A hands-on shelter said "no thanks" to $5,000 from HSUS because of the political strings attached. Here's the link to the news article with the full details. The board of directors was unanimous in their decision.
http://tinyurl.com/6553697
Check out their donation page and give what you can. (PayPal option at bottom of page). Please include in your "comments to seller' that you support their decision to reject the HSUS's donation.
http://www.pawsandclawsne.org/
Maandag 11 Julie 2011
Donderdag 07 Julie 2011
California’s Vegan Revolution- Animal Owners, Raisers, and Farmers in the Crosshairs
California has long been a bastion for those who dare to dream, innovate, and strive to create new frontiers whether it is in science, academia, the arts, business, or politics. From these creative forces we Californians have given the nation significant advances in science and technology (the microchip), the movie industry ( Hollywood ), a gifted president (President Reagan), and last, but certainly not least, some of the finest agriculture the world has ever known. At its zenith, all of these wonderful achievements coalesced to form the quintessential "California Dream" and from this wellspring came forth the famous and factual saying "so goes California, so goes the nation".
But, it is becoming more clear with each passing day that something is terribly, terribly wrong in California . Gradually, unnoticed by most, California is slowly deteriorating over time like a grand old mansion with a steadily crumbling foundation. The California Dream is slowly dying and what seems to be rising from the ashes is a nightmare. Why? How did this happen? The answer is quite simple. Deliberate and strategic social and political engineering by motivated special interest groups. These groups seek to force their agendas upon us via carefully crafted and legislated mandates. The most powerful, dangerous, and influential of these groups are found in the realms of Environmental Activism (green groups) and Animal Rights. Homeland Security has identified in an official national security report that these groups constitute one of the most dangerous terrorist threats to America on a par with Muslim jihadists. While we have been busily pursuing our livelihoods and enjoying our families and animals, these dangerous groups have been stealthily working behind the scenes to gain more and more political power and influence over us all.
Among the more potent of these special interest groups are HSUS (Humane Society of the United States ) and PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). HSUS is the richest and most politically powerful Animal Rights organization in the world. They seek to synthesize an unnatural world devoid of all animal use including the abolition of pet ownership and animal based farming. Their ultimate goal is nothing less than the extinction of all domestic species.
Here is one of the more infamous quotes from the president of HSUS, Wayne Pacelle, which clearly conveys this horrific goal: "We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding."— Animal People News, May 1993 PETA, funded by George Soros' Tides Foundation, is no less radical in their beliefs as conveyed by their president Ingrid Newkirk: "There's no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They're all animals."— Ingrid Newkirk, Washingtonian magazine, Aug 1986 and: "Humans have grown like a cancer. We're the biggest blight on the face of the earth."— Ingrid Newkirk, Washingtonian magazine, Feb 1990 Shockingly, PETA kills over 95% of the animals it take into their Norfolk, Virginia "shelter" annually according to state records. One can only assume that they equate death with kindness.
Here is one of the more infamous quotes from the president of HSUS, Wayne Pacelle, which clearly conveys this horrific goal: "We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding."— Animal People News, May 1993 PETA, funded by George Soros' Tides Foundation, is no less radical in their beliefs as conveyed by their president Ingrid Newkirk: "There's no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They're all animals."— Ingrid Newkirk, Washingtonian magazine, Aug 1986 and: "Humans have grown like a cancer. We're the biggest blight on the face of the earth."— Ingrid Newkirk, Washingtonian magazine, Feb 1990 Shockingly, PETA kills over 95% of the animals it take into their Norfolk, Virginia "shelter" annually according to state records. One can only assume that they equate death with kindness.
Unbelievably, HSUS, and to a lesser extent PETA, have grown into well funded juggernauts with tremendous political influence at the local, state, and federal levels in the United States . HSUS pushes for a thousand plus laws on all levels per year to usher in their brave new vegan vision. Most of this lobbying activity is illegal and based upon fraudulent fundraising activity. There is an ongoing IRS investigation into this matter. Meanwhile, PETA's focus is the media, education, and influencing public opinion to embrace the Animal Rights agenda. They have been incredibly successful to this end.
It has long been the goal of HSUS and PETA to "capture" California and to mandate veganism through carefully worded and placed state laws. The "capture" of California would be the crown jewel of their Animal Rights movement knowing that "so goes California , so goes the nation". To this end, HSUS has ushered forth SB 917 and AB 1117. SB 917 will legally redefine the term "animal cruelty" with purposefully overbroad and poorly defined law to include the transportation, display, and all sales of animals on public property.
Think carefully about that. This would mean that if you walk your dog or if your cat suns herself in your front yard you are, be the strictest interpretation of this law, "displaying" an animal and are guilty of "animal cruelty" which will be a misdemeanor replete with arrest, jail time, seizure of your animal, and punitive fines. If you transport rabbits to a show or take your dog to the vet you would, according to SB 917, be committing an act of animal cruelty. If your child gives away kittens in front of WalMart, she will instantly become a criminal in doing so. AB 1117 further expands the scope and reach of SB 917 by mandating seizure of all animals in one's possession if a single act of "animal cruelty" has occurred (see SB 917). Heavy fines and "upkeep" fees are then levied against the owner for each animal seized. AB 1117 allows for the killing or other disposition of seized animals before the accused can prove their innocence in court. This bill allows for the destruction of evidence and the theft of real property under the color of law. Furthermore, if the accusation is founded (remember all evidence has been destroyed or disposed of) then the accused will not be allowed to own any animal again for 5 to 10 years. All other people living with the accused are bound by the same mandate. It does not take a lot of imagination to figure out how such bills might destroy all animal based agriculture, pet breeding, and animal ownership in California.
Think carefully about that. This would mean that if you walk your dog or if your cat suns herself in your front yard you are, be the strictest interpretation of this law, "displaying" an animal and are guilty of "animal cruelty" which will be a misdemeanor replete with arrest, jail time, seizure of your animal, and punitive fines. If you transport rabbits to a show or take your dog to the vet you would, according to SB 917, be committing an act of animal cruelty. If your child gives away kittens in front of WalMart, she will instantly become a criminal in doing so. AB 1117 further expands the scope and reach of SB 917 by mandating seizure of all animals in one's possession if a single act of "animal cruelty" has occurred (see SB 917). Heavy fines and "upkeep" fees are then levied against the owner for each animal seized. AB 1117 allows for the killing or other disposition of seized animals before the accused can prove their innocence in court. This bill allows for the destruction of evidence and the theft of real property under the color of law. Furthermore, if the accusation is founded (remember all evidence has been destroyed or disposed of) then the accused will not be allowed to own any animal again for 5 to 10 years. All other people living with the accused are bound by the same mandate. It does not take a lot of imagination to figure out how such bills might destroy all animal based agriculture, pet breeding, and animal ownership in California.
Horrifically, both of these bills have nearly passed through both the California Assembly and Senate. If you find this both shocking and terrifying, then please immediately contact your representatives at the state and federal levels. Contact the governor of California and urge him to veto both SB 917 and AB 1117. After contacting your representatives, it is equally important to inform as many people as possible to do like-wise. Tell family members, friends, co-workers, and anyone else you can think of about these dangerous bills. Contact your local Tea Party and as many groups who have an interest in animal ownership that you can. Write to the editor of your local paper to get the word out. Knowledge is power. With knowledge and the fortitude to oppose those in power who push for these laws, we can effectively fight back against these highly influential Animal Rights special interest groups (HSUS and PETA) to save animal ownership in California .
Written by Diane Amble
California Animal Voters Alliance
Woensdag 06 Julie 2011
Unfriendly Fire
In today's anti-dog breeder legislative atmosphere, it would be really beneficial if the groups organized to protect our ownership interests would join forces in that effort. Alas, this is not even remotely on the radar of at least one particular group in California. Let's call them, for the sake of discussion, "Group A".
Group A is sponsoring a piece of legislation this session that would allow discounted puppy licensing. This same bill also mandates that pet dealers report their sales to their local licensing bureau.
Enter Group B. Group B notices that this bill would produce many undesirable unintended consequences for dogs and their owners. Several other animal interest groups (I guess those would be groups C, D and so on! LOL) also raised concerns regarding this bill. In many areas we have mandatory sterilization requirements, and oppressive limit laws, as well as differential license fees for intact dogs that are, in most cases, exponentially higher than fees for altered dogs. Mandated reporting could adversely affect dog owners. For example, in Los Angeles, the license fee for a sterilized dog is $20. However, the owner of an intact dog must pay $100 for their dog license, as well as a $235 fee for a breeder's permit. The breeder's permit is NOT optional; if the dog is intact you MUST pay for a breeder's permit. Whether you intend to breed the dog or not. This adds up to a yearly license fee of $335....per year....per dog. IF that dog "qualifies" to remain intact, that is. Is it any wonder that people are not lining up to license their dogs in Los Angeles?
Aggressive licensing is fine when you have a Bill Bruce or a Nathan Winograd in charge of the shelter. Instead, what we in California are stuck with is PETArds like Judie Mancuso and power-hungry vets like Alan Drusys....AC departments lying in wait, breathless with the anticipation of punishing the "greedy evil breeders" (direct Mancuso quote) for some technical violation of licensing, limits, mandatory spay/neuter or... we can now add to the list.... NONREPORTING of their sales to the local licensing agency. Can you foresee the day when an owner with a puppy presents to the local shelter to apply for their license? "And just WHO sold you this dog?" Gotcha, you evil breeder!
Coincidentally, we have ANOTHER bill proposed here in California right now that prohibits anyone convicted of an animal offense from contact with animals for a period of 5 to 10 years! And yet ANOTHER bill proposed to criminalize sales of animals in public places as a violation of animal cruelty laws. Let's connect the dots here. Make laws that are impossible to comply with, criminalize the owner, and then prohibit them from future animal contact! Clever little devils, those Animal Rights Fanatics. You gotta respect their malicious and tenacious spirit.
So, Group B opposes the puppy licensing/seller reporting bill and writes letters to the committees as this bill advances. Group A gets wind of the letter. Instead of agreeing to disagree, and respecting a well-thought out opposing opinion, Group A publicly posts disparaging comments about Group B on their blog. They claim that Group B is a "just say no" group; a LIE because group B is a sponsor of one bill this year and has written in support of another good bill. Group B simply does not support THIS particular bill, because it is NOT a good bill. Group A further maligns Group B, stating in their blog post:
In many counties and cities in the state, particularly in the more heavily populated areas, veterinarians ARE required to report all rabies vaccinations that they administer to the local licensing agency as well as maintain records of the same. This is how the cities and counties comply with state law for rabies vaccination and licensing compliance. Yes, San Diego, Los Angeles, Orange San Mateo and other heavily populated areas DO require veterinarians to report to the government the name and address of owners whose dogs they vaccinate.
San Mateo County states on their website:
www.tinyurl.com/smrabies
Required reporting of rabies vaccination or sales of animals by pet dealers only results in more people avoiding vaccination/licensing. Another unintended consequence could be owners turning their dog in to the shelter when it reaches a year old, is not a cute puppy any more, and all of a sudden has to either have costly sterilization surgery or pay a HUGE license fee. And in Los Angeles, you don't even get that choice, you must opt for sterilization unless you can "qualify" to keep your dog intact. Many people will have no choice but to give up the dog, considering today's tight economy. Spaying a dog costs in the neighborhood of $300 and up, unless you can find some sort of government-sponsored clinic where God only knows what quality of surgical care your dog will receive.
And, to address some other items in this blog post by Group A, I could give a rat's patoot if 77% of owners sterilize their dog by a year old....what about that other 23%? And besides that, we should not be mindlessly encouraging the spay-neuter mentality. The result can be a host of adverse health consequences. Confinement is already the law, which means that if properly confined there is NO risk of unwanted litters, and the owner should make the decision about whether or not to sterilize his dog. NOT be leaned on by the government at gunpoint.
Being intact does NOT equate to being bred. There is absolutely NO justification for lower license rates for sterilized dogs.
As to lower license rates for puppies, license fees should be consistent regardless of age or reproductive status. Differential rates for puppies or intact adults must be vigorously opposed on principle.
But, returning to the issue of the proposed puppy license/seller reporting bill. Instead of considering all the logical reasons to oppose this stupid piece of legislation, Group A attacks and misquotes the opponents of the bill by claiming that they said that ALL vets must report ALL rabies vaccinations to the state; as well as stating that Group B claimed that this is a state law. Which, again, was NEVER stated. No such statement was ever made by Group B.
And why oh why are we fixated on a minor point like who must report dog owners to the state for licensing purposes? It seems in Group A's warped view of the world, everybody must be reported to the state by SOMEBODY ELSE. If not veterinarians reporting via vaccination records, then the seller must get into the act? I don't know how others may feel on the subject, but in my estimation nanny government is NEVER a good idea. People need to be responsible for themselves and their own actions, and we surely do not need tattletale busybodies reporting their neighbors to Big Brother. If my dog needs a license then I am the one responsible to procure said license.
Group A has a history of sniper attacks against other groups with whom they should instead be cooperating to protect our common interests. But with their sponsorship of this bill, and their constant libelous attacks on other animal ownership groups in the state, it is apparent that Group A is no longer working in the best interests of either dogs or their owners.
Well, there is certainly no point in sleeping with the enemy. We can only pray that Group A folds up their tent and goes away before they do further irreparable damage.
Group A is sponsoring a piece of legislation this session that would allow discounted puppy licensing. This same bill also mandates that pet dealers report their sales to their local licensing bureau.
Enter Group B. Group B notices that this bill would produce many undesirable unintended consequences for dogs and their owners. Several other animal interest groups (I guess those would be groups C, D and so on! LOL) also raised concerns regarding this bill. In many areas we have mandatory sterilization requirements, and oppressive limit laws, as well as differential license fees for intact dogs that are, in most cases, exponentially higher than fees for altered dogs. Mandated reporting could adversely affect dog owners. For example, in Los Angeles, the license fee for a sterilized dog is $20. However, the owner of an intact dog must pay $100 for their dog license, as well as a $235 fee for a breeder's permit. The breeder's permit is NOT optional; if the dog is intact you MUST pay for a breeder's permit. Whether you intend to breed the dog or not. This adds up to a yearly license fee of $335....per year....per dog. IF that dog "qualifies" to remain intact, that is. Is it any wonder that people are not lining up to license their dogs in Los Angeles?
Aggressive licensing is fine when you have a Bill Bruce or a Nathan Winograd in charge of the shelter. Instead, what we in California are stuck with is PETArds like Judie Mancuso and power-hungry vets like Alan Drusys....AC departments lying in wait, breathless with the anticipation of punishing the "greedy evil breeders" (direct Mancuso quote) for some technical violation of licensing, limits, mandatory spay/neuter or... we can now add to the list.... NONREPORTING of their sales to the local licensing agency. Can you foresee the day when an owner with a puppy presents to the local shelter to apply for their license? "And just WHO sold you this dog?" Gotcha, you evil breeder!
Coincidentally, we have ANOTHER bill proposed here in California right now that prohibits anyone convicted of an animal offense from contact with animals for a period of 5 to 10 years! And yet ANOTHER bill proposed to criminalize sales of animals in public places as a violation of animal cruelty laws. Let's connect the dots here. Make laws that are impossible to comply with, criminalize the owner, and then prohibit them from future animal contact! Clever little devils, those Animal Rights Fanatics. You gotta respect their malicious and tenacious spirit.
So, Group B opposes the puppy licensing/seller reporting bill and writes letters to the committees as this bill advances. Group A gets wind of the letter. Instead of agreeing to disagree, and respecting a well-thought out opposing opinion, Group A publicly posts disparaging comments about Group B on their blog. They claim that Group B is a "just say no" group; a LIE because group B is a sponsor of one bill this year and has written in support of another good bill. Group B simply does not support THIS particular bill, because it is NOT a good bill. Group A further maligns Group B, stating in their blog post:
But we were stunned to see them give as a primary reason that all vets are already required to report rabies vaccinations to all local governments. From their letter:Now Group A is being rather disingenuous here, because they should know that according to the California Health and Safety Code, section 12169 (e) in reference to rabies vaccination enforcment:
Currently, veterinarians are already required to report any dogs vaccinated for rabies to licensing authorities. THERE IS NO SUCH STATE LAW. And we don't want such a state law.
"The governing body of each city, city and county, or county shall maintain or provide for the maintenance of a pound system and a rabies control program for the purpose of carrying out and enforcing this section."
In many counties and cities in the state, particularly in the more heavily populated areas, veterinarians ARE required to report all rabies vaccinations that they administer to the local licensing agency as well as maintain records of the same. This is how the cities and counties comply with state law for rabies vaccination and licensing compliance. Yes, San Diego, Los Angeles, Orange San Mateo and other heavily populated areas DO require veterinarians to report to the government the name and address of owners whose dogs they vaccinate.
San Mateo County states on their website:
" Rabies vaccination reporting is required under the California Health and Safety Code 12169."And further goes on to quote their own ordinance:
"Every veterinarian who vaccinates or causes or directs to be vaccinated in the County any dog, cat, or wolf hybrid with anti-rabies vaccine shall certify that such animal has been vaccinated. Every veterinarian shall submit to the licensing authority a copy of the County-approved anti-rabies form, within ten (10) days of beginning of each month, for any dog, cat or wolf hybrid which he/she vaccinates or directs to be vaccinated with anti-rabies during the previous month. An Animal Control Officer or Animal Licensing Officer shall have the right to inspect records of rabies vaccination during normal business hours."
www.tinyurl.com/smrabies
Required reporting of rabies vaccination or sales of animals by pet dealers only results in more people avoiding vaccination/licensing. Another unintended consequence could be owners turning their dog in to the shelter when it reaches a year old, is not a cute puppy any more, and all of a sudden has to either have costly sterilization surgery or pay a HUGE license fee. And in Los Angeles, you don't even get that choice, you must opt for sterilization unless you can "qualify" to keep your dog intact. Many people will have no choice but to give up the dog, considering today's tight economy. Spaying a dog costs in the neighborhood of $300 and up, unless you can find some sort of government-sponsored clinic where God only knows what quality of surgical care your dog will receive.
And, to address some other items in this blog post by Group A, I could give a rat's patoot if 77% of owners sterilize their dog by a year old....what about that other 23%? And besides that, we should not be mindlessly encouraging the spay-neuter mentality. The result can be a host of adverse health consequences. Confinement is already the law, which means that if properly confined there is NO risk of unwanted litters, and the owner should make the decision about whether or not to sterilize his dog. NOT be leaned on by the government at gunpoint.
Being intact does NOT equate to being bred. There is absolutely NO justification for lower license rates for sterilized dogs.
As to lower license rates for puppies, license fees should be consistent regardless of age or reproductive status. Differential rates for puppies or intact adults must be vigorously opposed on principle.
But, returning to the issue of the proposed puppy license/seller reporting bill. Instead of considering all the logical reasons to oppose this stupid piece of legislation, Group A attacks and misquotes the opponents of the bill by claiming that they said that ALL vets must report ALL rabies vaccinations to the state; as well as stating that Group B claimed that this is a state law. Which, again, was NEVER stated. No such statement was ever made by Group B.
And why oh why are we fixated on a minor point like who must report dog owners to the state for licensing purposes? It seems in Group A's warped view of the world, everybody must be reported to the state by SOMEBODY ELSE. If not veterinarians reporting via vaccination records, then the seller must get into the act? I don't know how others may feel on the subject, but in my estimation nanny government is NEVER a good idea. People need to be responsible for themselves and their own actions, and we surely do not need tattletale busybodies reporting their neighbors to Big Brother. If my dog needs a license then I am the one responsible to procure said license.
Group A has a history of sniper attacks against other groups with whom they should instead be cooperating to protect our common interests. But with their sponsorship of this bill, and their constant libelous attacks on other animal ownership groups in the state, it is apparent that Group A is no longer working in the best interests of either dogs or their owners.
Well, there is certainly no point in sleeping with the enemy. We can only pray that Group A folds up their tent and goes away before they do further irreparable damage.
Vrydag 01 Julie 2011
Lake County - another Cali-Failure
Here's living proof of the inevitable abject failure of animal policies being written into law California. Lake County has a mandatory spay/neuter law, but apparently no one remembered to tell the cats about it. There's now a cat population explosion! And, oddly enough, the cats are not lining up at the shelter to be sterilized OR killed.
No problem, you might say. Repeat after me:
TRAP
NEUTER
RELEASE
It works!
But no, Lake County does not utilize a trap-neuter-release program. They advise the residents to either shoot the cats, or bring them in to the shelter to be killed! Truly humane animal lovers there. And boy their system really is working for them, isn't it?
You know what we continually remind people of on this blog. It ain't "euthanasia" when you kill healthy animals. It's just plain KILLING.
So, how's that mandatory spay-neuter law workin' for y'all there in Lake County? Hmm??? Ready for a Nathan Winograd No-Kill seminar yet? Or will you continue on your current failed course?
TRAP
NEUTER
RELEASE
It works!
But no, Lake County does not utilize a trap-neuter-release program. They advise the residents to either shoot the cats, or bring them in to the shelter to be killed! Truly humane animal lovers there. And boy their system really is working for them, isn't it?
The rest of the state should sit up and take notice.
LAKEPORT, Calif. – Everyone has seen them – and many have fed them – but community members learned at a presentation last Friday the depth and scope of the feral and unowned cat problem in Lake County.
The startling truth: Lake County euthanizes more cats per capita than any other county in the state.
http://lakeconews.com/content/view/20377/919/
The startling truth: Lake County euthanizes more cats per capita than any other county in the state.
http://lakeconews.com/content/view/20377/919/
You know what we continually remind people of on this blog. It ain't "euthanasia" when you kill healthy animals. It's just plain KILLING.
So, how's that mandatory spay-neuter law workin' for y'all there in Lake County? Hmm??? Ready for a Nathan Winograd No-Kill seminar yet? Or will you continue on your current failed course?
Donderdag 30 Junie 2011
Mother Dog and Nine Puppies sent from Taiwan to LA
On June 2, one animal rescue group was on hand to welcome a special shipment they had arranged to arrive at Los Angeles International Airport. Nine puppies and their mother landed in a plane from Taiwan. The young family had been trapped in a drainage ditch and nearly lost their lives.
The rate of abuse to dogs in Taiwan is rampant and beyond rational understanding. It is commonplace for dogs to be tortured with hot oil on their faces and backs or to be caught in metal traps and left to bleed to death. And like the dogs that arrived at LAX, many are dropped into deep ditches so they cannot get out and eventually die of starvation.
So when A Dog̢۪s Life Rescue (ADLR) was contacted by Animal Rescue Team TAIWAN, they knew they couldn̢۪t turn the four-legged family away. The group quickly made all the necessary arrangements to put the dogs on a plane the next day.
More at link:
Rescue Roulette
http://www.opposingviews.com/
This is the story of Dexter, a non-descript German Shepherd/Chow-mix, 50-lb. dog, like thousands in shelters across the country.? In February 2011, Dexter was scheduled
http://www.opposingviews.com/
This is the story of Dexter, a non-descript German Shepherd/Chow-mix, 50-lb. dog, like thousands in shelters across the country.? In February 2011, Dexter was scheduled
__._,_.___
Teken in op:
Plasings (Atom)