and others who sell puppies and dogs by retail means were not meant to be regulated in the same manner as large commercial breeders. But that’s what PUPS would do.

It is up to the buyer, not to the government, to check out the person who sells a puppy. Otherwise, all of us who breed dogs are going to have the USDA visiting our homes to see how we keep and raise our puppies.

Now, it’s true, as the editorial mentions, that many people don’t like the idea of “regulation,” but in this case regulation cuts right to the core of everyone who breeds and shows dogs. If PUPS becomes law it would cripple breeders who show, breed dogs for performance, and who breed quality companion dogs. We would be required to meet the same USDA standards that are in place for large commercial breeders, even though we raise puppies in our homes. Most of us could not do this and the result would be the end of countless serious breeding programs in the show world, along with the end of precious bloodlines and, in some cases, the end of breeds.

The AKC sees this, too. On January 26, 2012 they sent a letter (AKC Opposition to H.R. 835/S. 707 the PUPS Act (PDF) January 2012) to members of Congress from Dennis Sprung with their concerns about PUPS. Among other things it says:

“The AKC does not oppose the concept of regulating high volume breeder retailers but we believe that the definitions proposed in this bill are misleading, overly broad, and potentially damaging to responsible breeders who individually maintain and breed only a few dogs in their homes.

“Although PUPS was designed to regulate internet sales of puppies, it would require anyone who owns or co-owns even a few female dogs that produce 50 or more puppies offered for sale in a year to be regulated under existing USDA dog "dealer" regulations. These regulations are designed for high-volume commercial kennels that produce puppies for wholesale, and require a USDA commercial license, maintenance of specified commercial kennel engineering standards and regular inspections. They are not appropriate for small breeders who may keep only a few dogs in their homes.”

In short, AKC opposes PUPS as it is written and asked members of Congress to withhold their support.

As it is written, PUPS would also regulate anyone who sells these puppies by any means, not just over the Internet. It specifically includes anyone who “sells or offers for sale, via any means of conveyance (including the Internet, telephone, or newspaper),” so it does not just intend to regulate people who sell over the Internet.

I doubt I have to mention how many show breeders have web sites or sell puppies online. You would also fall under this bill for Internet regulation of puppy sales.

PUPS is a very dangerous bill that will harm all of us who breed and show dogs. If you haven’t contacted your legislators to ask them to withhold support for PUPS, you can contact them by visiting this site: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

Here is some more information about PUPS. Talking points from Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance (SAOVA):

WHAT PUPS DOES:

• Abandons traditional determination between wholesale and retail---so that USDA can regulate home/hobby breeders who don't sell to pet stores.

• Begins USDA regulation of anyone (with 1 intact female dog over 4 months of age) who sells, places, or adopts out more than 50 dogs in a year ... to start. Could easily be amended down to 10 ... to 2.

• Takes away your right to privacy in your own home. USDA or their contractors can without notice enter your home and inspect it if they SUSPECT you might meet criteria for regulation.

• Over-regulates responsible home breeders out of existence. Mandates non-porous floors, kennel sizes, floor drains, and pages of requirements impossible for most home breeders to follow.

• Forces shelters, and home/hobby breeders to redesign their current facilities in order to meet federal standards.

• Establishes government controlled exercise standards that are not scientifically proven.

• Sets precedent with exercise standards for future rigid socialization and breeding standards that would remove owner’s flexibility to use professional judgment based on breed and purpose.

• Reduces the ability of the American public to obtain healthy privately bred or rescue dogs of their choosing.

• Places an unfunded mandate on Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and overextends their enforcement ability.

• Fails to exempt sportsmen, sporting dog trainers, and hunting clubs from being regulated alongside in-home sellers.

• Adds more federal oversight and regulation into Americans’ daily lives.

Tennessean Showing Its Bias Again

We already knew the Tennessean was a suck up for HSUS and Janis Sontany, but they really outdid themselves with this article: Animals suffer as TN balks at cruelty laws; Humane society says state ranks near bottom of nation. Not only is the article, by Brian Haas, incredibly biased, but it is full of statements that are factually untrue. Even the caption on the article's photo is inaccurate. There were not "hundreds" of dogs involved in the Warren County case. There were 121. It makes you wonder if Mr. Haas, or anyone at the Tennessean, checks any facts at all. Or cares about them.

I doubt they will print it (they never print anything I send them — gee, wonder why?), but here's my reply:


Dear Mr. Haas,

Wow, your information in this article is really incorrect. Re:

The Humane Society of the United States has labeled Tennessee one of the worst states in the nation for protecting animals. In addition to Tennessee’s having some of the weakest laws in the United States, its legislators are chided by the group for failing to pass meaningful new animal welfare laws.

According to both the Animal Legal Defense Fund, a California-based animal rights group, and HSUS itself, which releases a report on where the states rank in terms of their animal laws each year, Tennessee is in the mid to upper tier of states as far as animal protection laws. If you will check an interview with Wayne Pacelle, head of HSUS, in Nashville last week, you will see that he said the same thing about Tennessee.

When it comes to passing laws that protect animals, Pacelle says the Volunteer State is in the middle of the pack but there's room for improvement.

Now, I realize that your article is either accidentally or intentionally very biased in favor of HSUS and promoting the laws that Rep. Sontany wants, but please try to get your facts straight. Especially when they are so easy to check.

Tennessee does have over 40 counties without animal control or shelters. Do you know some good way for those counties to come up with funding to provide animal control or shelters in this poor economy? Are there some essential services to humans you would like to see discontinued?

As far as bills concerning agriculture, Rep. Niceley is quite correct. There are already plenty of bills that protect animals. The bills that Rep. Sontany and HSUS are pushing are often not in the best interest of farmers OR in the best interest of the animals. But that is hardly likely to concern HSUS since they are not a fan of agriculture, especially any agriculture that raises animals for meat. If you would check into them more carefully you would find that they would prefer to have people eating a vegan diet.

Concerning spay/neuter laws for cats and dogs, mandatory spay/neuter programs have been a failure everywhere they have been tried across the country. They result in owner abandonment of animals and higher euthanasia rates. They do not lower the numbers of animals in shelters.

If you are going to write about HSUS and what they say about Tennessee, please try to present all sides of the issues. HSUS tries to portray itself as a mainstream group but they are a radical animal rights organization. Unfortunately, Rep. Sontany has been carrying their water for years. Rep. Sontany's bills for HSUS do not get out of committee and are not passed because the majority of Tennesseans do not support them.

For more information about HSUS you can visit the SAOVA web site.

Sincerely,
Carlotta Cooper
Tennessee Director, Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance

Are Tennessee animal cruelty penalties too lax?

Here's a recent posting from WATE-TV in Knoxville. It addresses the issue of mandatory minimum sentencing for animal cruelty convictions.

Are Tennessee animal cruelty penalties too lax?

Tuesday, May 17, 2011 5:48 PM EST

By HANA KIM

6 News Reporter

KNOXVILLE (WATE) - A Knox County assistant district attorney who has prosecuted her share of animal cruelty cases hopes the state Legislature will take a closer look at current laws.

There are about 20 active animal cruelty cases in the county and if history is any indication, most of the defendants will not spend any time in jail even if they're convicted.

ADA Joanie Stewart hopes lawmakers will perhaps implement a mandatory minimum sentence for anyone convicted of animal cruelty.

Jeffrey Coppock, 44, of Knoxville, was due for a preliminary hearing Tuesday on charges that he beat a Shih Tzu named Rosie to death. However, his hearing was reset to July 20.

Coppock was arrested in April after deputies got a call from his neighbor on Evening Star Lane.

When deputies got there, they found Rosie in the backyard with blood around her nose, broken bones and only taking shallow breaths. The dog later died.

In another case Knox County case, a three-year-old dog nicknamed the "Little Brown Dog" made national headlines in November 2009 after she was dragged nearly a mile behind a pickup truck.

She survived and her former owner, Jimmy Lovell, is awaiting trial. Because of the extent of Little Brown Dog's injuries, Lovell was charged with a felony.

"On the felony cases, the animal has been treated in a sadistic and depraved manner," Stewart explained.

"A lot of our offenders are first time offenders so they are eligible for programs that would be diversion, that would be probation if they don't have a lengthy criminal record," Stewart added.

If there is no bodily injury or death to the animal, most cases are deemed misdemeanors.

"You have so many crimes that have the minimum jail sentences. DUI is one, 48 hours and that's a misdemeanor," Stewart said.

Stewart believes a mandatory minimum sentence will send a stronger message and hopefully help protect animals.

If a person is convicted of his first animal cruelty charge and picks up a second charge, that second offense is automatically a felony.

Aside from the fact that the ADA in the article doesn't actually make a case for mandatory minimum sentencing, and only recites a short list of cases which are waiting to be tried, the article is fairly illogical in other ways.

Here are some problems with the article. While I don't have much respect for HSUS or the Animal Legal Defense Fund, those fun-loving people who are always demanding that animal cruelty laws be made tougher, both entities came out this year with reports that placed Tennessee in the mid to upper reaches of states having strong laws against animal cruelty. ALDF placed Tennessee in the top tier of states with animal cruelty laws. So there. Hey, you people who are always claiming that Tennessee is full of people who are cruel to animals! What do you think about that? (Nope, I won't give links to those groups. Not on this site.)

Another problem with this article, or with the thought process of the ADA mentioned in it, is that mandatory minimum sentences don't do what they are intended to do. Many animal cruelty cases which are charged as misdemeanors are carried out by children and teens. Do you want to have a mandatory minimum sentence for crimes committed by minors? Well, a lot of prosecutors don't. When it comes to charging minors with those crimes, they would rather not do it. So, faced with either prosecuting a kid with a very stiff mandatory sentence or not charging him at all, they let him go and they don't prosecute. The result is that when you have mandatory minimum sentences you often have fewer misdemeanor crimes prosecuted — exactly the opposite effect that people pushing for tougher laws want.

There is a bill in the Tennessee legislature right now concerning mandatory minimum sentencing for animal cruelty cases but if the legislators have any sense at all they will let it die and leave prosecution and sentencing to the courts.

Moving To Tennessee? Maybe Not

Working with Tennessee Pet-Law, I get Google alerts all the time about various dog things on the Internet relating to Tennessee. I get alerts about rescue, HSUS, BSL, mandatory spay-neuter, dog legislation — you name it. Alerts all the time. Sometimes I get alerts when people are discussing Tennessee in dog chatrooms and message boards. That happened tonight when someone named NY Annie was asking for information about dogs and McNairy County.

Here's NY Annie's original posting asking for information:

The first, dog breeds that do well in the summer heat of south western TN and with the outdoors - farm country (south of Jackson). We will be surrounded by farms, next to, behind, and across from us and I am sure there will be chickens and other farm animals. I don't want trouble with my neighbors or want to worry that my dog escapes to go hunt on the neighbors' property. We also are surrounded by heavy woods, separating us from the neighbors, so there is always the possibility of snakes and other wildlife I need to concern myself with - both with the dog getting hurt by or chasing. While we will be taking in a rescued dog and I'll be getting a mutt, there are characteristics of breeds that will be predominant, so I'm just wondering what I should look for.

That's not so bad, right? But then NY Annie goes on to explain more about her situation and what she thinks life will be like when she moves to Tennessee:

My kitties are my pets - indoors at night, outside when we are - and perimeter trained. I've never had a dog house because none of my dogs were kept outdoors. They, like my kitties, are permitted to go outdoors to be with the family and to do their business - in a specific location and therefore must be perimeter trained. When we leave the property, they are leashed (wish we could do that with kids sometimes). And, just like children, pets are taught proper behavior - well, just like MY children...

Since we plan to spend almost all our time outdoors, it would be terrible to leave the pets inside. We just need to find a contractor to build our deck & pool next summer so it's ready when we arrive. The outdoor kitchen will be my next priority. We are designing it now and it will actually have more counter space than the indoor kitchen as it's where I plan on doing most of my canning. Of course I want my kitties and dog outside with me. And my kitties come when I use a certain whistle; just like all my dogs did.

This kind of stuff just drives me crazy.

I want to tell this woman DON'T MOVE HERE!

What is she thinking? So, she's moving to farm country, close to woods, and she's not going to have a fence. She wants to get a Beagle mix and "perimeter-train" it. OMG Am I the only one who thinks this is completely stupid? The Beagle part of that dog is going to be gone in a heartbeat. This is why we tell people ad nauseum to learn about breeds and mixes before you get a dog. Beagles are hunting dogs and they have strong instincts. I don't think any amount of "perimeter-training" is going to keep that dog in NY Annie's yard. Besides that, it's just not a good idea to move to a rural area and get a dog without having a good method of containment. You are asking for trouble if you don't have a means of containing your dog.

And, if that weren't bad enough, she's got KITTENS! She thinks she's going to perimeter train them, too? That's nice. What about all the big bad things that want to eat THEM? So, while she's happily cooking in her outdoor kitchen (please, who does that in Tennessee?), her dog has disappeared, and something with claws has devoured her kittens. Even if they are adult cats by the time she moves, they don't stand much of a chance against some of the things that can come out of the woods in Tennessee.

And I haven't even mentioned the kudzu that can swallow your pets, your house, and your car.

Why do people think they can move to Tennessee and do this stuff? Next thing you know, she is calling animal control about her neighbor's dogs that killed her cats, or her Beagle mix has been chasing someone's chickens and her farmer neighbor is threatening to shoot him.

And all of the other enablers on this site are just telling her what horrible animal owners there are in Tennessee. Yeah? Well, they're not the ones who are going to be having the problems this woman is going to be having!

Yes, this kind of thing does drive me crazy, and I read exchanges like this frequently when someone is thinking of moving to Tennessee. No, we are not hicks or hillbillies. We are not bad people and we do love animals. But that does not mean that you can arrive here with your pets and act as though everything should be done the same way as the place you left. IF you are moving to a rural area, the farmers and other residents were there first. They do not want your "perimeter-trained" pets bothering their farm animals. Some farmers WILL shoot a dog. That is a fact. And the law will back them up if your dog is bothering their stock. So, keep your pets safely contained at home. That will also keep them from being hit by a car, picked up by animal control, or becoming lost.

Contrary to what you may read on some of these "informational" sites, most people with pets in Tennessee do allow pets indoors. And we are not a state full of animal abusers. We love our pets just as much as anyone, anywhere. Please get some accurate information if you are thinking of moving to Tennessee.

Are there things in Tennessee that are different from some other states? Sure. Things are different in every state. I've lived in several states and I've never noticed much difference in the way people treat their pets. But you do have to check local laws wherever you live. Check the government Web site for the state, county, and city where you are thinking of moving. That's the best way to get accurate information. Find out if there is a city or county pet license. Find out how often rabies shots are required locally. In Tennessee you are only required to get a rabies shot every three years, but some cities and counties require them more often. Find out if there are any pet limits where you're thinking of living. There are few pet limits across Tennessee but some of the larger cities do have limits. Find out what the law says for an area before you move to Tennessee. And, for goodness' sake, if you don't like what you hear about Tennessee, please don't move here. We really don't need people to move here who think they can make our state into the place they left. If you like it there so much, stay there.

How To Find Information About Animal Laws In Tennessee

For those of you interested in knowing more about animal laws in Tennessee, check out the Michie site for Tennessee laws. Title 43 and Title 44 concern agriculture/horticulture and animals. Most of the laws applying to livestock and to pets are in these sections. That's where you can get the straight version of Tennessee laws. If you go to some other sites I'm afraid you will get an animal rights interpretation of animal law, and that includes the UT web site on animal law. They have a link to the Animal Legal Defense Fund, one of the most hard core animal rights groups in the country. ALDF is the group behind the push for an animal abuser registry here in Tennessee and elsewhere. The Animal Law Coalition site also tends to be AR-leaning in its interpretation of animal laws.

And, what is wrong with an animal abuser registry, you may be wondering? Well, for one thing, it's good way to ruin the lives of youthful offenders. Do you really want to put a young teenager on an animal abuse registry? Kids sometimes do stupid things that they regret for the rest of their lives. It's not a true indication of who they are when they are adults. Even if someone's name is removed from such a registry 10 years later, there is no way to remove all of the places where their name has been posted on the Internet as an animal abuser. Should someone really have to pay for some crimes for the rest of their lives? I don't think so, and neither do many other people.

Secondly, there is every indication that these offender registries don't actually work, judging by the lack of success with sex offender registries.

HSUS, ALDF, and AR supporters have been pushing the animal abuse registry bill in Tennessee for the last several years. So far it hasn't gotten very far. Let's keep it that way.

The Truth About The Warren County Dog Raid

The Truth About The Warren County Dog Raid

Carlotta Cooper

Last week the property of Mrs. Wilma Jones in Warren County was raided by the Warren County Sheriff’s Department, working with the Animal Rescue Corps. They had a warrant and seized approximately 125 dogs and five birds. From the photos and video I’ve seen, the buildings where the animals were housed were in a run-down state, though the dogs themselves looked healthy. Since she possessed more than 19 intact female dogs apparently used for breeding, Mrs. Jones was required to have a state commercial breeder license, which she did not have. At this time, no charges have been filed against Mrs. Jones for anything. That includes animal cruelty, abuse, and neglect. A hearing is scheduled this week to determine what will become of the dogs. The Animal Rescue Corps wants to have custody of the dogs so they can distribute them to rescue groups and shelters, after having them spayed and neutered. The dogs would then be put up for “adoption,” or rather sold to people who want them as pets.

Those are the facts in this case, along with the important fact that the Animal Rescue Corps has estimated that they will spend up to $100,000 on this deployment and they have been asking for donations to cover their costs.

Are any of these facts in dispute? Oh, yes. Nearly all of them.

First of all, you might ask how a warrant was obtained so a raid could be executed on Mrs. Jones’s property. According to statements on the Warren County Humane Society Facebook page and in other news accounts, Ms. Kim Chambliss went undercover for three weeks, posing as a puppy buyer to gain access to Mrs. Jones’s property and meet with Mrs. Jones. Were her actions legal? Is any evidence she obtained admissible in court? That remains to be seen.

You might also ask why the Animal Rescue Corps, located in Washington DC, was brought into this case when there is a local humane society in Warren County. If there were legitimate reasons to think dogs were being abused or neglected in Warren County, why did the local humane society or animal control not take action? The Humane Society of the United States has also been active in Tennessee in the last 2-3 years. Why were they not contacted in this case? Or, if they were, why did they not choose to act?

The Animal Rescue Corps is, in fact, a new organization, but it is headed by someone who is well-known in rescue circles: Mr. Scotland Haisley. Unfortunately, Mr. Haisley is well-known for all the wrong reasons. His tactics have been described as “SWAT-team-like” when raiding dog breeders. He has previously worked for the Humane Society of the United States, the Animal Rescue League, and In Defense of Animals. Even Wayne Pacelle, President of HSUS, described Haisley’s methods as “cowboy ways” since Haisley likes to kick in doors and wear a phony badge on occasion. Haisley seized 172 dogs from a breeder in South Dakota that a judge later ordered HSUS to return to the breeder. The breeder got his dogs back and is now suing. Before that, Haisley led a raid in Hawaii on a man who was trying to care for animals left by his dead wife. The owner brought a civil rights lawsuit against HSUS, the Hawaiian Humane Society and others who were involved in the raid.

I don’t think anyone should be too certain that any raid led by Scotlund Haisley will be held up in a court of law.

It’s true that Mrs. Jones did not have a commercial breeder license. It certainly sounds as though she did need one. However, that is not grounds for a raid or seizure. The commercial breeder law has a process in place for inspection, and for a breeder to have a length of time to come in compliance with meeting the standards for inspection, and for getting the license. At some point Mrs. Jones should have been, or would have been notified that she needed a commercial breeder license. She would have been inspected. At that point she would have had a certain amount of time to comply with the regulations in the act, and a certain amount of time to get the license. Or she would have had to remove some of her dogs to be under the limit of the law. But the commercial breeder act does not allow outside agencies, such as the Animal Rescue Corps, or undercover people, to take action against breeders. The Department of Health and its inspectors are currently inspecting breeders and issuing licenses. It simply takes time to visit every breeder in the state. It is also up to breeders who know they need a commercial breeder license to contact the Department and obtain one.

If Mrs. Jones is charged with anything at all and she chooses to try to fight the charges, it would mean that she faces literally thousands of dollars in costs. Not least of her costs would be the seizure bond for her dogs. These charges would be between $10 and $18 per day, per animal, and the money is due by 15 days after the defendant has been charged, depending on where the animals were held. For 125 dogs, that would mean Mrs. Jones would have to come up with $18,750 by day 15 if she intends to fight any charges, if we use the lowest figure of $10 per dog, per day. And that is just for the first 15 days. The bill would continue to rise the longer she has to wait for any trial. That’s why most dog breeders surrender their dogs, even if they fight the charges. Seizure bonds make it too costly to try to keep the animals, even when people are innocent. Coming on top of legal fees, few people can afford to pay these costs. Forfeiture and asset seizure bonds, which were changed in recent years to prosecute drug cases, have been used maliciously to force breeders to give up their animals.

It needs to be said here that Mrs. Jones is 72 years old (though different stories have put her age at 74 and at 80). She appears to live alone and have no family. She says she’s been breeding dogs for 30 years and that she loves her dogs very much. There’s really no reason to doubt her statements. Animal rescue volunteers may not like or approve of the way that Mrs. Jones keeps her dogs, and they may not like dog breeding in general, but it is possible to have different views of things. Commercial dog breeding is a legal activity. Mrs. Jones was breeding dogs, not running a meth lab. The buildings may have been unsightly but the dogs appeared to be in good condition. State law requires animals to have adequate food, water, and shelter and Mrs. Jones appears to have met those standards.

Finally, there is a larger issue at play here. That is the battle that is going on between those who see dogs as almost human pets and those who still see them as dogs, with a purpose. Animal rescuers often have very good motives. They would like to save every animal from anything they judge to be a harsh life. That includes being treated too much like a dog and from breeding situations. Dog breeders may love their dogs but they can also see that they have a utilitarian purpose. The present generation of dogs is needed to produce the next generation. Both groups like to place dogs in good homes. Dog breeders have been doing this for a very long time. In the last couple of decades, animal rescuers have been vying for those same pet homes with rescued animals, moving in on homes that once would have bought pets from breeders. In addition, animal rescuers have mounted a war against dog breeders by trying to convince the public that most pets come from substandard breeders, and telling people that they should “adopt, not shop.” There are plenty of great dogs that come from both sources. It’s unfortunate that this situation has turned into a war. In this case, Mrs. Jones may be one of its victims.

Too often lately, dogs are seized from breeders on phony or exaggerated charges (or no charges at all). When the breeder surrenders them because they can’t afford the exorbitant seizure bonds, the rescue group distributes the dogs to various shelters and rescues who turn around and sell the same dogs who were said to be in such terrible condition. In just a few days these allegedly “pitiful” dogs are somehow ready to be sold to the public, often for the same kind of prices the breeder would have charged. Miraculously, all of the alleged health problems are gone. The neglect is cured. Starving dogs are suddenly plump. It’s like magic how fast these pathetic dogs are suddenly ready to be “adopted” for a few hundred dollars when the money is going to a rescue group instead of to a breeder. And dogs that a few days before were said to have never known any human kindness are suddenly giving kisses and ready to play. Yeah, right. I’ve been breeding and showing dogs for almost 30 years and I can tell you that it takes a very long time to socialize an unsocialized dog. If a dog has really not had any social interaction, you can’t cure it in a week. In other words, the stories that are often told about dogs taken from breeders being “unsocialized” are bunk. The dogs are usually just scared when they are seized by strangers. Who wouldn’t be? If animal rescuers don’t know this, they don’t know much about dogs. If they do know it, and they mislead the press, then they are simply lying.

The bottomline, in more ways than one, is that rescues and shelters make money when dogs are seized from a breeder. There’s a reason why breeders refer to these raids as “stealing” dogs. Rescues and shelters turn around and sell the same dogs that breeders were selling, and can sell them for several hundred dollars per dog. The only difference from buying them from a breeder is that they are spayed/neutered, and people can feel morally superior about getting a “rescued” dog that probably didn’t need to be rescued from anything.

It’s also unfortunate that there are rescue groups who prey on the public’s generosity to push their own agenda. I think it’s very doubtful that it will actually take $100,000 to provide care for the dogs that were seized on Mrs. Jones’s property. Of course, the Animal Rescue Corps isn’t the only group that asks for money from the public. HSUS, PETA, the ASPCA, and other animal rights groups have their hand out all the time, using sad pictures of animals to try to motivate the public into giving them money. The problem is, the money is rarely used to actually help animals. Instead, it goes to lobbying, pension plans, and big salaries. Helping animals in need is a great thing to do. It’s too bad that’s not where your money goes. Instead of donating to a group with a headquarters in Washington DC, give your money to a local shelter or rescue. That’s the only way to really make sure you are helping animals that need it.

What The PUPS Bill Could Mean To You

This article was originally posted last year when PUPS was introduced. That version of PUPS died when Congress went home at the end of the year. However, PUPS, the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act, is back again this year. It's the same as last year's bill so I am posting this article again. I have only updated the bill numbers and the sponsors. The information in the article remains the same to help you understand why this bill with the warm and fuzzy name is not in the best interests of dogs, the people who care for them on a daily basis, or pet owners.

Carlotta

What The PUPS Bill Could Mean To You

Carlotta Cooper

By now you may have heard that U.S. Representatives Jim Gerlach (R-PA), Sam Farr (D-CA), Lois Capps (D-CA) and C.W. Bill Young (R-FL) have introduced Senate H.R. 835, a bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act. The bill is supposedly a response to a report from the Office of the Inspector General into the the work of the USDA and their animal control department as they have inspected commercial breeders between 2006-2008. It should be noted, however, that a similar PUPS bill was also introduced last year, and the year before that, before there was a report from the Office of the Inspector General. In both cases the bills have been strongly supported by the Humane Society of the United States.

In some ways PUPS is similar to the PAWS legislation that created such a furor several years ago, with a few important differences.

First, it should be said that the report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) was highly critical of the inspectors and the inspection process carried out by the USDA inspectors and their agency. The OIG cited the following main problems with the Animal Care program at USDA:

*AC’s enforcement process was ineffective against problematic dealers. According to OIG, the agency relied too much on trying to use educational efforts to improve breeder/dealer compliance. During fiscal years 2006-2008, 4,250 violators were re-inspected because of violations. Of those violators, there were 2,416 Animal Welfare Act violations. However, the report does not address the fact that many violations may have been minor in nature. All violations were lumped together for the purposes of the report. (It should also be noted that if a breeder/dealer was not home when the inspector called, that was also counted as a violation. So, not all violations were horror stories.)

*AC inspectors did not cite or document violations properly to support enforcement actions. The report indicates that many inspectors were doing a good job. However, they found that 6 of the 19 inspectors that they studied for their report did not correctly report all repeat “direct” (serious) violations. This led to some problematic dealers not being re-inspected frequently. The report also questioned the description of some of the violations that were reported. They believed that better documentation could have led to better cases against dealers when they were brought to court.

*The report cited problems with the new worksheet being used by the department which calculated minimal penalties for violators in some cases.

*The report claimed that the agency misused the current inspection guidelines to lower penalties for violators. In many cases inspectors may use discretionary powers to assess penalties for violations. They may even assess no penalty if they believe that will encourage a dealer to improve the situation, or lower a penalty to encourage a violator to pay a stipulated amount instead of calling a hearing. The report found fault with this system.

*Finally, one of the primary failings the report found was that “some” large breeders circumvented the Animal Welfare Act by selling animals over the Internet. Breeders who sell animals over the Internet are currently exempt from inspection and licensing requirements, thanks to the court ruling in Doris Day Animal League vs. USDA (Veneman, Anne) which ruled that hobby breeders and others who sell dogs on a retail basis do not have to be inspected by USDA.

(It is somewhat disturbing to see that this provision in the law is referred to by the OIG as a “loophole” – the same wording that HSUS uses, when, in fact, this was a hard-won legal point to protect retail breeders.)

These are the main criticisms issued by the Office of the Inspector General regarding the USDA’s inspection process for commercial dog breeding. However, it should be pointed out again that this report focuses on the worst of the worst offenders. As indicated in the 2007 annual report from the USDA Animal Control agency, 97 percent of commercial breeders were classified as being “substantially compliant” with the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act. In most businesses a 97 percent compliance rate is pretty good but that’s probably not a figure that you will hear quoted very often by the agency’s critics.

It should be noted that USDA/Animal Care has already acted on many of the criticisms found in the report. They began writing new guidelines and instituting new training for inspectors as far back as August 2009. So it’s to be hoped that most of the problems found in the report have already been addressed.

There is no denying that some of the problems cited by the OIG report are real and do exist. Not every commercial breeder is a shining example of the profession. On the other hand, the same can be said for show breeders or people in any other area of life. Truly substandard kennel operations should absolutely be addressed and if the owners cannot or will not clean up their act, they should meet the full penalties available to the agency.

As soon as the OIG’s report was released the PUPS bill was ready to be introduced in Congress by the co-sponsors. PUPS stands for Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act.

Actually, as far as legislation goes, the bill looks fairly innocuous upon first reading. It’s not a lengthy bill at all. The bill states that is is to amend the Animal Welfare Act to provide further protection for puppies. Sounds good so far, right? Then the bill makes some references to the current Animal Welfare act and adds some wording and punctuation to show how it would read if this bill is adopted.

The first substantial point you come to in the bill is a new term and definition: High Volume Retail Breeder. Currently there is no such person under the Animal Welfare Act. There are only commercial breeders (those who own more than three breeding females and sell dogs to brokers, research labs, or pet stores) and retail pet stores/those who make direct retail sales to the public, such as hobby breeders. So, this new category of breeder is an important issue.

A High Volume Retail Breeder is defined as anyone who has 1) a breeding female dog who is intact and four (4) months or older; and 2) who, in commerce, for compensation or profit, has an ownership interest in or custody of one (1) or more breeding female dogs; and sells or offers for sale, via ANY means of conveyance (including the Internet, telephone, or newspaper) more than fifty (50) of the offspring of such breeding female dogs for use as pets in any 1-year period.

For the purposes of this Act, a High Volume Retail Breeder shall be considered a dealer and subject to all of the provisions of this Act applicable to a dealer. (So the terms “High Volume Retail Breeder” and dealer are used interchangeably here.)

A High Volume Retail Breeder would have to be licensed and inspected in the same way as any other commercial breeder.

Now, why is this important to someone reading DOG NEWS? Afterall, you’re probably thinking that you don’t produce 50 puppies a year so it has nothing to do with you, right? Wrong.

First of all, there are show and hobby breeders who do produce 50 puppies in a year. If you have a large scale show and breeding operation this is not an impossible number to produce. If, for example, you have four or five Labrador Retrievers, they could easily produce litters with 10-12 puppies in them. You would be up to 50 puppies if all of your girls had litters in one year.

However, this bill is much more inclusive than this. It would not just affect people with breeds who had large litters. If you read the wording carefully, it includes any bitch in which you have an ownership interest. That would include bitches that you co-own, whether they reside with you or not. So, if you have been staying on as co-owner of your nice bitches, or perhaps many of your dogs, you would now be liable for all of the puppies produced by those bitches. You may only breed a litter every 2-3 years yourself but if the bitches co-owned by you have litters in a year then those puppies would be counted toward your 50-puppy total. Many, many people in the fancy could quickly find themselves labeled as High Volume Retail Breeders under this bill. They would have to be licensed and inspected by the USDA, not to mention spending the money and making changes to their property to become compliant with USDA kennel regulations — even if they only keep a few dogs in their home.

Is this a mistake? Perhaps you’re thinking that this part of the bill was surely not intended to be aimed at hobby breeders. Well, what better way to limit the breeding of dogs in the U.S. than to make it as difficult as possibly for show and hobby breeders to breed dogs in their home than requiring them to become USDA-licensed?

But there is more in this section. You will notice that it covers any kind of sales — by Internet, telephone, newspaper. If you can think of other kinds of sales, they will probably be written into the bill as well. This is much more than covering what critics of commercial breeding have claimed to be the Internet “loophole.” This is all retail sales of dogs if you produce 50 puppies. This is nothing less than using a number to define what makes a commercial breeder in the United States. It has all the hallmarks of HSUS legislation that has been trotted out in dozens of states in the last two years. And we know from these state battles that the aim of HSUS is to start with a number and then to whittle it down lower and lower.

You should also consider how this law might be enforced. How will USDA locate possible High Volume Retail Breeders? When HSUS has gone state by state to try to enact commercial breeder laws they have started by searching online to count people with web sites offering puppies for sale. However, many times they have included breeders who simply had sites giving breed information for educational purposes. If you have a dog web site, whether or not you breed very often, the USDA could be knocking at your door to find out how many puppies you produce or how many bitches you co-own.

In towns and cities with breeder licensing permits local animal control officers frequently check newspapers to find puppies for sale. Some people who advertise on their breed club sites have also been contacted by state officials asking for back taxes for puppy sales. People have also been contacted through their information in show catalogues. So, there are many ways that USDA could try to track down possible High Volume Retail Breeders. Unfortunately, they may be contacting all of us if this bill passes, as they try to determine how many puppies we produce and how many bitches we have.

There are also provisions in the bill that would affect all commercial breeders (or the High Volume Retail Breeders in the future). It specifies that dogs would have to have access to daily exercise to move sufficiently to develop or maintain normal muscle tone and mass as appropriate for the age, breed, sex and reproductive status of the dog. (Doesn’t sound so bad.) And, the dog has to have the ability to achieve a “running stride”; and is not “forced activity" or other physical activity that is repetitive, restrictive of other activities, solitary, and goal-oriented. So, treadmills are out.

The only exceptions must be approved by a veterinarian or are puppies less than 12 weeks old, or dams with pups.
Just to make sure you get the picture, if you kennel your dogs you must now make sure they have sufficient room to allow them to exercise with room for a “running stride.” We all know how much room the running stride for some breeds takes. It’s hard to imagine how commercial breeders can meet this requirement in any kind of practical way.
The bill also discusses the kind of flooring that is required to be used in kennels, stating that it can’t be too sharp or too small, and so on. If you think this is an easy issue you should ask people in Pennsylvania who have been fighting about what kind of kennel flooring is acceptable for dog kennels for months.

If the bill is adopted then the Secretary of Agriculture has a year to promulgate the specific rules necessary to put the bill into effect. These are the actual nuts and bolts of carrying out the law.

That is a basic description of the PUPS bills. There is much to be concerned about if you breed dogs, whether you breed an occasional litter for the show ring or you’re a commercial breeder. HSUS is currently urging its members to contact their congressmen to ask them to co-sponsor the bill and to create support for the bill.

Of course, there are other, long-term problems with PUPS. Not only would it seriously cut back on the number of small breeders who breed dogs in their homes (because, afterall, who really wants to turn their home into a kennel with a drain in the floor and get a USDA license so they can breed a few litters?), but PUPS would also add lots of new breeders to the number of breeders that the USDA has to inspect. USDA currently inspects around 5000 commercial breeders per year. If the High Volume Retail Breeder definition is adopted and everyone who sells dogs over the Internet has to be inspected by the USDA, the number of breeders that would have to be inspected could triple. If the inspectors are criticized for their performance now, how on earth could they properly inspect that many kennels? They couldn’t. Not without massively increasing the size of the agency and its funding.

There is an easy solution to the problem though. Some people have speculated that the government would outsource the inspections to a national animal organization such as, oh, for instance, the Humane Society of the United States. Afterall, they’ve been training people in quasi-animal control techniques and criticizing inspections for years. Why not let them do the actual inspections? Nevermind their anti-animal, anti-breeder stances. And nevermind the increased costs that typically go along when you hire outside contractors (think KBR and Halliburton).
Naturally HSUS cares about animals...but it’s so convenient when they could also make money from a government contract as an inspection agency for the USDA.

The only way to defeat a bill such as this, which would make so many hobby and show breeders into High Volume Retail Breeders and force them to become USDA-licensed and inspected is by working together with all parts of the dog community. There are NO exemptions in the bill for hunters, service dog or guide dog breeders, police dog organizations or anyone else who breeds. All of these people may breed 50 puppies or more per year with some puppies being sold as pets and become classified as High Volume Retail Breeders under this Act. Not to mention, we should also find ways to work with commercial breeders to fight the bill. This is a case where “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” And this bill will hurt all of us who breed dogs. Only by working together can we defeat it.
PUPS is a very dangerous piece of legislation. It currently has a short list of co-sponsors but, with HSUS supporters contacting their congressmen, that list may grow longer. People in the dog world need to start contacting their representatives and senators NOW to ask them to oppose PUPS. To find your U.S. representative and senators you can simply go to http://www.congress.org/ and type in your zip code. That process will take you to a page with your officials. Click on their names to see their bios and to contact them by web form. You can also go to their web sites to send an e-mail. Or you can phone them. Ask them to oppose the PUPS legislation. Tell them that the only way the United States can continue to have quality dogs available is if people can breed them in their homes. This is not a job for government oversight.

Make no mistake: this bill is aimed right at home breeders. That’s us. We’re the target of this bill and we need to stop it.

URGENT: HSUS Raid Planned for Central Tennessee

We have received information that HSUS is planning a breeder raid for

the central Tennessee area, or surrounding areas, in the next several

days. They have been asking for volunteers able to foster around

120-150 dogs by next Wednesday, February 2. They are also asking for

volunteers able to take part in the raid. We have been told that the

raid will be in central Tennessee, but it could be in a surrounding

state close by (MS, KY, etc.). They often conduct these raids on

weekends.

Rescue groups are also at risk during raids such as these.

If you are a breeder with large numbers of dogs in these areas,

please take precautions. They may have already visited your property

to get probable cause for a warrant. At this point all you may be

able to do is remove dogs before they are seized. If you have reason

to think that you could be the subject of such a raid, please protect

yourself and your dogs. Have an attorney ready and remove dogs ahead

of time.

This message is only aimed at breeders with larger numbers of dogs

who may be targeted by HSUS in these areas.

crossposting encouraged