Showing posts with label SAOVA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SAOVA. Show all posts

Monday, March 12, 2012

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.

Friday, February 17, 2012

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.


Friday, January 27, 2012

WHAT PUPS DOES

Learn More at SAOVA http://saova.org
HR 835 / S 707 PUPS
Bad for dogs, bad for shelters, bad for the economy

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 American’s daily lives.

Just Say NO to PUPS – HR 835/S 707

Thursday, August 25, 2011

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



Saturday, October 16, 2010

VOTE in Tennessee!

It's Time To Vote In Tennessee!


Make sure you check out the Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting

Alliance recommendations at the link below for legislators who oppose

or support the radical agenda of the Animal Rights movement to end

all use and interaction with animals: http://www.saova.org/2010/

Tennessee10.html


Susan Wolf has done an excellent job compiling this information with

nationwide recommendations. You'll find specific endorsements for

many Tennessee races.


It was an enormous project and Tennessee voters certainly appreciate

it. So please vote November 2nd! Urge all your friends and family

to vote if you want to preserve our historic relationship with

animals. If you just want to view animals from afar ... in the wild,

vote for the "animal rights" extremists' endorsements. They are

about abolition, not animal cruelty as claimed.


Early voting in Tennessee is going on now through October 28.


VOTE NOVEMBER 2ND! Our animals lives truly do depend upon your

participation in this electoral process.


Cross-posting encouraged


Sunday, August 22, 2010

SAOVA Letter Regarding Proposed Memphis Dog Ordinance

Sportsmen’s & Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance
Carlotta Cooper, Tennessee Director
address
address


August 22, 2010

Memphis Public Services & Neighborhood Committee Members
and Memphis City Council Members
125 N. Main
Room 514
Memphis, TN 38103

Dear Committee and Council Members:

I’m writing to you on behalf of the Sportsmen’s & Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance (SAOVA), a national organization that represents the interests of hunters, sportsmen and pet owners, in opposition to the publicized spay neuter ordinance that you are said to be considering for Memphis. We have numerous supporters in the Memphis area and we strongly believe that this ordinance would be harmful to all dogs and dog owners.

By imposing a 29-pound weight limit and requiring dogs weighing 30 pounds or more to be spayed and neutered, eight of the top 10 breeds registered by the American Kennel Club would have to be spayed and neutered in your city. These breeds include such family favorites and hunting dogs as Golden Retrievers, Labrador Retrievers and Beagles.

Mandatory spay neuter laws have been tried in many places in the last couple of decades and they have failed everywhere they have been tried. One notable place they have failed has been Asheville, NC. Although Asheville was initially held up as an example of success, the city and Buncombe County no longer release their shelter intake numbers. The last numbers they reported several years ago showed that, after implementing mandatory spay neutering, they only took 15 fewer dogs into their shelters than the year before, when there was no MSN.

The fact is that when mandatory spay neutering is implemented people stop following ALL local dog ordinances because they are afraid they will be turned in for not having their dogs spayed or neutered. This means that dogs go unvaccinated and unlicensed. Unvaccinated dogs represent a public health risk. Cities lose money for needed animal control services.

If mandatory spay neutering is enforced, many people will surrender their dogs to the shelters or turn them loose because they simply cannot afford to have their dogs spayed and neutered. This means more dogs in shelters and more dogs euthanized. The number of dogs killed in Memphis would escalate. Is that really what you want in your city?

SAOVA suggests stronger enforcement of existing leash laws. We understand that animal control in Memphis may be understaffed but instituting mandatory spay neutering will only create an additional burden on your animal control staff if they must try to police the reproductive status of people’s pets.

We would also like to point out that mandatory spaying and neutering of dogs over 29 pounds is unfair to sportsmen who hunt with their dogs. Virtually all breeds of hunting dogs weigh over 29 pounds. There are many clubs for sportsmen in Shelby County, as well as individual hunters. They live in your districts. Sportsmen use dogs for hunting or retrieving fox, raccoons, birds, and waterfowl, to name a few. Hunting dogs from all over the United States compete each year in the National Bird Dog Championship just outside Memphis. These hunters support the state by purchasing hunting licenses and hunters spend billions of dollars annually on equipment. These hunters do NOT want to pay a $200 fee to keep their dogs intact. Hunters have protested attempts to impose mandatory spay neuter laws wherever they have been proposed throughout the state. There is currently no city or town in Tennessee with a mandatory spay neutering ordinance.

Trying to fund animal control by means of $200 fertile animal permits is a very shortsighted policy. There is a large amount of material that shows that spaying and neutering pets, particularly at a young age, can cause health problems to dogs. Owners should have the right, without prejudice, to keep their pets intact. Decisions to spay or neuter should be made by an owner in consultation with their veterinarian. These are health decisions for the pet.



Virtually every major animal organization now opposes mandatory spaying and neutering, including the following:

American Dog Owners’ Association:

Alley Cat Allies:

American College of Theriogenologists and The Society for Theriogenology:

International Association of Canine Professionals:

American Herding Breed Association:

National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors, Inc.

The American Veterinary Medical Association:

and

ASPCA

A $200 fertile animal permit also punishes good breeders. These are the people who belong to kennel clubs, offer dog training, and rescue and foster dogs. You need these people in your community. Instead of punishing them by trying to create an exorbitant permit fee you should be trying to work with them to find good solutions. They are the people with the most knowledge about dogs in your community. They are not the problem. They are your greatest resource.

We hope that you will reconsider and find a better solution for the animal control issues in Memphis. Voluntary spay neuter programs have been very successful in many areas. There are many grant programs and organizations that provide funding for communities in need. These programs have been proven to work much better than mandatory spay neuter programs.

If I can be of any assistance please don’t hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,
Carlotta Cooper