UPDATE ON MEMPHIS

UPDATE ON MEMPHIS (August 21,2010)

I just returned from the Memphis KC Dog Show where I represented the ARC Legislative Committee. Donna Malone with the TN AKC Federation, Responsible Animal Owners of TN, shared the legislation table with me.

We had preprinted opposition letters at the ready, plus we had exhibitors

turn in armbands stating they were against the proposal, how much money

they spent in the Memphis area, etc...Just for today, I think we collected

somewhere in the neighborhood of 125 LETTERS/BANDS!

Donna will be at the table tomorrow collecting more, so be sure to stop by!

I made a tri-fold display (the kind kids use for science projects) with

the header reading "MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER KILLS ANIMALS"...People were really coming over and listening and taking the handouts.

The first of three readings will be this Tuesday @ 4pm. The "big vote"

will take place (as of now) On Sept 21.

It is vital that all Memphis residents, dog owners, breeders, clubs, civic

groups, etc...write and OPPOSE this misguided ordinance.

As of now, the following clubs have pledged their opposition:

American Kennel Club

American Rottweiler Club

American Whippet Club

Feline Friends Internationale

CAVA

Golden State Rottweiler Club

Cumberland Valley Dachshund Club

Mid-South Toy Fox Terrier Club of Memphis

TN Federation of Dog Clubs

We The People Pets

German Shepherd Dog Club of West Ky

Maury County Kennel Club of TN

Nashville TN Kennel Club

Tullahoma KC of TN

SAOVA--Sportsmen and Animal Owners Voting Alliance

My apologies if I have left anyone out...I'm soo tired!

Make no mistake; this ordinance is "backdoor bsl". It calls for the

mandatory spay/neuter of ALL DOGS WEIGHING 30 POUNDS or more.

Permission to cross-post.

Robin Cannon

Member-American Rottweiler Club Legislative Committee

AKC Legislative Liaison, German Shepherd Dog Club of WEst KY, Paducah KY

Kennel Club

Memphis,TN Targets Dachshunds, Whippets, Goldens, Plus More breeds in "Backdoor BSL" Ordinance

Please contact the council members below! The provisions of this ordinance will affect everyone in Memphis and they could affect you if you are in the area at all.

Carlotta

Memphis,TN Targets Dachshunds, Whippets, Goldens, Plus More breeds in "Backdoor BSL" Ordinance

by Robin McCall Cannon

August 17, 2010

Re: Proposed Memphis Ordinance: "Backdoor Breed-Specific Legislation", "Fertile Animal Permits", Mandatory Spay/Neuter

To All Clubs, Dog Owners, Breeders & Fellow Exhibitors:

I am writing to you today as a concerned dog owner, breeder, exhibitor and as a member of the American Rottweiler Club's Legislative Committee. The Committee has written the councilmen and voiced our opposition and we are proud to be working with The Responsible Animal Owner's of TN (AKC TN Federation) to defeat this measure.

As you may be aware, the city of Memphis, TN, is considering additions to its animal control ordinance. Earlier this year (March), Councilman Shea Flinn proposed breed-specific 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.

Earlier this week, the Public Services and Neighborhood Committee voted unanimously to send the proposed ordinance (crafted by Councilman Shea Flinn) to the full city council. Before it can become law, it must go through three readings.

The current proposal would "Require dogs over 29 pounds to be SPAYED/NEUTERED", unless the owner purchases a one-time "fertile animal permit", and meets other "agency approved criteria", which is outlined below. The proposal also seeks to impose a cap of "one litter per year" per household.

Instead of naming breeds (specifically) this time around, the current proposal names them BY WEIGHT. This is nothing less than breed-specific legislation, except we call it "going thru the backdoor". The usually targeted breeds such as Rottweilers, Dobermans, German Shepherds, Am Staffs (what is referred to in the slang as "pit bulls) will be caught under this proposed ordinance.

However, for those of you that own breeds that you thought would "never be targeted by BSL", here is a sample listing of breeds that WILL be caught in the "Backdoor BSL" trap: Brittanys, Dachshunds, Golden Retrievers, Labrador Retrievers, Afghan Hounds, Skye Terriers, Bluetick Coonhounds, Whippets...the list goes on.

Imagine you are attending a dog event and your dog breaks its leash and ends up in the hands of animal control. Do you have friends that live in Memphis and will be directly targeted by this proposed ordinance? Memphis is on the animal rightists radar screen and its citizens and dogs need our help!

It is imperative that each club, parent club, training organization, breeders and exhibitors, write a letter of opposition to the Memphis City Council Members by no later than this coming Monday, August 23rd, as the first of three readings will take place (we believe) on Tuesday. We are asking for everyone's help in defeating this terrible proposed ordinance, especially those in Memphis, Shelby County and the surrounding municipalities.

For your convenience, the names and email addresses of all of the city councilmen are provided at the bottom of this email.

A table will be set up at the Memphis Kennel Club show this Saturday, August 21, with information on the proposed ordinance with the goal of getting people involved in the fight to defeat it. I am proud to say that I will be there, representing the ARC Legislative Committee, assisting Donna Malone (raotinc@aol.com) and The RAOT, INC.

It is imperative that we flood the council members with letters of opposition and stand together in this fight against this AR-inspired proposal.

If anyone has any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Permission to cross-post this message in its entirety is highly encouraged.

Robin Cannon,

American Rottweiler Club Legislative Committee Member

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

Provisions of the Ordinance

* Require dogs over 29 pounds to be spayed/neutered 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. (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.)

* 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.

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

What On Earth Is Happening In Chattanooga?

From an animal perspective, Chattanooga has been a hot spot this summer. Things started to erupt in June when the animal control folks at the McKamey Center say they got a tip from an employee at The Pet Company, located in swanky Hamilton Place Mall. The employee, acting as a whistleblower, claimed that conditions at the store were not good. This had to be a dream come true for McKamey. There were many people in Chattanooga who had been petitioning against the pet store for years, simply on the grounds that they sold live animals, regardless of the care they received.

So, the McKamey people rounded up an inspector from the Tennessee Department of Agriculture and some police and conducted an inspection/raid on The Pet Company early one morning in mid-June. They took away with them over 80 animals when they left — puppies, hamsters — everything but the fish — and were confident that the store would be closed permanently.

But, not so fast.

The Pet Company was not some local Tennessee resident with no money who could be intimidated by animal control. Instead, they are a large chain of pet stores located throughout the United States, headquartered in New Jersey. They appear to be quite a profitable company, or they appeared to be when you could find their company web site online. It seems to be missing now, no doubt because of hate mail. At any rate, The Pet Company was prepared to fight back against McKamey and the charges being made. They wanted their animals back and they had no intention of losing their license to operate.

What followed in Chattanooga was nothing short of a circus over the next several weeks. Several news outlets followed the story, with varying degrees of impartiality. The Chattanooga Times Free Press generally gives the most straightforward accounts. You can read The Chattanoogan for more florid details.

Instead of accepting the loss of their animals and license, The Pet Company went to trial to fight the charges against them. They wanted the charges tossed out. Judge Sherry Paty presided over a very difficult case. I thought she did a superb job in a hard situation. After hearing several days of testimony from The Pet Company and from McKamey — during which the inspector for the State of Tennessee admitted he didn’t know what some of the items he was supposed to cover on his report meant; the whistleblower seemed to be caught lying about seeing a live hamster being put in a trash compactor; and other exaggerations were revealed — Judge Paty rendered her decision. The Pet Company would get their animals back. All but some of the puppies which were being treated for giardia at McKamey (giardia is a parasite that is easily passed among dogs, especially puppies, and can be simply treated). As far as the store’s license to operate was concerned, Judge Paty said she would abide by the decision reached by the Tennessee Department of Agriculture in a few days.

Chattanooga boiled over. There were practically demands for Judge Paty’s head on a platter. People couldn’t understand why this PET STORE which sold puppies wasn’t being punished.

To make matters even worse, the Tennessee Department of Agriculture in Nashville said that The Pet Company could continue to operate if they would do a better job of following animal care guidelines. There would be frequent inspections but they could keep their license.

By this time the good people of Chattanooga, especially the people in charge of the city, had all they could stomach of The Pet Company. These rascals from New Jersey (and the city elite were reminding people that The Pet Company was from out of town at every opportunity in the press) were sticking it to the locals! They were being slick with their “legal maneuvering,” i.e., having a good attorney.

But this wasn’t the end of the story. At this point McKamey was left holding the bag for what they claimed was $40,000 in costs for caring for puppies and hamsters for a few weeks. (I wish somebody would pay ME that much for taking care of animals.) They were demanding that The Pet Company reimburse them and refusing to return the animals to them.

Just when you thought this story couldn’t get any more convoluted came the news that Judge Paty was recusing herself from the case. It seems that Mayor Ron Littlefield of Chattanooga had improperly contacted the judge earlier in the case, trying to influence her against The Pet Company. Not only that, but Mayor Littlefield admitted it and said that he often contacted judges during their cases! It seems like standard operating procedure in Chattanooga. Whatever the case, Judge Paty was recusing herself which meant that the entire case had to be thrown out. It would have to start at the beginning again and re-tried.

So, that’s where we are right now. Getting ready for Round Two.

If you care about my opinion, I think that The Pet Company certainly needed to clean up its act. From the testimony it sounds like they needed to improve their standards for cleanliness and many of their operating procedures. And there was no dispute that the compressor for their air conditioner was not functioning for 2-3 weeks. That should have been repaired quickly.

On the other hand, I think that McKamey certainly comes off looking very bad here. They seem to be completely unfamiliar with the operating procedures for pet stores. It is ridiculous to try to hold a pet store to the same standards that you would apply to animal care in someone’s home. I’m sure if I visited the McKamey Center I would find many things that I don’t approve of but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they should cease to operate.

I think it’s very clear that McKamey was acting on a vendetta against The Pet Company because they are a pet store which sells puppies and other live animals. I think that’s inexcusable. Whether McKamey or any other animal control authority likes it or not, as long as it is legal to sell animals in pet stores (and it is legal), they should stick to carrying out their duties without trying to close legitimate businesses. There was no animal abuse at this pet store. There wasn’t any neglect. There were some conditions that needed to be improved. They could have given the store some written warnings and returned in a few days to see that the conditions were improved. This would most likely have taken care of the problems and saved the city of Chattanooga thousands of dollars in court costs and legal fees, not to mention the $40,000 (plus) which McKamey is now trying to get back from the store. It would also have saved McKamey from (once again) looking foolish, not to mention so many city leaders from having little conniption fits in public.

As it is currently under Tennessee law, animal control authorities can seize animals and require that a bond be posted within 15 days. After that time, if no bond has been posted, they can do what they like with the animals. If you can’t come up with the security bond to pay for the care of the animals then you’re out of luck. Fortunately for The Pet Company, they have deep pockets, and a good attorney, so they can get their animals back. For most average citizens, they would never be able to come up with the kind of money it takes to post security for multiple animals. If you’re a breeder or if you operate a rescue, or if you’re a pet owner with several animals, and animal control executes a raid on you without just cause, if you can’t come up with that money, your animals are gone. The animal control authority can sell them, adopt them out or euthanize them as they wish.

I think what we need is a better system. If an animal control authority conducts a raid and it is shown to be improper then the victim should not have to bear any costs or expenses associated with the care of the animals, and any bond or security should be refunded. I think this would cut down on a lot of bogus raids. Animal control does need to be able to do its job when there is genuine animal abuse but in these cases where they are making up charges against law-abiding breeders, rescues and pet owners or carrying out vendettas, they need to be curtailed. They should not be free to operate and persecute people and force people to pay thousands of dollars and lose their animals without any consequences.

If an animal control authority actually has to stop and think, “Are we going to be stuck paying for the care of these animals ourselves? Is there real evidence of abuse here?” I think it would dramatically reduce the number of false raids on innocent people — and businesses. There is no excuse for raiding a pet store just because you don’t like the fact that they sell puppies. There needs to be some real evidence of abuse and neglect, not these made up charges as in the case of McKamey and The Pet Company.

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.

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.