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

Trouble In Nashville

It had to happen. With animal rights groups spending the last few months crying “Hoarder!” every time someone had a problem with animal control, and Animal Planet exploiting (or perhaps staging) people in their series about hoarding, it was only a matter of time before some not very bright people decided their town needed to pass a law to restrict the number of animals people could own in order to “prevent animal hoarding.” Who knew that unfortunate town would be Nashville, TN?

According to WSMV-TV, a proposal by Nashville Animal Control and the city Health Department would limit the number of pets a resident can own in an effort to prevent hoarding cases. Insiders say that a number of rescue groups unofficially banded together and have been attending meetings with these organizations for the last few months so it’s a good bet that this idea came from them.

WSMV reports that residents would be limited to the following:

The proposal would limit the number of cats and dogs a person can have based on the size of a resident’s property.

* There could be no more than five cats or dogs on an acre of land, according to the proposal.

* There could be no more than 10 cats and dogs on 1.5 to 2.5 acres of land.

* No more than 20 dogs and cats would be allowed to live on five acres.

* Land more than 5 acres would be allowed to have up to 21 dogs and cats.

“Vets, kennels, boarding facilities and licensed pet breeders and dealers would be exempt from the proposed ordinance.

“Metro officials said Animal Control officers would have discretion and could give an exemption to animal owners who have well-cared, vaccinated animals.”

(Gee, that’s not very fair for the large majority of the population, is it? Somebody has a buddy who's with Animal Control so he can give an exemption to his friends?)

Now let’s think about some of the things that are so obviously WRONG with this idea. First of all, what do you do if you live in an apartment or condo? I guess you just can’t own a pet.

Secondly, what happens if you move to a smaller piece of property? Are you just supposed to dump your pets? Get rid of them? You can’t have all of your beloved animals anymore because you moved from a place that was 1.1 acres to a place that was .9 acres?

Obviously, someone who has five chihuahuas is not using their land in the same way as someone who has five Newfoundland dogs. How is any of this ordinance fair to a pet owner?

And cats often don’t even live outside! Many cat owners keep their pets indoors so the size of their owner’s acreage is irrelevant.

Besides all of these points, nothing in this plan would “prevent” hoarding. There are already very good laws against animal abuse and neglect. The number of animals a person has is really no one’s business as long as those animals are cared for properly. There are plenty of people who keep large numbers of animals and do a superb job. And there are some people with just one pet who are bad pet owners. Numbers have absolutely NOTHING to do with how well animals are treated.

This is a misguided and, yes, ignorant attempt to prevent a problem that is, in fact, very rare. Real animal hoarders make up just a tiny fraction of a percent of the population. They barely register on the radar. It’s a shame that animal rights groups and television series trying to grab ratings have exploited them and sensationalized them to the point that people now imagine them to exist in every neighborhood.

If you doubt what I’m saying, check out Steve Dale’s blog on this subject. He sends a plea to Nashville not to follow through on this horrible idea.

Nashville Suggesting Pet Limit Laws Based on Size of the Yard

According to printed reports, around Nashville - in Davidson County,

pet owners will have to do a head count.

Other communities have set "pet limit laws" with totally random

numbers, 3 dogs and 4 cats, or whatever it is. Police don't go door

to door counting pets, this is complaint driven...complaints about

barking or inhumane conditions. My point is that there are already

laws and ordinances about disturbing the peace or treating animals

(or people) living in poor conditions.

Community members in Davidson County have apparently suggested Metro

Animal Control to set a limit on the number of dogs and/or cats a

person can have depending how big their yard is. This is NOT in any

pets' best interest and makes no sense. The animals shouldn't be in

the yard all day in the first place, and therefore yard space is

irrelevant. What about people with no yards (condo owners or renters

in apartments), are they to have no pets?

Dale also brings out the point that pet limits prevent many people from fostering pets and helping with rescue — something which you would think that the rescue groups which may be behind this idea for an ordinance would realize. If people can't foster pets and help with rescue, more pets die in shelters.

There’s one more interesting thing about this push for a new “anti-hoarding” law in Nashville. Seems it may have been prompted by a) neighbors with a grudge; and b) people who have a problem with bully breed dogs.

From the August 8, 2010 Jenny Upchurch Action Line column in The Tennessean:

Metro Considers Pet Limit

QUESTION: A neighboring property owner and the Highland Heights Neighborhood Association are frustrated by a Meridian Avenue property where the resident keeps several pit bull dogs.

Neighbors say they hear dogs barking, sometimes all night long. Waste from the kennels sometimes flows into yards when they are hosed out. And there is frequently a bad smell.

Neighbors ask why the problems aren't being addressed.

ANSWER: Metro's Animal Care and Control has visited the home on more than a half dozen occasions, the latest last Tuesday. There have been as many as 12 dogs there, says Billy Biggs, head of the animal control officers. There were five on the most recent visit.

But the owner is not violating any ordinances, because all the dogs have the required shots and licenses, Biggs said.

Metro Codes also has inspected the property and reinspected it Friday. The inspector and her supervisor determined that the dogs are pets and well cared for and that it is not a business.

Upchurch goes on to write that Nashville’s current ordinance doesn’t limit the number of animals a resident can keep...but the Metro Health Department is drafting changes in their ordinance. Doesn’t that strike you as a little suspicious? There is nothing at all wrong with the way these dogs are being kept but the ordinance needs to be re-written? Kind of makes you wonder if the neighbors would be complaining if there were five Poodles living next door, doesn't it? Or if the ordinance would need to be re-written if the neighbors had five Lhasa Apsos.

Upchurch confidently writes:

"The board of health probably will get the proposal and vote on it early in 2011. It will require Metro Council approval."

We’ll see. A local television station in Nashville conducted a poll recently asking if the number of pets a resident can own should be limited. 1162 people voted. 73 percent (854 votes) said No, the number of pets a resident can own should not be limited. Only 25 percent (287 votes) said that the number should be limited. 2 percent (21 votes) said “I don’t know.”

For the sake of all pet owners in Nashville I certainly hope they will get rid of this idea of limiting the number of pets that residents can own.

HumaneWatch Editorial in The Tennessean

Take a look at this page: http://www.tennessean.com/article/20100514/OPINION03/5140330/Make-the-most-of-donation-by-giving-to-a-local-pet-shelter

Great comments about HSUS on The Tennessean site.

Make the most of donation by giving to a local pet shelter

BY DAVID MARTOSKO • MAY 14, 2010

Tennessee Voices

This week, Nashville is host to a large animal-care expo for shelter professionals. It seems like a noble cause. But who's behind it — and what their goals are — might surprise you.

You're probably familiar with the slick infomercials from the Humane Society of the United States. The TV ads are everywhere, asking for monthly pledges while taking you on a tour through tear-jerking pictures of homeless cats and dogs. Just give $19 a month, the ads suggest, and your money will be used to help these poor puppies and kittens.

But what if it's all smoke and mirrors? Most Americans — 71 percent, according to a recent Opinion Research Corp. poll — think the Humane Society of the United States is an umbrella group for pet shelters.

It isn't. It is not affiliated with any local humane societies.

That poll also shows that 59 percent believe the group gives "most of its money" to local pet shelters. That's false, too. In fact, hands-on dog and cat shelters at the local level received less than 1 percent of the $86 million HSUS raised in 2008.

So, if you pledge $19 a month to Humane Society of the United States, $228 a year, barely $1 will trickle down to pet shelters. What's going on? What else would an "animal welfare" group do with $86 million in donations and $150 million-plus in the bank?

The answer isn't very cuddly.

You can see the group's money — your money, really — at work in statehouses, courtrooms and ballot boxes. That's where the organization pushes for animal rights, not to be confused with animal welfare. HSUS is driven by the belief that animals deserve legal rights, including the right to not be eaten as food and the right to sue people in court.

So while HSUS does precious little for the dogs and cats in its TV ads, it does work overtime to drive a wedge between animals and people. The group works to reduce everyone's consumption of meat, eggs and dairy, for instance. It does this by filing lawsuits, lobbying for new laws and pushing for ever-tighter regulations — driving up the cost of being an egg producer or a cattle rancher.

If these farmers won't give cows, pigs, and chickens their "rights," the group will just drive them out of business.

The Humane Society of the United States plasters its ads with images of pets. The warm-and-fuzzy approach is clearly fundraising gold. But is the animal-rights industry's agenda really what well-meaning Americans want to support with their $19 monthly donations? I doubt it.

It's getting so that there's only one way animal lovers can be sure their donations actually go to help pet shelters and animal welfare programs: Give locally. Help the shelters in your community, not the big-bucks animal-rights lobby in Washington.

David Martosko is director of research at the Center for Consumer Freedom, a nonprofit watchdog group that deals with activities of tax-exempt activist groups.

Discussion of HSUS in The Tennessean

Take a look at this page: http://blogs.tennessean.com/opinion/2010/05/19/humane-society-deserves-better-than-recent-criticism/

Be sure to read the comments!

You should also read another follow-up post by the HSUS paid lobbyist in Tennessee:

http://blogs.tennessean.com/opinion/2010/05/22/make-no-mistake-this-group-isn’t-animal-friendly/comment-page-1/

Again, read the comments. You'll see that there is a serious lack of support for HSUS once people know how little of their money they actually donate to animal shelters.