AVMA Surrendered to the Dark Side

As an owner of multiple dogs I was surprised to find that the American Veterinary Medical Association has position statements on their website, including a position statement in support of PUPS. PUPS is the federal bill that would subject many more breeders to APHIS guidelines. You know, those rules that force breeders to keep their dogs and puppies in sterile environments, to log all activity including any interaction with their dogs/puppies (thereby discouraging such interaction) and to submit to unannounced inspection of their property at any time.

 

Naturally, such unreasonable requirements discourage most reasonable people from breeding and would drastically reduce the ranks of dog breeders; but, of course, that is the whole intention of the new rules. The are certainly not intended to support and encourage dog breeding. I was pleased to see my friend post this note to the AVMA.

 

March 19, 2013 at 1:46 pm

Hi AVMA/Animal Rights Group:

 Do you have a list of vets who do NOT belong to AVMA? If so I would like to have it so I can find a vet that supports my rights to own, breed and co-own my chosen breed. A vet who realizes that I could own NO breeding animal on my own property and still fall under the PUPS guidelines. A vet who realizes that my home environment cannot be washed down with 180 degree water and that I have soft surfaces that are not "impervious to moisture" so I would never be able to comply with PUPS. A vet who knows that rally, obedience and flyball involve "repetitive exercise' and that I would not be in compliance with PUPS if I used these as forms of exercise for my dogs. A vet who knows that when I write him/her a check for thousands or dollars or slap down my open-ended credit card to save my dog's life that I am a caring breeder no matter how many "breedable' females I own or co-own or how many puppies I sell in one year. A vet who knows that without me, he/she would not be in business, or that their business would be sadly curtailed.

 Please send me that list of non-AVMA veterinarians so I can support that person.. the one who respects my rights, and my dogs, and my brain.

Thank you

 

 

BRAVO!!! I'll be asking for that list myself; or perhaps using the AVMA website function of "find a member" to determine who NOT to support with my hard-earned dollars.

 

This position statement of the AVMA is rather foolish, because after all, veterinarians are ultimately the ones who actually profit from dogs, not the vast majority of breeders. And where would pet lovers be without breeders? Petless and lonely, that's where.

 

Elimination of pet ownership is the dream of the animal rights extremists. It seems AVMA has already surrendered to the Dark Side. Let's hope for the good of society that they will wise up sooner rather than later.

 
 

Climate Control

"We" the responsible show breeders deserve to breed our dogs, because we are so, well, AWESOME, right? We pamper our pooches, we lose a ton of money breeding and showing our dogs. We seldom have litters, we screen our homes, we health test, we belong to breed clubs, we are motivated by love, not money.

Yes, we ARE the bees knees!!! But what about those who might have different goals and different purposes from ours? Are they less “worthy” of breeding? We seemingly don't have a problem with laws that limit those unscrupulous "other" breeders. And they may do things that most of us don't do. They sell dogs over the internet, or to "pet shops" or through brokers or they breed their bitches every year. But, we have to STOP assuming that every broker is bad, that pet stores are merchants of greed and horror, that anyone who is motivated by money is necessarily an evil abuser.

Because it's just plain not true.

All dogs are not destined to serve as primarily as "pets", although even those with jobs are usually dearly cherished by their owners. Military working dogs are procured via brokers and breeders who specifically breed for that market. Guide Dogs for the Blind organizations breed dogs for a specific “helpmate” function. They crossbreed, they breed for aptitude, and they certainly have more than one or two litters a year. Dogs used on farms and ranches have jobs to do, and those who are the strongest and smartest and demonstrate the best ability will probably be selected to be bred to provide us with the next generation.

Traditionally, we have had choice. The choice to own a purebred dog, or a mixed breed dog, to breed as we see fit, whether we want a pet litter of "doodles", or a show litter, or a litter to hopefully produce a dog who will excel at a certain function. (Even if that function is catching frisbees). Do we really want the government stepping in and setting up ridiculous breeding rules? Must belong to a breed club, must do X-Y-Z health certification, must not crossbreed, and on and on ad nauseum.
Do we really want the government demanding that we forego the purebred puppy in the pet shop, with a pedigree and a health history, in favor of imported strays with completely unknown backgrounds? Families who want a pet currently can pick up the newspaper want ads and find one to suit their needs (although last time I checked, there were NO pets advertised in our local paper). Should it be illegal to advertise animals over the internet or in newspaper want ads? Should people have to beg permission from the government in order to breed a litter? These are all issues we currently face in today's climate of government control of our hobby.

Animal Rights extremists want to replace puppies resulting from planned litters with unplanned, crossbred street dogs, many of which are from foreign countries. They've already gotten laws passed to make this the ONLY sort of pet found in a pet stores in many localities in California. They want strict government regulation of all breeding in the US. If the side effect of such over-regulation is causing most breeders to give up entirely, that would be dandy with them. If there were no pets in pet stores, or in newspaper ads, or on the internet, it would be "mission accomplished" for these Animal Wrongists.

Patti Page, famous for the songs "Tennessee Waltz" and "How Much is that Doggie in the Window," died January first at a nursing home in Encinitas, California. How different the climate was toward pets in the mid-twentieth century! Purebred puppies were regarded as one of life's treasures. Pet shop puppies went from societies’ darlings to social pariahs, because the Animal Wrongists have convinced the public that surely they are the product of unscrupulous animal abusers.

We need to get past such attitudes. We need to recognize that passing laws intended to eliminate the few "bad apple" breeders will not accomplish that goal, but such laws will eliminate all the great dogs that we love in the process. The show dogs, the working dogs, the mixed breed "doodle" pets, ALL of them! Patti Page was even pressured to re-write her "doggie in the window" song to one that promotes adoption of shelter dogs.

"Dog breeding is a privilege, not a right" someone recently commented on this blog. I think many people are beginning to fall into this sort of mindset. On the contrary, I believe it is our RIGHT to breed our dog, our cat, our bird, our hamster or our farm animals. They belong to us, and it is our right to breed them. And once we give up that right to government control or even to the discretion of dog clubs, then woe betide us.

We are a nation where choice and freedom are supposed to be guarded and cherished. Our freedom to breed in an unrestricted manner and our choice to own the pet that we want should not be determined for us by others who believe that somehow they know best. When we arrive at the "no breeding" goal of animal fanatics, life as we know it will never be the same. We'll be missing a very important part of our heart and soul.

Trojan Horse

A proposed change in USDA rules would bring almost every pet breeder under federal guidelines, forcing them to build commercial kennels and submit to unannounced inspections by either the public or the USDA. The new proposal would appease the blood-lust of animal extremist groups like the HSUS, PETA, ASPCA, and In Defense of Animals. These groups support a surge in the war against pet breeders, and using the US Federal government to aid in their vendetta makes it even more objectionable. Imagine our own federal income tax dollars spent in the quest to shut down any in-home pet breeding. Nauseating.

The new proposal comes at a time when we find the Federal government under heavy pressure from the HSUS and other AR groups to over-regulate animal breeders under the guise of improving animal welfare. Anti-hunting, anti-breeding, and anti-agriculture bills are popping up all over, and our legislators still don't seem to be clued in yet to the AR agenda.

The idea with the new USDA proposal is supposedly "to close a loophole for pets sold on the Internet." The truth is, there is no "loophole" that needs closing. Pet breeders are heavily regulated already at the Federal, state and/or local levels. With the federal budget deficit, there are insufficient resources to enforce the rules for commercial breeders as currently defined without bringing thousands of new entities under the USDA umbrella. And, so-called "Puppy Mill Bills" have been passed in almost a dozen large states, making federal intervention unnecessary in those locales.

A comment period is currently open until July 16. Please do go to the site to voice your objections and request the proposal be withdrawn:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=APHIS-2011-0003-0001

To view previous comments and get an idea of what others have already said, check here:

http://tinyurl.com/7aqm66y

Now, ay, here's the rub. Should enough people complain that the USDA withdraws the new rules, there is a bill pending in Congress that will accomplish pretty much the same goal. This bill is PUPS and we have blogged about it here previously. PUPS would tag anyone with ownership of ONE bitch, who sells "X"-amount of dogs or puppies in a year, as a commercial breeder. Makes no difference if you are an active hobbyist who does some breeding but still operates at a financial loss as most do….it's just a numbers game played with the intent to stop breeding by any means possible.

PUPS has nearly enough sponsors to be passed should it come to a vote. And, if the new APHIS regulations are not implemented once the July comment period closes, then I strongly suspect that PUPS will be brought up almost immediately for a vote quicker than we can say "WHAM BAM THANK YOU MA'AM ".

So it is important to continue to oppose on both fronts….PUPS as well as the new APHIS regulations.

The Sale of Puppies Online

This article originally appeared in The Fancy Speaks column in the February 10, 2012 issue of Dog News. It is reprinted here by permission of the author.

The Sale of Puppies Online

Carlotta Cooper

I read the January 20, 2012 DOG NEWS editorial “Regulating The Sale Of Puppies Online” with concern. Although it’s clear that the editorial is well-intentioned, it comes dangerously close to embracing the PUPS bill which is now in Congress. And PUPS, H.R. 835/S. 707, would be very harmful for hobby dog breeders.

The editorial argues that the Internet is used for the sale of dogs, which is true, and that some of these dogs come from places which have no policy or guidelines for their sale. Some even come from “the unregulated commercial breeder.” This is also probably true. The editorial goes on to ask, “Who is there to determine whether or not the seller is responsible? Who establishes the policy to protect the dog in these situations whether or not it is a commercial or homebred sale?”

I would like to point out that people have been selling dogs by means of newspaper classified ads, magazine ads, billboard notices, and other forms of commerce and advertising for generations. No one has been regulating these retail sales directly to the public. The thinking has always been that the buyer needs to be careful when buying anything, from anyone. Caveat emptor has a very real meaning when it comes to buying a pet. The buyer should exercise due caution when buying a puppy or dog, whether they are buying from a magazine, newspaper, or over the Internet. It is not the responsibility of the government to regulate the sale of puppies for the buyer. It is up to the buyer to use some good judgment when making a purchase. This hasn’t changed since people were buying puppies from ads in dog magazines in the 1980s, or buying dogs at any other time in history.

Large commercial breeders who are inspected by the USDA are already regulated and they do report their wholesale sales. However, the retail sale of puppies and dogs directly to individual buyers has never been regulated at the federal level. In many states this kind of sale is now regulated at the state level, if you sell more than x number of puppies per year. In some states it is covered under a sales and use tax, the same kind of tax that covers the sale of Girl Scout Cookies or having a yard sale. If you sell more than a certain number of puppies per year in some states you would be required to get a business and/or kennel license so you could regularly report your tax income from sales.

HSUS calls the fact that retail sales to individuals are not regulated at the federal level a “loophole” and, in PUPS, they are trying to change this situation. But this exemption of retail sales for small breeders is not a loophole. It is the way the law was intended to work. In DDAL vs. Veneman (2003), the case in which the Doris Day Animal League sued the USDA to try to make them inspect retail breeders (home, hobby, show breeders), the judge gave a clear ruling that small breeders were not the same as pet stores and did not have to be regulated or inspected as such. HSUS has been trying to change the law through PAWS and PUPS ever since that time.

These small hobby breeders and others who sell puppies and dogs by retail means were not meant to be regulated in the same manner as large commercial breeders. But that’s what PUPS would do.

It is up to the buyer, not to the government, to check out the person who sells a puppy. Otherwise, all of us who breed dogs are going to have the USDA visiting our homes to see how we keep and raise our puppies.

Now, it’s true, as the editorial mentions, that many people don’t like the idea of “regulation,” but in this case regulation cuts right to the core of everyone who breeds and shows dogs. If PUPS becomes law it would cripple breeders who show, breed dogs for performance, and who breed quality companion dogs. We would be required to meet the same USDA standards that are in place for large commercial breeders, even though we raise puppies in our homes. Most of us could not do this and the result would be the end of countless serious breeding programs in the show world, along with the end of precious bloodlines and, in some cases, the end of breeds.

The AKC sees this, too. On January 26, 2012 they sent a letter to members of Congress from Dennis Sprung with their concerns about PUPS. Among other things it says:

“The AKC does not oppose the concept of regulating high volume breeder retailers but we believe that the definitions proposed in this bill are misleading, overly broad, and potentially damaging to responsible breeders who individually maintain and breed only a few dogs in their homes.

“Although PUPS was designed to regulate internet sales of puppies, it would require anyone who owns or co-owns even a few female dogs that produce 50 or more puppies offered for sale in a year to be regulated under existing USDA dog "dealer" regulations. These regulations are designed for high-volume commercial kennels that produce puppies for wholesale, and require a USDA commercial license, maintenance of specified commercial kennel engineering standards and regular inspections. They are not appropriate for small breeders who may keep only a few dogs in their homes.”

In short, AKC opposes PUPS as it is written and asked members of Congress to withhold their support.

As it is written, PUPS would also regulate anyone who sells these puppies by any means, not just over the Internet. It specifically includes anyone who “sells or offers for sale, via any means of conveyance (including the Internet, telephone, or newspaper),” so it does not just intend to regulate people who sell over the Internet.

I doubt I have to mention how many show breeders have web sites or sell puppies online. You would also fall under this bill for Internet regulation of puppy sales.

PUPS is a very dangerous bill that will harm all of us who breed and show dogs. If you haven’t contacted your legislators to ask them to withhold support for PUPS, you can contact them by visiting this site: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

Here is some more information about PUPS:

WHAT PUPS DOES:

• Abandons traditional determination between wholesale and retail---so that

USDA can regulate home/hobby breeders who don't sell to pet stores.

• Begins USDA regulation of anyone (with 1 intact female dog over 4 months of

age) who sells, places, or adopts out more than 50 dogs in a year ... to start.

Could easily be amended down to 10 ... to 2.

• Takes away your right to privacy in your own home. USDA or their contractors

can without notice enter your home and inspect it if they SUSPECT you might

meet criteria for regulation.

• Over-regulates responsible home breeders out of existence. Mandates non-

porous floors, kennel sizes, floor drains, and pages of requirements impossible

for most home breeders to follow.

• Forces shelters, and home/hobby breeders to redesign their current facilities in

order to meet federal standards.

• Establishes government controlled exercise standards that are not scientifically

proven.

• Sets precedent with exercise standards for future rigid socialization and

breeding standards that would remove owner’s flexibility to use professional

judgment based on breed and purpose.

• Reduces the ability of the American public to obtain healthy privately bred or

rescue dogs of their choosing.

• Places an unfunded mandate on Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS) and overextends their enforcement ability.

• Fails to exempt sportsmen, sporting dog trainers, and hunting clubs from being

regulated alongside in-home sellers.

• Adds more federal oversight and regulation into Americans’ daily lives.

PUPS - "What Can We Do"?

PUPS (Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety) is the federal proposal that anyone who owns (or co-owns) even ONE intact bitch be brought under commercial regulations, if he also sells (or offers for sale) fifty dogs in a year. 

This measure is sponsored by the HSUS, so we know that the number "50" is arbitrary and will be reduced with future amendments. No need to reduce the number of intact bitches because anyone with an ownership interest in ONE intact bitch (as young as four months old) would be automatically included. Co-ownerships are specifically mentioned; it's possible that such things as breeding rights and puppy back contracts may also "count" in one way or another as your sales numbers are tabulated.

PUPS erases the line between those who sell at wholesale and those who sell at retail. Currently, retail sellers are regulated locally. PUPS is an effort to bring those who sell at retail (like anyone who advertises with a personal website) under the auspices of the federal Animal Welfare Act. Contrary to the claims of PUPS supporters it does NOT apply only to internet sales. PUPS includes breeders who place pets "via any means of conveyance"; internet ads/websites, newspaper, telephone, dog show contacts and so on.

Requiring hobby breeders to follow USDA rules would force many people to give up hobby breeding entirely. Commercial rules forbid keeping dogs in your house, and instead require that an expensive kennel facility be built. Carpet, grass and upholstered furniture (like a couch or chair) is forbidden in the dog areas. Raising pups in your bedroom instead of a kennel would not be allowed. Dogs must be kept in runs with cement floors, roof-style covers, an adequate ventilation system and floor drains for sanitation protocols which are also regulated. The cost of building such facilities would be out of reach for the vast majority of breeders.

Other rules that would be difficult if not impossible for hobby breeders to meet include submission to unannounced inspections and meeting ambiguous exercise requirements.

The USDA is currently criticised for lax enforcement of existing law. In 2008, the USDA had 99 inspectors who conducted 15,722 inspections or re-inspections on facilities including 4,604 licensed breeders and 1,116 licensed brokers. The numbers of facilities/homes that would be added by PUPS would be in the thousands, adding additional strain on the existing system. PUPS would result in fewer inspections of the large, commercial breeders the AWA was intended to regulate in the first place.

Along with many other canine groups, AKC opposes PUPS, stating:

 

The AKC also has a number of serious concerns with the bill as introduced and does not support this measure.

(You can read their concerns and the full alert at the link below)

http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=4543

One of best PUPS opposition statements belongs to the national cat registry association, CFA, even though PUPS doesn't even apply to them (doesn't apply YET - which is the whole idea of why they oppose):

http://www.cfa.org/Client/exhibitorsalert.aspx

There is a version of PUPS in the Senate, and a version in the House of Representatives. Presumably, this makes it easier to get it pushed through quickly once the votes are there. And, at last count, there were 196 congressional sponsors for PUPS; more are signing on every day. Once they get around 220 or so they will have enough votes to pass and it just might be brought up at that time. There is talk that PUPS may never come to a vote because the USDA may amend the AWA and then it might be a moot point. We can hope!

There's a new legislative site that allows you to contact your legislators quickly and let them know when you support or oppose proposed legislation.

Click on the two Popvox links below to urge your legislator to oppose PUPS in both House and Senate:

US Senate PUPS
https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s707

US House of Representatives PUPS
https://www. popvox.com/ bills/us/ 112/hr835

The entire rationale for PUPS is to try to "catch" people who are breeding commercially and selling directly to the public via the internet. However, people who attempt to skirt the law now will not be more likely to comply if a new law is passed. Instead, we will lose many conscientious breeders who are the best sources for healthy, well-bred dogs in this country. The language of PUPS would also bring rescue groups and other resellers under onerous federal rules. Many of these groups use the internet (websites or puppyfind-type services) to find homes for their animals. All retailers who sell directly to the public should remain under local regulation.

Please take a minute to contact your senator and congressman. Popvox makes it quick and easy.

"Forever" is a long, long time

"I am a Forever Dog"

There's a warm and fuzzy message! Sounds good, no? If you can't keep a dog forever, then you shouldn't own one! Just fuggedaboudit. 

This sort of black-and-white thinking, this dogmatic mentality (pardon the pun) is further evidence of why we have so many intrusive and oppressive laws proposed.

• We say, you should spay/neuter your pets; they say, hey, let's make it the law.
• We say, microchipping saves lives; they say, great idea! let's make it mandatory.
• We say, to breed responsibly, you should belong to a breed club and do health testing, Hmmm, let's make it a law that ONLY those who belong to breed clubs with enforced codes of ethics can buy a breeder's permit.
• We say, don't breed too often; they say, OK let's make a legal limit of one litter per year.
• "Keep your numbers down and don't expect to make any money" we advise each other; they say, if you own a kennel or make money, you are a grubby puppy-miller. 
• We say, "rescue is noble, let's help make sure our breed doesn't add to the shelter population"; they say, "Don't breed or buy while shelter dogs die" .......... "Adopt, don't shop!" Pet sales become outlawed except for rescues
• We say, "Make sure when you get a dog it's not an impulse purchase"; they say, "A dog is forever" and forbid pet shop sales, or advertising in newspapers or via the internet. You'd better have your sales and breeding permit numbers displayed, and you'd better not transfer ownership in public.  (Oddly enough, it's OK to impulse purchase rescued animals in pet shops or at adoption fairs.)

Life changes, stuff happens. Sometimes the dog does not work out for the situation. Working dogs go where they are needed. You lose your job and maybe your home, you get sick or perhaps even die....the dog needs to be re-homed. Breeding dogs might be sold to new owners. Someone moves, a friend or relative takes their dog. A serviceman is relocated, and his dog needs a foster home, or a new home. Breeders may place their "retirees" in pet homes.

The "Forever Home" propaganda is just another crafty animal extremist method of discouraging pet ownership, and demonizing pet owners. Don't fall for it!

Pups Act Gets Obama Support

NEWS

PUPS ACT GETS OBAMA APPROVAL

The HSUS's petition for the PUPS act has met with a nod of approval from the OBAMA administration.

Humane Society Petition: http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2011/10/puppy_mills_petition_white_house_100311.html

The Response from the White House:

Improving Regulation and Oversight of Commercial Breeders By Rebecca Blue, USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs Thank you for signing a petition on the We the People platform asking the Obama Administration to "crack down on puppy mills." The Obama Administration is committed to ensuring that USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which enforces the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), improves its regulation and oversight of commercial breeders. APHIS is currently developing proposed regulations that would ensure that Internet breeders provide their animals with care and treatment that meets the AWA standards. APHIS plans to publish its proposed rule covering Internet breeders in the Federal Register for public comment in 2012. We encourage interested citizens to provide their feedback on the rule at that time; comments can be logged at Regulations.gov.    APHIS is also moving forward with an enhanced AWA enforcement plan to improve its oversight of currently licensed dealers, breeders, and other entities regulated under the AWA (particularly those who are repeat violators). It is also working to improve the performance of its inspectors.  Additionally, in September 2011, USDA proposed a new rule that when finalized will help ensure that dogs imported into the United States for resale are in good health, are at least 6 months of age, and have received their proper vaccinations. Among other things, this proposed rule is designed to prevent the importation of puppies that have not yet been weaned or have fully developed immune systems, or are sick. Find more information about APHIS' efforts to improve its enforcement of the AWA.  Check out this response on We the People. Stay Connected Stay connected to the White House by signing up for periodic email updates from President Obama and other senior administration officials.

 

Under PUPS, anyone with ownership or co-ownership of ONE intact bitch qualifies to be examined. That means EVERY BREEDER. Then APHIS will scrutinize how many dogs or puppies you and co-owners have placed or sold in a year. If at or over that number, you must comply with reams of AWA commercial rules and regs that are impossible to meet in a home environment, like keeping dogs on nonporous surfaces. Right now the number needed to be sold.....or OFFERED for sale.....is 50, but HSUS has admitted they intend to ratchet down such numbers with future amendments.

The PUPS bill does NOT apply to commercial breeders, they already fall under APHIS regulations. An "Internet seller?" How many breeders have a WEBSITE? You are now an "internet seller." Make no mistake about it, the intent is to bring every dog breeder under Federal control.

HSUS - a Fox in the Henhouse

As always, Frank Losey's investigative work is thorough and his insights keen. Here is Losey's latest update on the HSUS.

HSUS = Hapless Shenanigans Under Suspicion.

HAS THE HSUS "HIJACKED" THE APHIS OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT?!?!?!?

In May of 2010 the Inspector General of the USDA released a scathing report that criticized APHIS for placing too much emphasis on education and not enough on enforcement.  One of its recommendations included creating an Office within APHIS that would specifically focus on enforcement.  And the person who was hired to fill the new position was an attorney who had specialized in Animal Law Issues.  Her name is Ms. Sarah L. Conant, and she has been issuing a number of "enforcement" letters to dog breeders, and to at least one rabbit breeder with assessed fines up to $50,000 or more.  A sampling of some of Ms. Conant's "legal qualifications" that may have been considered by the USDA when she was selected to fill the newly created APHIS position, which may give all responsible breeders a reason to say "OMG," is set out below:

·      Ms. Conant was employed by the HSUS as a Litigation Attorney immediately before she was hired by the USDA.

·      Ms. Conant first became associated with the HSUS when she was designated as an HSUS Litigation Fellow.

·      In 2007 Ms. Conant was featured and quoted in a Virginia Law Publication entitled "Humane Society Lawyers Fight Culture of Cruelty, Government Bureaucracy."  One of her quotes included the statement that "Humane Society lawyers are working with legislatures and in the courts to change laws that affect the lives of farm animals," and that "they are forced to go state by state in this effort because there are very few federal laws regarding farm animals."

·      Ms. Conant was employed by the HSUS in the same HSUS Litigation Office which was so actively involved in the Litigation last year that challenged placing the Proposition B Ballot Initiative on the November 2011 Ballot in Missouri.

·      Ms. Conant's "Name" has appeared as Counsel of Record for the HSUS on Lawsuits and Complaints filed against Federal Agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission and the U. S. Department of Agriculture, which now is her current employer.  (Here it is significant to note that on at least one Lawsuit document that may be found on the HSUS Website, the name of "Sarah L. Conant" was no longer listed as one of the Counsel of Record, even though the originally filed document filed listed her name.  Surely the HSUS would not engage in a "COVER-UP!"  Or would it?!?!?!?!?!?)

·      Ms. Conant worked in the same HSUS Litigation Office that sued the USDA under the Freedom of Information Act last October.  This Lawsuit seeks personal, confidential and business sensitive information on every USDA Licensed Breeder in Missouri.

·        Ms. Conant is listed as the Vice Chair of the Animal Law Section of the DC Bar, and is listed as representing the HSUS with no reference to the position that she currently holds with USDA.

While some may suggest that Ms. Conant has appropriate qualifications to act as the Chief of the Enforcement Section of APHIS, I personally and professionally believe that an egregious "Conflict of Interest" exists.  In this regard, Rule 1.11 that is published by the American Bar Association specifically addresses "Conflicts of Interests For Former and Current Government Officers and Employees."    The relevant language states: "a lawyer currently serving as a public officer or employee shall not participate in a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially while in private practice or nongovernment employment, unless the appropriate government agency gives its informed consent, confirmed in writing."    This is why a FOIA Request was submitted for a copy of the USDA "Informed Consent Document," or a comparable "Conflict of Interest Document."   In the Practice of Law, some would consider a Breach of the "Conflict of Interest" Standard to represent a serious issue that involves "Legal Ethics."

Three Little "Dashes" of Potentially "Good News:": 

·        First Dash:  On Monday, July 11, 2011, I received confirmation from the IRS that it had assigned a Case File Number (2011-010153) for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA).  Perhaps, just perhaps, someday the ASPCA will look back in the next year or so and wish that it had not thrown its "lot" in with the HSUS; that it had not contributed nearly $600,000 to the Proposition B Campaign in Missouri; that it had not been a Charter Supporter of the current and on-going "Your Vote Counts" Ballot Initiative Campaign in Missouri; and that it had not "hired away" from the HSUS Ms. Nancy Perry to fill its newly created position of Senior Vice President for Government Relations for the express purpose of overseeing the lobbying activities of the ASPCA in all 50 States, as well as at the Federal Level.

·        Second Dash:  On Tuesday, July 12, 2011, I received confirmation that the Inspector General of the USDA (USDA IG) had received a Fraud, Waste and Abuse Complaint that included a Freedom of Information Request for a "Conflict of Interest" Statement concerning Ms. Sarah L. Conant.  While there is no guarantee that the USDA IG will find wrongdoing on the part of Ms. Conant, the potential exists that the revelation about the specific duties that she performed on behalf of her prior employer could prove to be a major source of embarrassment for the USDA, and could "taint" the integrity of every single adverse action and all assessed fines against Breeders that occurred on "her watch."    In this regard, Government Employees are expected not only to avoid "Conflicts of Interest," but are expected to avoid any appearance of a "Conflict of Interest."   This scenario raises Issues of "Legal Ethics" - - both for the USDA and Ms. Conant who is an attorney.

·        Third Dash:  On Wednesday, July 13, 2011, I received confirmation that the APHIS FOIA Office had received a FOIA Request for "information" concerning Ms. Conant, and that the APHIS FOIA Office has assigned Case File Number 11-645 to this FOIA Request with a suspense date of August 10, 2011 for its response to the FOIA Request.  Since it has been the HSUS that was submitting all of those FOIA requests for information about Missouri Breeders, it sure will be interesting to see if the HSUS objects to the release of information concerning Ms. Conant's duties while she worked for the HSUS.  My oh my, won't it be interesting to see how APHIS responds to a FOIA Request that might prove to be more than a "bit embarrassing." 

When a breeder does not comply with the "Rules," there are consequences.  When a Government Employee does not comply with the "Rules,"…………………….. Well, we'll just have to wait and see!!!!!

Three Little "Dashes" and a "Pinch" of a "No I am not dreaming!"  The second Week of July brought a big smile to my face!    

What More Needs to Be Done to Hold the HSUS Accountable for Its Actions?:  Create a "FLOOD" of E-Mails from all 50 States to be sent to your respective U.S. Representative and your two U.S. Senators which will ask them to do what Seven Members of Congress have already done - - requested investigations by the Treasury's Inspector General into the HSUS's "apparent improper activities and its tax-exempt status.  THESE THREE E-MAILS WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE; THEY WILL GENERATE MORE CONGRESSIONAL LETTERS THAT WILL PUT EVEN MORE PRESSURE ON THE IRS TO EXPEDITIOUSLY INVESTIGATE THE HSUS; AND THEY SHOULD TAKE NO MORE THAN 20 MINUTES TO DO THE FOLLOWING SIX THINGS:

1.      To send an E-Mail to your U.S. Representative, Log onto www.house.gov/writerep/

2.      Fill in your state and ZIP Code on the prompt that appears.

3.      Add your name, address and E-Mail address on E-Mail Form for your U.S. Representative; and on the Subject Line add: Request the Inspector General and the IRS Investigate the HSUS; and then add then add the message set out below.

4.      To send an E-Mail to your Two Senators, Log onto:    www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

5.      Click onto the E-Mail Address for each of your two U.S. Senators.

6.      Add your name, address and E-Mail address on E-Mail Form for your U.S. Representative; and on the Subject Line add: Request the Inspector General and the IRS Investigate the HSUS; and then add then add the message set out below.

Suggested Text of E-Mail Message

"The IRS has received voluminous documentation that substantiates that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) - - a Public Charity - - has engaged in excessive, prohibited, and under-reported lobbying activities, and may have under-reported its revenue by over $500 Million. Significantly, the HSUS President and CEO has repeatedly stated that he has "helped to pass perhaps 1,000 laws."

 Treasury Department, Six U.S. Representatives (Hartzler, Emerson, Luetkemeyer, Graves and Long from Missouri, and Young from Alaska) stated: "we write to request investigations by the Inspector General into HSUS's apparent improper activities and its tax-exempt status."  They further stated:  "If the HSUS is not complying with the law, it should be investigated and disciplined just like any other organization."

With a National Debt of Trillions of Dollars, our Government needs to maintain the integrity of the U.S. Tax Code.  As your constituent, I am requesting that you confirm that you have sent a similar letter on my behalf to the Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury.

Thank You."

Collectively, we can make a difference, and put the HSUS on the defensive.  If the HSUS can generate Millions of E-Mails to Members of Congress, surely we can generate hundreds of E-Mails from each and every State.  Let's do it!

 Submitted by Frank Losey

For Whom the Bell Tolls

PUPS-the relentless attack against breeders continues.

"PUPS"...otherwise known as the Puppy Uniform Protection and
Safety Act, is NOT, as we have already noted here on this blog, as warm and fuzzy as it sounds. PUPS is a federal proposal that has reared its ugly head over the last several sessions. And now, we get the bad news that once again, PUPS is being dredged up for this Federal legislative session. And picking up more and more sponsors along the way.

We just can't seem to kill the PUPS bill, no matter how how vigorous the attempt. Much like a cockroach, you can stomp it down, yet it still manages to skuttle across the floor undaunted.

What's so bad, you ask, about protecting puppies? Well, not much if you consider preventing their birth as protection. This bill is about as hard-core in animal rights philosophy as they come. And animal rights is not conducive to pet culture. These folks want to protect animals from people...people who dare to breed them, to sell them, to own them, to enjoy their company.

But the drive to shut down most all breeding won't require federal intervention. Many states have already implemented so-called "puppy mill bills" in the relentless AR-driven crusade to stop the breeding of pets. These newly-implemented state and local regulations have been promoted under the banner of squashing the commercial breeding of dogs for pet stores. 

The commonly-accepted portrait of "puppy mill" has somehow morphed from being a place where dogs are kept in poor conditions, to being a reference to anyone who sells via third parties like pet stores. The public has been whipped into a frenzy of hatred toward pet stores and ALL commercial breeders. "They must be shut down!!" kind-hearted John Q Public wrings his hands. "IMMEDIATELY!"

But hold your horses, lynch mob!! Here's a news flash: PUPS does NOT apply to commercial breeders or pet stores. It would not serve to stop any abuse or neglect in the slightest. It would, however, serve us up some pretty nasty unintended consequences.

Just who would be affected by PUPS? The intent seems to be to include more and more breeders under the umbrella of "high-volume breeder". The bill defines "high volume breeder" as someone with "an ownership interest in or custody of one or more breeding female dogs."

A further stipulation of "high volume" status is that one sells....or even just OFFERS for sale....50 or more dogs in a year. You don't need to actually sell any dogs! Just advertising or offering dogs for sale is sufficient proof of "high volume".

You needn't even OWN a dog to become a "high-volume breeder"; just having custody (as handlers and boarding facilities do) qualifies you! Co- and joint ownerships are common among dog show participants, sporting dog trainers, hunting club members, and other hobbyists. Am I now required to comply with PUPS regulations if the bitch co-owner offers enough puppies for sale? 

And, HSUS has admitted in their public sessions that their intent is to rachet down these numbers in future sessions. Since a breeder with ONE intact female cannot possibly produce 50 puppies in a year, it seems logical that PUPS would be amended in the future to adjust downward the permissible number of dogs sold (or just OFFERED for sale) to match the amount that one bitch might reasonably produce in a year. Certainly, less than a dozen puppies.

Some states already require  ownership numbers of less than a dozen to escape commercial breeder status. Yet, as AKC noted in their latest PUPS legislative alert: "A reference to the number of dogs owned by a breeder is unnecessary and potentially misleading."

There is a whole segment of breeders who would never sell their dogs through pet stores, but would be considered "high-volume" under the provisions of this bill. They might be small private home breeders who offer their dogs for sale through newspaper ads or on the internet. They might show their dogs. They might own just a few dogs, or many dogs. They might co-own dogs with others. And the ranks of the hobby breeders could conceivably be joined by handlers, boarding facilities….yes, even rescues, shelters, and kennels that produce service dogs, police dogs, and hunting dogs. Are all these puppy purveyors greedy and evil because they sell dogs? According to the provisions of PUPS, YES, they are evil and they must be punished.

PUPS would require breeders who fall under the definition of "high volume breeder" to be subject to licensing and inspection under the Federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and comply with reams of APHIS regulations. Such  regulations are neither desirable nor feasible for most breeders, particularly those who raise dogs in their home.

Surfacing of floors and walls must be "impervious to moisture", so no rugs allowed. Crates would not be large enough for the part-time duty that they typically serve most hobby breeders. PUPS also proposes vague and illogical exercise requirements that defy reason and have no purpose.

First, we had AWA to regulate "commercial" breeders....but, we couldn't stop there! Next a dozen states have already passed their own "Puppy Mill" bills, and now, PUPS will make sure to include nearly everyone else as a "high-volume" breeder in the quest to prevent breeding and selling dogs! Could your home pass inspection as a kennel? I know mine could not. But then, I guess that's the whole point of "PUPS"!


NO     MORE     PUPS!

 Never mind that poor kennel conditions are already illegal, and numbers limits have forced many out of business already. Never mind that every locale in the nation has existing animal cruelty laws. Let's conveniently ignore these facts and push for more regulations that are increasingly absurd, and now increasingly apply to people who just, well, enjoy and love their dogs!

Ask not for whom the bell tolls! It tolls for thee!

Click on article title above to read another blogpost regarding "PUPS"

PUPS: Not as warm and fuzzy as it sounds

If we don't beat this one, it's pretty much all over, folks...

For years, HSUS has been working tirelessly to introduce federal legislation which, by amending the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), would restrict the breeding of dogs and cats. Enforcement of current laws has been inefficient and ineffective, but rather than correct that situation, HSUS has used it as reason to expand upon present legislation in ways that would set a dangerous precedent by giving the federal government control over the breeding of domestic animals. No other species has such pre-breeding regulations in place, but bill proponents insist their legislation will "close a loophole" in federal law, even though the AWA was never intended to apply to in home breeders.

PUPS 2010 introduces new problematic definitions to the existing AWA, classifications which are open to reinterpretation and readjustment at any point.

Under the new definitions, a breeding female dog means in an intact female aged four months or older. Not only is a four month old dog virtually incapable of breeding, but current research finds that early spay/neuter is deleterious to the animal's health.

PUPS also creates the new definition "high volume breeder." Any breeder with "interest or custody" of one breeding female dog falls under the first test of this criteria. The second criteria includes anyone who “sells or offers for sale, via any means of conveyance (including the internet, telephone, or newspaper), more than 50 of the offspring of such breeding female dogs for use as pets in any 1-year period."

The “50 offspring” are not defined by age or as being from litters owned by the breeder or as being personally owned by the breeder. This definition will include puppies, young adults, spayed dogs, older dogs being retired from the breeding program; previously sold dogs returned and resold, dogs placed through rescue organizations, public animal control facilities, veterinarian clinics, or the internet. Furthermore, based on these new clarifications, home breeders and rescuers will be subjected to USDA licensure and its 60 plus pages of regulations.

Expanding federal regulation to this level of detail is not only unrealistic, unnecessary, excessive, and unenforceable, but will eventually lead to the "elimination of domestic species," the publicly stated goal of Wayne Pacelle, president of HSUS..

For all of these reasons and more, the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act (PUPS) should be opposed in its entirety, and all of us, whether individuals or groups, who wish to preserve and protect our future with pets need to make it clearly known to our government and its representatives that PUPS is completely unacceptable.

Call or write your representatives NOW, before it's too late. Your dogs and cats are depending on you.