Memphis Needs Your Help

Subject: Fwd:AKC Legislative Alert: MEMPHIS MSN Ordinance

Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 08:37:06 -0500

From: chrotts@vci.net

Memphis needs our help. Please read the AKC alert below & take a moment

to write your opposition to all of the councilmen. Our fellow dog

breeders & owners in Memphis need our help in killing this terrible

ordinance.

The committee voted on Tues. to send the proposed ordinance to the full

council for a vote, the first of which will be in two weeks. Before it

becomes law, it must go for 3 votes (readings)

I will be attending the Memphis show (Southaven) next Saturday, Aug

21 (on behalf of ARC) & assisting The Responsible Animal Owners of TN

in getting the word out & gathering more opposition. (The RAOT is

the AKC federation for the state of TN)

AFter speaking at length yesterday with Donna Malone (RAOT), she has

asked me to pass along to all breeders, exhibitors & kennel clubs to GET

INVOLVED. Last year the ARs tried to pass similar legislation in

Jackson & Johnson City; both failed due to the combined efforts of

many, many exhibitors & clubs (both local & out of state).

The population of Memphis (Shelby CO.) is around 600,000. When you

consider the number of animal control officers employed to enforce their

existing law (which is a good one), the number of shifts each officer

has per week, the average comes out to 1.91 officers per shift for a

population of that size! It is clear that enforcement of existing

law is sorely needed, as well as more officers to carry it out.

Earlier this year (March), Councilman Shea Flinn proposed MSN for "pit

bull" type dogs, which was dropped. The precipitating event for the

current proposal arose after a elderly man was attacked & later died due

to 2 dogs running at large. Animal control had been alerted the day

before this tragedy that the dogs were loose, but they took NO

ACTION. This man would still be alive had animal control done its

job & enforced the existing law.

If you will be attending the shows next weekend & would be willing to

HELP, please email me privately. Donna & I won't have trouble finding a

job for you:-)))

In the meantime, please consider that these folks in Memphis are our

"neighbors in dogs"...the ARs have set their sights on this city today.

Tomorrow, it could very well be us. Think about how many people you

know that live in the Memphis area...have you sold any dogs to folks

that live there? Do you know fellow exhibitors that live there?

Please write & oppose this ordinance.

(permission to forward this message in its entirety)

Robin Cannon,

Member, American Rottweiler Club Legislative Committee

AKC Legislative Liaison, Paducah Kennel Club, German Shepherd Dog

Club of West KY, Australian Cattle Dog Club of West Ky

***********************************************************************

Memphis to Consider Mandatory Spay/Neuter, New Dangerous Dog

Definitions & Fee Increases on August 10th

Print This Article

[Friday, August 06, 2010]

The Memphis City Council Services & Neighborhood Committee will

consider four ordinances amending the city’s animal control laws on

Tuesday, August 10th. The proposal will require mandatory spay/neuter

of all dogs over 29 pounds, define any dog that has "bitten once and

been at-large twice" as a dangerous dog, increase fees for owners of

intact dogs and limit tethering. It is vital that responsible dog

owners and breeders attend this meeting to oppose these changes.

Memphis City Council Public Services & Neighborhood Committee Meeting

Tuesday, August 10th

10:15am

City Council Conference Room

5th floor of City Hall

125 N. Main

Memphis, TN 38103

Provisions of the Ordinances

* Require dogs over 29 pounds to be spayed/neutered

o Exemptions

+ Dogs trained and used as law enforcement dogs.

+ Dogs trained and used as a guide dog, hearing dog,

assistance dog, therapy dog, seizure alert dog or designated as

breeding stock by an agency approved by the director.

+ Dogs trained and used as search and rescue dogs or

designated as breeding stock by an agency approved by the director.

+ Dogs trained and used as herding or livestock

guardian dogs, or designated as breeding stock by an agency approved

by the director.

+ Dogs unable to be sterilized for a medical reason.

+ Dogs boarded in a licensed kennel.

+ Dogs registered with AKC or other recognized

registry or trained and kept for the purpose of show, field or

agility trials. However, these owners must comply with the following:

# Must apply for a Fertile Animal Permit

# Must purchase a one-time $200 intact animal

permit (It is not truly an exemption if you have to buy an expensive

license).

# Owners are allowed only one litter per

residence per 12-months.

* Defines dogs that have "bitten once and been at-large twice"

as dangerous dogs, but does not define "bitten." Does this mean

bitten a person and inflicted injury? Bitten another domestic animal?

What if the bite does not cause injury or is provoked?

* Requires a dog that has bitten or attacked to be sterilized.

o Again, it is not clear what would happen if the bite was

provoked or if there was no injury resulting from the bite. If the

intent is to require sterilization of dogs that have been adjudicated

to be dangerous or vicious, then that should be specified.

* Sets the license fee for intact dogs weighing 29 pounds or

less at $35 annually and removes the license fee and requirement for

sterilized dogs.

+ It is unreasonable for intact animal owners to be

solely responsible for funding animal control operations. Licensing

was originally established to ensure that dogs were vaccinated for

rabies – this will significantly undermine that goal if the majority

of dogs no longer need to be licensed. If this ordinance is adopted,

it becomes solely a tax on owners of intact dogs. Additionally, one

wonders why intact dogs weighing less than 29 pounds are licensed

annually and intact dogs weighing more than 29 pounds are offered a

lifetime license.

* Requires that dogs restrained by tie-outs or overhead cable

runs also be restrained by a traditional or invisible fence. This

will mean that many owners will have to construct a traditional fence

or install an invisible fence; likely costing thousands of dollars.

* Requires that dogs restrained by tie-outs or overhead cable

runs for more than 2 hours be sterilized.

What You Can Do

* Attend the Memphis City Council Public Services & Neighborhood

Committee meeting on August 10th to oppose the ordinance. Our AKC

Federation, The Responsible Animal Owners of Tennessee will be

coordinating speakers and can be reached at raotinc@aol.com.

*

Write a letter, email, or call the city council members and

ask them to oppose the ordinance.

Mailing Address

125 N. Main, Room 514

Memphis, TN 38103

Public Services & Neighborhood Committee Members

District 7 - Barbara Swearengen Ware (Chair)

(901) 458-9406

Swearengen.Ware@memphistn.gov

District 2 - William C. Boyd (Vice-Chair)

(901) 576-6786

Bill.Boyd@memphistn.gov

Super District 8 - Myron Lowery

(901) 576-7012

Myron.Lowery@memphistn.gov

Super District 9 - Kemp Conrad

Office (901) 576-6786

Kemp.Conrad@memphistn.gov

Super District 9 - Shea Flinn

(901) 576-6786

Shea.Flinn@memphistn.gov

Super District 9 - Reid Hedgepeth

(901) 576-6786

Reid.Hedgepeth@memphistn.gov

City Council Members

District 1- Bill Morrison

(901) 576-6786

Bill.Morrison@memphistn.gov

District 3 - Harold Collins

(901) 576-6786

Harold.Collins@memphistn.gov

District 4 - Wanda Halbert

(901) 576-6786

Wanda.Halbert@memphistn.gov

District 5 - Jim Strickland

(901) 576-6786

Jim.Strickland@memphistn.gov

District 6 - Edmund Ford Jr.

(901) 576-6786

Edmund.Fordjr@memphistn.gov

Super District 8 - Joe Brown

(901) 274-4724

Joe.Brown@memphistn.gov

Super District 8 - Janis Fullilove

(901) 576-6786

Janis.Fullilove@memphistn.gov

Negative Consequences of PUPS

Negative Consequences of PUPS

Carlotta Cooper

Recently I was reading Steve Dale’s excellent online article “Why Are Puppy Mills Allowed To Operate?” at PetWorld. The article isn’t quite what it sounds like. The article is actually about the new PUPS legislation and why it may not be a good idea.

Steve explains that we all know there are some problems with bad breeders. That’s not new information. He discusses the report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) which found problems with the way that inspections of some commercial breeders were being carried out: repeat violations ignored, penalties waived, inadequate documentation, first-time violators given a pass sometimes; and in some states a lack of inspectors.

The report goes on to recommend that APHIS, which carries out the inspections for the USDA, be able to immediately confiscate animals that are dying or seriously suffering, and to better train their inspectors to document, report and penalize wrongdoing.

That seems to be an appropriate response to the findings in the report. But, as Steve Dale reports, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-ILL) and others have introduced legislation called PUPS (Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act) which they say would close a “loophole” which allows breeders to operate online.

As Steve Dale writes in his article, there are a number of problems with the PUPS bill. PUPS would “make life tough for responsible breeders.” These are people who generally operate from their homes. If you drive these breeders away then the prices of purebred dogs rise and some breeds could disappear. In fact, show breeders could be included among these people who breed from their homes.

Instead, Steve and many other people advocate enforcing the laws that we already have for commercial breeders instead of creating new laws. In fact, there are approximately 100 inspectors for about 5000 commercial breeders and the PUPS bill does not suggest any new funding or inspectors for APHIS. If many more home and hobby breeders would be inspected under this bill it’s hard to imagine how the inspectors would be able to do a good job with their inspections if they are stretched thin now.

Although the stated purpose of the bill is to close the so-called “Internet loophole” that allows the sale of dogs over the Internet, I’ve been very concerned about the “ownership interest” provision in the bill.

The bill defines a High Volume Retail Breeder as follows:

•S 3424

‘‘(B) HIGH VOLUME RETAIL BREEDER.

— The term ‘high volume retail breeder’ means a

person who, in commerce, for compensation or

profit—

‘‘(i) has an ownership interest in or

custody of 1 or more breeding female dogs;

and

‘‘(ii) sells or offers for sale, via any

means of conveyance (including the Inter-

net, telephone, or newspaper), more than

50 of the offspring of such breeding female

dogs for use as pets in any 1-year period.

(And in the bill a four-month-old female puppy is designated as a breeding female.)

Consider what this definition means to a show breeder who co-owns bitches with other people. You may have one or two bitches yourself. You may or may not have a litter. It doesn’t matter. If your friends who co-own bitches with you have litters, no matter where they live in the United States, and they sell those puppies, then those puppies will be counted toward a fifty puppy total for you because you have an “ownership interest” in the dams.

If your co-owners sell a total of fifty or more puppies then you would be considered a high volume retail breeder. This means that you would have to become USDA-licensed and inspected under the PUPS act. If you keep dogs in your home (and I’m sure all of us do), your home would have to be inspected by USDA-APHIS inspectors. I’m also sure that you would not pass inspection. Not because you don’t have a lovely home, but because it does not meet Animal Welfare Act guidelines: you cannot hose down the floor and walls of your home; the surfaces of your home are not impervious to moisture; you cannot disinfect your home at high temperatures; and so on.

What this means is that you could not keep and raise dogs in your home if you had to be USDA-licensed under the PUPS act.

That is why PUPS is harmful to people who breed and raise dogs in their home.

For decades we have been co-owning dogs with each other in order to protect them and supervise their breeding. Now co-ownership can mean that we would be labeled high volume retail breeders and have to be USDA-licensed. It could mean that we would not be able to breed and raise dogs in our homes.

I don’t have statistics on how many breeders co-own bitches. Only the AKC could provide that kind of data. However, I think it’s estimated that the Fancy makes up about 20 percent of the core constituency for the AKC and perhaps 20 percent of their registrations. I think it would be reasonable to guess that a large number of that core constituency engages in co-ownership. (Three of my four adult dogs are co-owned and I co-own several dogs that I’ve sold to others.) No, they wouldn’t all be at risk of becoming high volume retail breeders but many certainly would be.

When replying to comments following Steve Dale’s article one person suggested several times that those of us who are show breeders should be willing to give up our hobby and reduce our breeding for the sake of passing PUPS. I don’t think he ever quite grasped the concept of “hobby” as opposed to breeding as a business.

I think what many people fail to realize is that those of us who breed dogs for show and as a hobby are the very people who are producing dogs of the highest quality in this country. It’s all very well to say that we should be willing to breed less, embrace PUPS, get rid of those awful bad kennel operators. But every time Congress tries to pass a law to get rid of bad breeders they include provisions that would hurt show and hobby breeders — the people who are breeding quality dogs, donating to canine health research, keeping breeds alive. If show and hobby breeders are driven out of breeding or forced to cut back, it hurts all purebred dogs in this country. It hurts dog owners and the consumer who wants to buy a dog. If there are fewer show and hobby breeders producing dogs, the quality of dogs in the U.S. will inevitably decline as a result of PUPS.

Instead of creating new laws like PUPS, which will hurt dedicated breeders, the USDA should be encouraged to better enforce the laws that are already on the books. There are simply too many negative consequences to PUPS which are not being considered by the people supporting it.

PUPS Discussion

The Steve Dale blog currently has a good discussion about PUPS if you're looking for more information about the bill. Steve discusses the bill and brings up some of the problems with it. For instance, he talks about things that the OIG report found when they did a review of the USDA inspection process for commercial breeders. Problems were definitely found. However, those issues are already being addressed by the agency.

Of course, what needs to happen at the USDA is better enforcement of existing laws, not the creation of a new law which would add thousands more breeders — hobby and home breeders! — for inspectors to inspect. The inspectors are already stretched thin (approximately 100 inspectors for 5000 commercial breeders). How on earth would they be able to improve their performance if they had to add thousands of new breeders to those they already inspect? It makes no sense whatsoever. PUPS makes no provision for additional funding or inspectors either. It would set the USDA up to fail even more spectacularly.

Check out the Steve Dale blog for a good discussion. Be sure to read the comments. There seems to be an HSUS shill commenting and pushing for the bill.

More Information about PUPS

There is more and better information about PUPS online now than when the bill was first introduced. The German Shepherd Dog Club of America has a good section on the bill: http://www.gsdca.org/german-shepherd-dogs/dog-legislation/pups-bill They provide many background materials about similar bills that have been introduced in the past along with supporting documents.

Of particular interest are the PUPS bill itself Read THE BILL (S-3424), the SAOVA position paper Here is the SAOVA PUPS Position Paper - Background and Analysis, and the Illinois Federation of Dog Clubs & Owners position paper Here is Position Paper of the Illinois Federation of Dog Club and Owners.

What Is PUPS About?

If you haven't written to your representative and senators about PUPS yet, please take a few minutes to write. I think you can find everything you need here below on the TN Pet-Law blog: http://tnpetlawnews.blogspot.com/ You can type in your zip code to find your congressman if you don't know who it is. You can click on a live link to go to their web site. And we have sample letters so you can just paste in what to tell them and your senators. The two senators are the same for all of us in Tennessee.

• If you're not sure what PUPS is about, it would mean that anyone who sells 50 puppies a year would have to be USDA licensed and inspected. You may think that wouldn't affect you BUT it would also include you if you co-own dogs with other people. So, if you co-own a few bitches with other people and they have litters, all of their puppies would be counted toward your 50-puppy total. Even if you didn't have a litter yourself you might have to be licensed because you would be considered as the owner of 50 puppies who were being sold.
• If you have to be licensed it means that all of the areas where you keep dogs (including your house) would have to meet USDA inspection standards and you would be inspected. Yes, you would have to meet USDA kennel standards in your home if you kept dogs there. Since most people can't do that (able to hose down walls and floors, having surfaces impervious to moisture, able to reach high temps to disinfect, etc.) it means you wouldn't be able to raise dogs in your home.
• The bill also covers people who sell over the Internet, by telephone, and just about any other way you can imagine.
• And, the bill describes a four-month old female dog as an adult. If you own just one four-month old female dog for breeding, you could fall under this bill.
• That's how it could affect hobby breeders and people who breed at home. There are also a few provisions in the bill that will affect commercial breeders, such as what kind of flooring can be used in cages/kennels; and how dogs may be exercised.

I'm sorry that AKC has not given guidance on this bill but we can't wait for them. There are now 98 co-sponsors in the House with more signing on every day. Please write to your representative and senators and ask them not to take any action on this bill.

Carlotta

How To Find Your Congressman

If you're not sure who your congressman is you can go to this site Write Your Representative and find out.

Just select "Tennessee" in the pull-down menu. Then enter your zip code. It asks for your four-digit extension. If you're like many people and you don't know it you can click on the link and type in your address to find your four-digit extension.

Then click "Contact My Representative."

That will take you straight to the web form for your congressman. You can fill it out with your contact information and then paste in your message asking him/her not to take any action on PUPS.

Please do contact your representative. We really need to stop PUPS now by asking our representatives not to become co-sponsors. Don't forget to write to your U.S. senators, too.

Contact Info for Tennessee's Congressmen and Senators

According to the latest update today, there are now 94 co-sponsors for the House version of PUPS. We really need you to contact your congressman and both senators about PUPS and ask them not to take any action on these bills.

You can see the co-sponsors on this site:

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR05434:@@@P

So far there is only one Tennessee congressman on the list. We need to keep it that way! Write your congressman and make sure he doesn't become a co-sponsor!

Here are the e-mail addresses for our U.S. congressmen and senators from Tennessee. Please send the PUPS messages to your specific congressman and to BOTH senators.

http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml#tn

Tennessee

• Blackburn, Marsha, Tennessee 7th
• Cohen, Steve, Tennessee, 9th
• Cooper, Jim, Tennessee, 5th
• Davis, Lincoln, Tennessee, 4th
• Duncan Jr., John J., Tennessee, 2nd
• Gordon, Bart, Tennessee, 6th
• Roe, Phil, Tennessee, 1st
• Tanner, John, Tennessee, 8th
• Wamp, Zach, Tennessee, 3rd

You'll have to go to the web site for your congressman and click on the contact link. Then paste your message.

Here are the contact links for the two senators:

Alexander, Lamar - (R - TN)
455 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4944
Web Form: alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Email
Corker, Bob - (R - TN)
185 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3344
Web Form: corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactMe

Carlotta