HSUS one more time

I know I've been totally uninspired for months now.  Then this popped up in my inbox and I was moved to share, share, share.

I have often wondered just how long the rest of us would be allowed to get away with the stuff HSUS is getting away with these days.  Wouldn't it be nice if IRS would at the very least take away their tax-free status?

Jean Cyhanick pledge

If we as a group continue to sit on our hands and do nothing there will be no more dogs in 10 years.  Harsh?  Black helicopters in the sky? Another of Margot's "the sky is falling" rants?

Nope.  Not at all.  For background go to http://got50.blogspot.com/  If we as owners, trainers, breeders allow the travesty in Virginia to stand, then we will live to see the dog vanish from our homes, hearths, fields and hearts.  I'm not a breeder.  I don't even get to many dog trials/shows anymore, but I still have managed to pledge $50 from my very slim budget to help fight this battle.  It's my battle.  It's your battle. It's our battle.  Please make a pledge and then when they let us know where to send the money, actually sent what you pledged.

Margot

Here is what others are saying:

Not yet, but soon!

With the help of a generous loan from a pet-law member, we now know we
can do it. We would have to pay the loan amount back, so WE STILL NEED
PLEDGES but we no longer need to worry that we won't be able to pay
the attorney in time for him to make the filing deadline.

I have some details to clear up with the attorney's office which is
semi-closed today due to snow in the area. Then I have to write up the
payment instructions and get them ready to send to those who have
pledged; even with a good mailer, sending out almost 300 emails takes
some time.

I'll let the lists know when the instructions have been mailed.

WE DO STILL NEED PLEDGES. We're only able to make the $35,000 total
with the aid of the loan so WE CAN'T QUIT WHERE WE ARE.

The story of what happened to Jean is at: http://www.got50.blogspot.com/

in the second post. Those who want to pledge can email me at: waltah @
earthlink.net (take out the blanks). Instructions for where to send
payment will be emailed within a few days.

PLEASE GET 'Jean Cyhanick pledge' in your subject line so your email
doesn't get lost. I'm still finding pledges in out-of-the-way places
and I would hate to think that we'd lose any!

I've send out acknowledgements to most of those who have pledged: If
by Friday PM you haven't heard from me saying "Thank you" then please
send your pledge again.

I can't tell you how impressed I am at all the support you've given
Jean and this effort. While there are no guarantees, THIS IS A
WINNABLE CASE and Jean has a good attorney.

Don't think of this just as a court case: Appealing a verdict on a bad
law gets attention in the legislature, especially in the committees
that made that law happen. The legislative process is definitely
messy, but VA General Assembly members do want to get things right. A
law that comes back from an appeals court in a pine box is very likely
to get a stake through the heart in the Assembly.

You'll also be helping a breeder who did nothing wrong and had the
courage to face spending the rest of her life in prison in order to
prove it.

PLEASE FORWARD

Walt Hutchens
Timbreblue Whippets

Is it too late?

My senior apprentice, Samantha "Sam" Daley has posted some thought provoking blog posts on her blog. I'm strongly encouraging all of you to head over there, read, think and perhaps post a comment or two. She sure could use the support right about now. http://misterrugby7.blogspot.com/

It all started with my assigning a very eye-opening task to all my students and just about anyone else who happened to be around me at the right time. The task is a simple one. At least it appears to be simple on the surface. Now I'm assigning it to all of you as well. Not only that but I shall take a page out of Sam's book/blog and call it a contest. As is true of all contests there will be a prize for the first person able to complete the task.

The Task
All you have to do is to go out and find 10 dogs 1 year of age or older. Five must be intact dogs and five must be intact bitches.

The Reason
This task didn't come about on a whim. Nope, not at all. It got started because I shared some figures with a couple of my classes. The figures? It depends on which group you want to believe but here they are:

Coming straight from the mouth of the beast, also known as HSUS http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/pet_overpopulation/facts/pet_ownership_statistics.html75% of all owned dogs have been rendered sterile. On the other side of the field is the American Pet Products Manufacturer's Association. Take a gander at what their figures show: 72% of all owned dogs have been rendered sterile. http://charityguide.org/volunteer/fewhours/spay-neuter.htm

About 20 years ago HSUS gave us "Spay and neuter until there are none". A result of the "...until there are none" campaign has been to all but eliminate litters of puppies or even the odd one or two pups available at the local municipal shelter or humane society shelter.

What one finds at the shelter will be a heavy preponderance of dogs from about 9 months to 28 months of age. These dogs have lost their homes for pretty much the same reasons. Lack of training, lack of any place for the former owners to get meaningful help with training. These are the bullies, the fighters, the biters, the failure to housebreak and a host of other similar issues and they do NOT represent a problem of over breeding. These dogs all represent a problem of retention. They are unable to stay in a home because the lazy, permissive cult of the furchild has doomed them to failure.

The fact that breeding stock numbers have now fallen below a sustainable population level has given rise to a new breed of human. As they campaign to kill via desexing on the one hand they are becoming more vigorous at importing strays/mutts/street dogs from all over the world. http://www.naiatrust.org/resources/foreign_strays.htm After all, they have to find the poor waifs to raise the money necessary to keep those fancy new shelters open.

The Burning Question
Are dog owners all too stupid and lazy to behave in a responsible manner when it comes to the ownership of their dogs? Or to put it another way, since when is maiming and restraining actually more humane than supervision and training? Leashes have been used as successful birth control devices for eons. Real training, the sort that teaches a dog to be responsible for its own behavior is yet another form of birth control that seems to have been tossed out the window. Why?

The animal rights agenda

Subject: FW: The animal rights agenda - a personal story - a must read for dog (and cat) owners

Anyone who breeds, shows or owns dogs and cats in southern California needs to read this. Please note, the writer gives permission to cross post - I would strongly suggest you all do so. It doesn’t matter where you live. This, or something similar, is happening in every state, all across the country.

Carole
=======
I have permission to cross pst.
This is a note from a friend in S. CA. It is getting bad there with animal rights groups. this is not the first time this has happend to my friend. She lives in Riverside County and in the canyon and everyone has horses etc. do not understand these people, they are just plain crazy I guess !!!

Sandy

I have not listed my house yet. I can't until I get out of here ! I can't have people coming thru with both cats and dogs. My four dogs are licensed dogs and I have 10 cats on our 6 acre property. My husband fixed up the building behind the patio so I keep the intact cats there as they are very intense when they are cycling. But animal zealots are really agressive here so we can't take a chance. I can't even place my 3 spays for fear of problems. I met a woman at San Diego show who wanted to come see my neutered male. She worked at San Diego U and I checked the staff roster there. She did. She came and I had weird vibes. Asked all the wrong questons.. left with out taking him home. Find out that she'd been sitting up the road for hours before the appointment with a big animal control truck. He left just after she did. So then I did a more intense look up online and find out that she is HSUS rescue .. deeply entrenched. So it was a sting attempt. There were 3 cats here in my house. But Dave and I were really furious. Dave said don't risk it again. Keep what you have until we can get out of here. Thats why we are so limited in price. We can't get any money out of this house until we can sell. Can't sell until we can get out. Vicous circle.

Oh yes.. at the Palm Springs Kennel club show in Jan, there were 25 PETA drones there collecting business cards. Posing as prospective pet inquirers or just interested spectators. I was talking to the superintendents and they knew some of them and told me heads up. Lately, when I am at the cat shows [take one cat] and have time to chat with spectators. We talk a while and they always ask for a card. I don't have any or put any out. Nothing to sell. After that, they end up telling me that they are animal services employees. More of the same.

AS does not have the staff to do this. But the groups associated with AS.. the 'drones' are making it their personal cause to search out breeders by posing as pet buyers all over soCal. As you may know, PETA purchased a big building in LA recently and brought 40 of their key go-getter staff here.

Oh yes.. one more thing. AS arrested a woman in San Bernardino recently with 8 cats. Reason: selling a kitten less than 8 wks of age. Now a 3mo kitten is the equivalent to a 2mo puppy. So my guess is that she took a deposit and that is a transaction before 8 wks of age. They swamped in on her and now in jail for animal cruelty and her cats were euthanized immediately.

Compared to the man who raped and killed the young woman in north county San Diego who got 5 yrs. Its insane.

This is how dismal the situation is here for breeders. I have commercial zoned property for kennel, cattery, horses, .. no limit. We would have to sign a waiver allowing AS to come into our home and take photos and allow them access at any time w/o prior notice. If I do not let them in to go thru every room and every building on the place at any time, my license would be revoked immediately and charged simultaneously. A hobby kennel is a snap .. just put up 10 chain link pens on dirt away from the house with partial cement slab or raised floor, roof and dog house. I would never use it because coyotes would bait the dogs and pull their legs thru the fence. Its illegal to own 5 house trained dogs who play and exercise on the lawn to potty, on 6 rural acres. Incidentally,I would be allowed to have 25 unvaccinated horses on same property all running together in one fenced area with no shelter.

In most all counties across the country, vets are mandated [paid by AS ]to turn over owner information to the country of origin of any owner who gets a rabies vaccination. Now those who don't license, don't get rabies either. The only people who get rabies vaccinations who may not license are breeders/show exhibitors. For shipping purposes. Keep in mind, no one is checking incoming pets into LAX. AS staff [maybe the emotially charged volunteer drones] cross-checks rabies vaccinations with licences to find owners who are out of compliance.

Back to this issue. Highly likely that it would be frowned on to have a kennel and a cattery. 9 cats requires a commercial facility. Building permit would be $20K plus health department fee $6500 plus $17K for transportation study to determine if the cattery business would impact the area. So before the building can begin, its about $45K. From there, add $60 for the cost of a qualifying building to house 9 cats comfortably. I will never make $100K from my cats nor to I want to sell a lot of cats. I just want to own and show some dogs and cats. I do well and take very good care of them. We would have been wealthy years ago if we did not spend all our money taking such good care of our animals and providing beautiful place for them. Even if I make such an invest ment [$120K for both dogs and cats]they will harrass us continually. Breeding permit fees are starting and that will be a way to tax good breeders to pay for irresponsible pet owners they won't control [too risky for AS].

Let me tell you what I discovered last year. Riverside County CA cleverly re-zoned and re-classified every parcel in the county. Keep in mind that the requirement to have a hobby kennel has always been a one 1 acre minimum zoned RR, RA or A-1. Now only 1/2 acre parcels are RR or RA. 1-20 parcels are all now RE [rural estate]. Under this classification .. we are assured that its animal friendly environment. The statement is something like this: Mature animals okay but no offspring. So you can collect animals in rural estate but cannot breed them. AG zoning starts up again at 20+ acres. So they have effectively zoned out kennels and catteries in this animal friendly county.

You have to dig around to find a printout of the complete classification descriptions. This master plan [indeed !] was developed by a subcontractor and format was probably developed by HSUS. I wonder how long existing kennels/catteries will be allowed to operate as most are out of compliance now. The sleuth squeeze

A copy of this can be obtained from Riverside County RCIP or type in search: Riverside Master Plan or by going to http://www.rcip.org/generalplan.html

Sandy Kiever

Humane Watch vs HSUS update

This isn't what I was going to post about, but it is important enough to get on the blog first. A request has been made to spread this information far and wide. So the translation would read: Please forward the below information to everyone you know.

Permission to crosspost, but please strip my name & contact info. I'm just the messenger.

There's an update at HumaneWatch saying that as of 8:00 pm Hills no longer appears on the Care2 site...Go to the Humane Watch for the latest: http://tinyurl.com/yz9bptm

Don't let the agriculture folks have all the fun pointing out their objections to businesses that donate to HSUS. Hill's Science Diet does it, too. Think that's a little...I don't know. Weird? Time to weigh in. Here's the proof.
http://www.care2.com/click-to-donate/pets/

Here's the spin.
http://humanewatch.org/index.php/site/post/the_hills_are_alive_with_the_soun
d_of_hsus/

http://tinyurl.com/yz9bptm

More links and a link on how to contact Hill's through the humanewatch link or the tiny.

http://tinyurl.com/yz9bptm

Other animal interest groups are emboldened by their recent success in educating others as to the lunacy of donating funds to an organization that is ultimately going to put them out of business. Yellow Tail wine has changed its corporate giving plans so as to only donate to groups that actually give care to animals. Pilot Travel Center agreed to remove the donation cans from their centers when the same issues were raised. It was pointed out to them that the livestock industry throughout the country is run by truckers who use their centers. The latest was Mary Kay cosmetics. The wife of the founder donated to HSUS in her position as a major player in a Dallas fundraiser. HSUS listed Mary Kay as a corporate donor until that link was brought to their attention.

So now it's up to pet owners everywhere to educate Hill's as to HSUS's agenda. Be polite, but let them know how you feel. I know I will. Oh, and tell your veterinarians, too. Flex your muscles.

UPDATE on Spay & Neuter HSUS

For the life of me, I don't seem to be able to find where I put the name of the author of the following information. Dear Author, please accept my apologies for using your material without the proper attributes. Just as soon as I know who you are, I'll rectify the situation.

Part of my problem is that having reached the age of CRS, I now find that I dare not put something aside just because of a single missing piece. To put a thing aside is now perilously close to the kiss of death.

SPAY & NEUTER UPDATE AND CALL FOR FOLLOW-UP ACTION

The IRS Tax Fraud Office in Fresno, CA has now received over 3,200 letters from concerned citizens from all 50 states - - over 1,100 were documented by certified mail. This is extraordinary because the IRS has probably never before received 100 requests about a single public charity, let alone more than 3,200. Additionally, the Tax Fraud Offices in Fresno CA and Washington DC are now in possession of more than 400 pages of documents that "document" that the HSUS has engaged in over 2,000 distinctly different lobbying activities over the last five years.

These documents clearly suggest that the HSUS has engaged in "too much lobbying," which could result in the IRS revoking tax-exempt, public charity status of the HSUS, and assessing back tack taxes, penalties and interest on the more than One Half of a Billion Dollars in revenue that the HSUS received in the last five years. That could amount to Tens of Millions of Dollars that the HSUS would have to pay to the IRS!

It is not too late for more letters to be sent to the IRS - - each extra letter increases the pressure on the IRS to begin an audit NOW!

"Thousands of concerned citizens from all 50 states are asking the IRS to audit the Lobbying Activities of the HSUS" is an impressive "sound bite" that may best be used in asking your Members of Congress to also make inquiries to the IRS about the HSUS.

A number of you have already sent E-Mails to your Members of Congress, and many have received "boilerplate" non-responsive responses that were "ghost written" by Staffers who are unaware of the "National Outcry" for an IRS audit of the HSUS.

That is why the time is now right for those of you who have already sent an E-Mail to your Members of Congress, and for those of you who have not done so, to consider either E-Mailing or FAXING the following short letter to your Respective Members of Congress. Since it highlights that many of the 3,200+ letters came from (your state), this will be a red flag that will be brought to the attention of the Members of Congress by their Chiefs of Staffs - - that is what typically happens when they believe 10 or more of their constituents took the time to write.

That is why the following letter should be E-Mailed or FAXED to your respective Members of Congress.

"The IRS Tax Fraud Office in Fresno, CA has received over 400 documents that substantiate more than 2,000 distinctly different lobbying activities of the Humane Society of the U.S (HSUS).; and has received over 3,200 individual letters from concerned citizens in all 50 States who are requesting that the IRS audit the alleged excessive and under-reported Lobbying Activities of the Humane Society of the U.S., as well as its tax-exempt, public charity status.

Many of those requests came from our State. I support those requests.
Please let me know when the IRS will begin its audit of the lobbying activities of the Humane Society of the U.S." (This last sentence makes it harder for a non-responsive, "boilerplate" response.)

To those who may question whether contacting your respective Members of Congress will really make a difference, I wish to share part of a response received by a breeder from her U.S. Representative: "I directed my staff to contact the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and have them respond directly to your concerns, since that agency is tasked with assigning tax-exempt status to organizations. Additionally, I have requested the IRS to provide a copy of that response to my office for review. In the meantime, you can be sure that I will remember your perspective should related legislation come before Congress."

Yes, thousands of letters and follow up communications with your Members of Congress can and will make a difference, and could cause the HSUS to be led to the "IRS SLAUGHTERHOUSE!"
　

Are you someone who cares about what happens to dogs and cats that fall on hard times through no fault of their own?

Do you get all teary-eyed when you hear the sad music and see the pictures of starving/abused animals during those FREE public service announcement ads on TV?

Do you ache to open up your heart, your purse, your checkbook to help the most recent of the reported abuse cases as uncovered by the Humane Society of the United States?

If so, did you know that the H$U$ takes your money and then laughs all the way to their bank while less than 1/2 of one percent of the money donated actually is spent on the dogs and cats you have shed a tear about?

Humane Society of the United States 2008 Tax Filing

In 2008, the Humane Society of the United States
(HSUS) spent just HALF of ONE PERCENT of its total budget on organizations
providing hands-on care to dogs and cats.
More info at http://www.chicobandido.com/2010/01/humane-society-of-united-states-2008-tax-filing/

If you want to help animals in need then give your time and/or money to an organization in your community. An organization you can visit. One that has real people you can talk to and real animals you can actually see and touch.

Just please, for your sake, for my sake and most of all for the sake of the animals, don't give to an organization that is going to take your money and use it to steal animals from someone who is doing a good job caring for them only to turn around, mistreat said animals, neglect them and then use the pictures of that neglect as an excuse to beg you for more money.

Not all groups are equal and it is important to make sure the right groups receive our help and those whose hidden goal is to steal all our animals are closed down. One way to close them down is to deny them operating funds.

Think before you give. Give wisely. Don't give to false prophets.

Got 50 campaign revisited

Once again, Walt Hutchens has stated the case so well I simply can't find a good reason to re-invent the wheel. In this case the S/N H$U$ wheel. Please read carefully and think about what he is saying.

"...How do we get to that long term future?

This isn't a question of alternatives (for the future), it is a question of means. At one level the answer is clear enough: We need a whole lot more people who understand what's going on. That's the "Got 50?" campaign-- the idea that each of us who DOES know should recruit 50 more who equally understand and who equally would NEVER give money to HSUS or any of the others. AND who will in their turn go out to find 50 more.

Of course there's a lot of other recruiting stuff going on, as has been true since long before that label was applied. But recruiting takes time and while it proceeds we have to play defense. We aren't going to win all the battles but we can definitely slow down the AR advance. The more we do that, the less total damage our country and our animals will sustain.

So talking about what needs to be done now, that's it: Recruiting and defense. Sure, if you see an opportunity to fix a law affirmatively, then do it, but such opportunities will be rare. It's easy to see why you are casting about for something easier: exotic animals may be the most difficult defense project of all. But there is no 'easier.' Ultimately we will win because each loss of an animal use, even each encumbrance, raises costs or reduces income for our nation AND catches more people in the web of bad laws. (The greatest favor Wayne has done us in the last couple of years was to start seriously attacking farmers ...) But if 'ultimately' is two decades off, the price is going to be very high.

Five years to the crest of the tsunami would be a lot better than twenty, and I think that's about what will happen. HSUS can't slow down because what they're doing is like the running of the bulls: Both the more militant part of the AR movement and the rapidly awakening animal users are right on their heels. If they falter or slow down ...SPLAT!

Remember that HSUS's business is strip mining the good will the organization built up 1950s-1990s when it actually did some good. Now they claim only to 'protect' animals, by which they mean make animal ownership and use more difficult. People THINK they actually feed or care for animals with donated money but actually they just lobby and litigate. As the American public catches on to that, HSUS is going to be in trouble.

Of course almost any action from the IRS is going to be a serious problem for them.

SEND THOSE LETTERS!
Spreading the word that HSUS does NOT help animals as we fight each new proposal for a bad law is what we need to do now. ..."

Walt Hutchens
Timbreblue Whippets

A tip of the hat goes to Walt Hutchens.

Spay/Neuter H$U$ Update

First, Happy New Year to all. Now let's see if we can't make some serious inroads in the problems the animal radicals have been causing all of us. Yes, I did say all of us. Their stated goal is to eliminate all animal contact, but more on that later. For this first blog entry of 2010 I give you this.

_____________________________________

UPDATE ON "SPAY/NEUTER THE HSUS" INITIATIVE:
Mr Frank Losey reports that he has received confirmation from 34 states that have already sent in certifed letters to expose the HSUS to IRS. More from these states is certainly welcome.

THANK YOU all for doing this carefully-timed event at this busy time of year. Remember, BUSY PEOPLE CHANGE THE WORLD!!!
* * * * * * *
BUT....We would like to hear from ALL 50 states!!!!!!!!!!
* * * * * * *
The following states have not been heard from yet: if you know people in these states, PLEASE ask them to spend a few minutes to act between today and Jan 4th:

Alaska

Louisiana

Mississippi

North Dakota

Arizona

West Virginia

Montana

New Mexico

Delaware

Wyoming

Hawaii

Connecticut

Rhode Island

Maine

Utah

Minnesota

Now it is just a one-page letter, and the certified receipt - very easy!

Here is the letter, it couldn't be easier!!:

Internal Revenue Service
Fresno, CA 93888

Dear IRS Tax Fraud Investigator:

I respectfully ask that the IRS audit and investigate the alleged excessive and under-reported "Lobbying Activities" of the Humane Society of the United States.

Please keep my identity confidential.

Sincerely,
Your Name and
Address

As the Nation joins together to expose the HSUS...please crosspost this NEED for the copy of your certified receipt.

Scan and e-mail receipt for certified letter to f.losey@insightbb.com
or
Fax certified letter receipt to: 479-299-4417
or
Snail-mail your certified receipt (green) to

Frank Losey, 2029 Tampa Blvd, Navarre, FL 32566

(PLEASE NOTE, THE RECEIPTS ARE VERY IMPORTANT FOR FRANK TO HAVE IN A FOLLOWUP INITIATIVE IN WASHINGTON, DC. NUMBERS MATTER!)

Shell Game Continues

I'm pretty sure I've blogged about this before. Well I'm going to do it yet again.

I really was going to do my own research and write my own opinion, but the truth is someone else has already done a bang-up good job and I am a hardcore believer in never, ever wasting time trying to re-invent a perfectly good wheel.
So go here: http://ar-hr.com/2009/10/29/paving-the-way/and read what E. Saunders of Animal Rights or Human Responsibility (AR-HR) has to say on the topic.

Also go here: http://petdefense.wordpress.com/2009/12/19/hu-pretends-to-be-police-expose-by-carrol-cox-show/

And now for the skivvy on the latest H$U$ and their version of "The Art of Stealing under Cover of Law".

Since I watch as little TV as I possibly can I personally haven't seen any of these commercials on Fox, but I am willing to trust those who are reporting on having seem them.

First came two commercials, complete with sobbing music, sad puppy eyes, sick animals and the plead to care enough to donate to the Humane Society of US along with a web page address for where to send you money.

Couple of days pass and the same Fox News commercial appears only this time it has the ASPCA listed as needing your money. A web page address is list telling you where to send your money.

Couple of days pass and, you guessed it. The very same commercial appears yet again. Only this time the web page address listed is for Rescue Animals Now.org. Confused yet?

The all three web page addresses are owned by, you guessed it: Humane Society of US sometimes also known as H$U$)owned per the domain registration:

Registrant Organization:The Humane Society of the United States
Registrant Street1:2100 L Street, NW Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Washington
Registrant State/Province:District of Columbia Registrant Postal
Code:20037 Registrant Country:US Registrant Phone:+1.2024521100
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:hsusdomain@HSUS.ORG

The registrar used is godaddy.com.

A poster to pet-law@yahoogroups.com as this to say about what H$U$ in all its hundreds of different dresses is actually saying:

Perhaps we're going about this all the wrong way. Instead of working towards educating the public and being the voice of reason, we should just pretend to be PETA and HSUS supporters and really get out there in the public and demand things that we can prove they support:

1. Taking away your Constitutional rights to own pets
2. Legislating your pet-related business out of existence
3. Insisting that lab rats are more valuable than the life of your sick child
4. Destroying the American economy by ending all livestock farming, ranching, animal or animal product transportation, the sale of any animal product or by-product, the regulation of all food industries including groceries and restaurants.
5. The mandatory enforcement of veganism regardless of whether or not it is a healthy lifestyle choice for you
6. The extinction of ALL domestic animals (from cats to cows).
7. The closing of all zoos, aquariums, wildlife parks and circuses
8. Mandating the immediate end of all hunting, trapping and fishing.
9. Making it illegal to harm any animal for any reason whatsoever, including striking a deer with your car when it runs out on the road, killing a wolf, bear or wild boar that's taken up residence in your yard and is now trying to gain entrance to your home.
10. Rewriting the bible, torah & koran to insist that all the leaders of the world's major religions were really vegans.
11. Gaining full legal rights for all animals, which will then (logically) be able to vote, hold jobs and be elected (having the benefit that you'll finally know the politician you're voting for is a real ass BEFORE you cast your ballot).
    

Vegan anyone? Not me. My dog votes and so do I. We really must start working on voting all the bums out and voting in some people understand the difference between welfare and rights.

After thought

This is an example of what sane, thoughtful, caring animal owners are up against.
http://nathanwinograd.com/newsite/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/expo2006.wav

I don't even know what to say in response to that sort of crap. And yes, that is the nicest thing I am presently able to say.

It's like losing a filling in a tooth and you just can't seem to keep your tongue out of the hole, I just can't seem to let this bit go. So for those who would like to read more about what is really going on I recommend you head for this blog: http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=2318

What is a Puppy Mill?

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed(and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken

A reader says,

"I personally will continue to support groups that spread the awareness of puppy
mills."

To which I am forced to reply, "and what pray tell, exactly is the "puppy mill" clamor to be against?" Is it the breeder who has 25 dogs of which 5 are retired seniors and neuters, 5 are being shown, 3 are being used for breeding, 2 are puppies from previous litters that were returned as adults and 5 are puppies in training. This breeder produces or used to produce one or two litters per year. Is that the puppy mill?

Or is it that breeder who has 100 or more and really is commercial in nature? With the majority of canines being bitches being bred, in whelp or nursing? Is that your puppy mill? After all they actually raise and sell puppies as a cash crop. When did it become illegal or immoral to earn a living doing something you actually enjoy doing?

The real rub comes when the "anti-puppy mill" bill that calls for a limit of 50 dogs is passed and then a couple of years later that limit is quietly lowered to 25 dogs and the following year is lowered to 10 dogs and the next goal will be 5 dogs and finally the true goal is reached. Zero dogs.

From asking for a legal definition of "puppy mill" I jump to this quote:

"Laws against inhumane treatment never bother those who do not act inhumanely."

To this I am forced to reply, "HUH?" And then I say please go back to http://sanityshome.blogspot.com/2009/11/murder-hollow-basset-pack-update.html
and
http://sanityshome.blogspot.com/2008/11/are-you-next.html
or how about
http://www.animalcontrolwatch.com/?p=3

There is yet another problem with the word 'puppy mill'. The loudest squeaky wheel just happens to be H$U$ along with it's various minions. Their repeatedly stated goal for dog and cat breeders continues to be stop them all:

"Producing animals for sale is a greedy and callous business in a world where there is a critical and chronic shortage of good homes for dogs, cats, and other animals, and the only "responsible breeders" are ones who, upon learning
about their contribution to the overpopulation crisis, spay or neuter their
animals, and get out of the business altogether." - PETA, "Animal Rights
Uncompromised: There's No Such Thing as a 'Responsible Breeder'

One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding." Wayne Pacelle, Senior VP of Humane Society of the US, formerly of Friends of Animals and Fund for Animals, Animal People, May, 1993

"Breeders must be eliminated! As long as there is a surplus of companion animals in the concentration camps referred to as "shelters", and they are killing them because they are homeless, one should not be allowed to produce more for their own amusement and profit. If you know of a breeder in the Los Angeles area, whether commercial or private, legal or illegal, let us know and we will post their name, location, phone number so people can write them letters telling them 'Don't Breed or Buy, While Others DIE.'" "Breeders! Let's get rid of them too!" Campaign on Animal Defense League's website, September 2, 2003.

Meanwhile, in the interest of speeding up the removal of our pets,

From July 1998 through the end of 2005, PETA killed over 14,400 dogs, cats, and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 90 percent of the animals it took in during 2005 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern shows no sign of changing.

How about this? A breeder is just that, a breeder. Makes no difference whether there is one bitch bred once in 10 years or 200 bitches who are bred every season until they are 7, a breeder is a breeder. To that you might add the adjective commercial, hobby, pet.

Oh, my! Now there is a call for defining those three terms. Well how about this? A commercial breeder is someone who earns their living breeding and selling dogs. Numbers don't count. A hobby breeder is someone who doesn't earn their living breeding and selling dogs.Again, numbers don't count. And that brings us to the pet breeder. The pet breeder breeds one or two litters over the course of the lifetime of one bitch and never does it again, because they just learned how expensive it is and just how much work is involved. Let us not forget that Snoopy was born at the Daisy Hill Puppy Farm and that was originally considered to be a good thing.

This is just an interesting afterword:

Snoopy had been born and raised at the Daisy Hill Puppy Farm. His father used to run with hunting dogs, but would secretly run ahead and warn the rabbits. His mother is famous for her tapioca pudding, and in a 1990s Peanuts strip, came over on a World War I-era troopship to visit Snoopy and Spike, who had been ill with the flu. Out of all his siblings, Snoopy's brother Olaf was sold last. Before they were sold, Snoopy and his brothers and sister made a band and one by one each was sold. Snoopy's original owner was a little girl named Lila, who had to return him to Daisy Hill after her family moved to an apartment where dogs were forbidden.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snoopy

I think it also shows us just how far down a twisted path leading to the death and loss of all our pets, H$U$/PETA has taken most of us. Pink Koolaide, anyone?

Just a bunch of randoms

I started collecting the quotes used in this blog several weeks ago. Had fine, high-fluting ideas about writing a deeply thoughtful, insightful, monologue on where we stand at the close of this year of Two Thousand and Nine CE. The first problem I ran into was that every single time I would start to write this amazing opus my mind would simply go blank. When I would finally come back to myself I'd be playing Solitaire.

Now I ask you, how is a well-meaning, reasonably thoughtful person like I thought I was supposed to write anything of worth when the blasted computer switched to Solitaire in such a sneaky fashion?

My final solution is what I am now offering you. The entire, current collection of quotes. They are well worth thinking about. They are offered to you with the hopes that you, my reader, will be led into doing some research on your own. I don't know about you, but I know I wouldn't have a life worth living if it was bereft of animals.

In my case, with my current living situation that means dogs, dogs, dogs. I want to continue to train them the way I have always trained them. I want my right to care for them as DOGS! I want to continue to be the owner and to use what is now a unPC term, I want to be the master (well in my case, I guess I need to say mistress).

I don't want to lose them. No, I don't want to be a dog mommy. No, I don't want to have the state allow me guardianship over a group of fur children. No, I'm not willing to live with a bunch of "little people in fur suits". I'm not willing to prevent my dogs from learning the joys of real work.

"Animal rights is mental illness masquerading as philosophy." Walt Hutchens

I continue to wonder if the real problem is that for one reason or another we now have a huge population of mostly women of a certain age and education level who are all suffering from Munchausen by proxy syndrome (MBPS) and the poor proxy just happens to be whatever animals they have taken a fancy to. These women also managed to raise a generation of young humans who seem to be pretty much neuters, insist their animals be rendered sexless and who are continuing the MBPS with a vengeance. The goal would appear to make the condition the legal norm. May G*d save all of us from such a fate.

"Animal Extremists and Animal Terrorists. The difference is that anyone falling
into those two groups will gladly deprive you of your civil rights, your
property and even your life in order to get what they want (witness the
story about the fur protesters in Morgan, UT who claim that "God hates fur"
and even carried a poster with a drawing of an automatic weapon and the
words "no compromise") ." barbarajhaines

Now that's another thing I just don't get. Here we are, living in a great country. A country founded on a person's individual freedoms. Pride of our civil rights and our right to own property seems to be falling out of fashion. In it's place is what? Socialism? Something even worse?

The solution begins when we spread the word: "When you donate to HSUS, a shelter
dog dies." Loretta Baughan

Now this is something we should all be saying every single chance we get. Money donated to the Humane Society of the US doesn't go to help any animals. It sure doesn't help the lost, broken, cast off dogs. It sure doesn't help the horses or the cattle or the sheep or the pigs or even the chickens. What it does do is help pass yet another round of human hostile, animal killing bills into law. As a certain TV personality is fond of saying, "How's that working for ya?"

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly
Bill 241 without my signature.

This measure would make it a crime for
any person or entity to own or control more than 50 unsterilized adult dogs or
cats for breeding or raising for sale as pets. I support measures designed to
prevent animal cruelty and that punish persons engaged in the abuse of animals.
However, this measure simply goes too far in an attempt to address the serious
problem of puppy mills. An arbitrary cap on the number of animals any entity can
possess throughout the state will not end unlawful, inhumane breeding practices.
Instead this measure has the potential to criminalize the lawful activities of
reputable breeders, pet stores, kennels, and charitable organizations engaged in
raising service and assistance dogs.

For these reasons, I am unable to
sign this bill.

Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger

When Gov. Schwarzenegger refused to sign CA 241 into law, I was one of a great many who gave a sigh of relief. Sadly that was just one of hundreds of bills presented to legislative bodies all across this great land of ours. Why? What on earth has gotten into the elected officials? They continue to accept bills written by H$U$ toadies and then vote those anti-animal bills into laws. Laws that will do much harm and do no good. Strange behavior, strange indeed.

Animal Welfare or Animal Rights?
Here are some of the differences:
　
As animal welfare advocates. . .

• We seek to improve the treatment and well-being of animals.
  
• We support the humane treatment of animals that ensures comfort and freedom from unnecessary pain and suffering.


• We believe we have the right to "own" animals -- they are our
  property.


• We believe animal owners should provide loving care for the lifetime of
  their animals.

As animal rights activists. . .

• They seek to end the use and ownership of animals, including the keeping of
  pets.
  
• They believe that any use of an animal is exploitation so, not only must we
  stop using animals for food and clothing, but pet ownership must be outlawed as well.
  
• They want to obtain legal rights for animals as they believe that animals
  and humans are equal.
  
• They use false and unsubstantiated allegations of animal abuse to raise
  funds, attract media attention and bring supporters into the movement.
  　　　　 (The Inhumane Crusade, Daniel T. Oliver – Capital Research Center)

For now I will just ask you to read, think about what you just read and then read it again. I don't know about you, but no way will I ever be willing to believe my dogs are my equals. Well, maybe I could be convinced to change my mind on that matter when the dogs start washing windows. Certainly not before.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) spent less than 5% of its
$152 MILLION income directly aiding animals. Most of their money went to
executive salaries, travel and political lobbying.

If you really want to give your money away to be used for paying executive salaries, travel and heavy duty political lobbying, hey it's still a free country. It's your hard earned money and you should be free to spend it, give it away, bury it or burn it. In the giving away part, at least know what that money will be spend on. Know it will be spend on eliminating domestic animals. Personally I think that is a really bad idea, but that's just me.

Animal rights laws are another way for government to meddle in your life

We've got way, way too much government as it is, do you really want more?

Even Dobermans enjoy duck hunting and duck eating.

Go! Mink Farmers rock

I had another topic planned for today and decided to shelve it for later. For as long as I can remember I have dreamed of owning a mink coat. At this point in my life I've pretty much given up that dream, BUT it sort of resurfaced when I came across this album posted to Facebook.

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=130947&id=707803534&l=ac76fdebf8
and
http://www.furcommission.com/news/newsF11t.htm

Suddenly that dream of mink flared up hot again. Who knows? Maybe the economy will finally get better, the bottom line here will get fat and I'll manage that dream coat.

After years of reading about fur farmers being driven out of business by pasty-faced, plastic coated vegans who come sulking around in the dark of the night to destroy, burn and pillage. The wonderful mink farmers and other residents of Morgan, UT came together and showed a willingness to stand up for their way of life. Good for them! I will just keep on hoping this show of solidarity is a part of a greater beginning.

A beginning of the awakening of all Americans who own, live with, work with, farm or just plain enjoy the company of animals in their lives. The very animals who help to make us human, as well as feed and clothe us.

Way to go, Morgan, UT!!!!

Forever homes: A myth or just plain cruel

This quote is in response to an earlier entry. I'm quoting first and then will follow with my response. I'm doing it this way because I honestly believe it is a very important point and a way of thinking that needs further consideration.

wow, you are on the roll!
But I have to admit you confused me with this one. Maybe the idea of fostering an animal from the shelter for the holiday is a lame one, but I think you a bit overstretching the consequences.

I doubt lots of people would run into the shelter on Black Friday to get a dog. Life is
not Hollywood. But even if someone does, I doubt the experience will turn him or
her into the animal hater.

The only people I see doing something like this are those who would buy a puppy for Christmas and then take it to the shelter when he becomes big and unmanageable. But those are the people who do not put much thought into anything and I doubt any thought at all will cross their mind after the shelter door closes behind them.
now, do you really don't think that adopting a dog from the shelter is rescue? Maybe from "no kill" shelter it's not, but I think if you save the dogs life it is a rescue.
Here is a story of the dog that our friends had adopted:
http://www.bevhollinsphoto.com/blog/?p=849
It's true that our society overly humanizes animals, but I don't think it's
right to put down the dog just because no one wants it. And I don't think there
is anything wrong with wanting to give that dog home for the rest of it's life.

I have come to believe the constantly voiced/written animal radicals dream of "forever" homes falls in either the myth or cruelty category. We live at a point in this country's history where the majority of adults either don't bother to ever form long term relationships with other humans or think a long term relationship is 10 years or less. When two humans come to a point in their lives where their interests have completely diverged they don't start stressing about "forever marriage" anymore. They just pick up the phone and make a appointment with a good divorce attorney and get on with the business of moving on with life.

So what I want to know is why, please someone tell me why, must dogs and cats be forced to remain in a "forever home" that is not a good fit? How much kinder and more realistic is to to admit that the puppy you had such glowing plans for has grown up to just flat out hate those plans? I think about all the times over the years that an owner has come to me for help, because of the problems they were having with their dog not fitting into the roll planned for them. I could just as easily turn that around and say they were the driver and the payer of fees, but it was the dog who was complaining about the problems he was having with the humans.

Either way, the real solution, the thing that worked the very best for all parties was for the humans and dog to get that divorce. This then freed to dog to find a much better set of humans and it freed the humans up to either continue their life dogless or enter into a relationship with a dog that was more suitable.

Don't go getting all fuzzy brained and weepy on me. Consider just these two examples.

First was a young Border Collie. She had the misfortune of landing in a "marriage" with a family that consisted of 7 children under the age of 10. The parents were nice a couple. They were also overwhelmed by the children. The children raced around yelling, crying, laughing, talking, eating and not paying much, if any attention to either parent.

T0 this mess was added a Border Collie. By the time I saw them, she was almost totally insane. Frankly I didn't blame her one bit. I wanted to bark and bite most of those kids myself. To keep my sanity I did end up insisting all 7 of them do a "long sit/stay". Did I mention the reason they came to me was because of the dog's constant barking and the the fact she had now started biting the children?

This Border Collie got lucky. She was the right age and I just happened to know of a farmer who had lost his hard working farm collie to old age. He had ask me to keep my eyes open for a new dog for him. I talked the family out of their dog and she went off to live with the farmer and after a 3 month decompression period turned into what he many years later told me was the very best dog he had ever owned.

Second dog. A very large, male Akita. This fellow was overbearing, suspicious of all new things, hated having to live inside and had zero respect for either of his very well educated, wealthy, over achiever owners. I managed to get him out of that home. A home, I might add, that the radicals labeled as the almost perfect home and one he hated. He went to live, work and pretty much worship the owner of a scrap metal lot. This lot and the building were cold in the winter, hot in the summer, dirty all the time. Here he was free to be as nasty as he pleased to the unwanted and very questionable humans that sometimes came around after dark. He lived a long and very happy life.

I'm going to add a third dog to this list. Some of you know her through this blog and some of you know her in person. I am speaking of Sanity's little Yorkie. I really have no right to say if she was happy in her first home. I have no doubt that she is happy now. The first home said she was dangerously dog aggressive. The first home said she wasn't safe around children. The first home said she was fearful of strangers. Turns out not a one of those things were true. Lucky her, the first "marriage" ended in divorce and she was handed over the fence to me. This marriage sure does look like a keeper.

Bottom line here is the "forever home" claptrap is dooming many dogs to a life of misery and what under other conditions would be a good home is in truth a very bad home.

Many, many times a person gets a puppy or a dog for the right reasons at that time, but time and changes make the choice not so perfect. Why, oh why does a certain part of our population want to insist that the poor dog must be forced to live in a constant state of misery just to meet the requirements of a "forever home".

All this wandering about really does have something to do with the beginning and taking dogs home just because it is Thanksgiving or Christmas. The dogs don't worry about human designated holidays so they will be much happier to got to what might turn out to be a new marriage when the humans have more time to give, have more quiet in the house and fewer guests, no parties and definitely no overly rich foods to make things extra difficult. The time between November 15 to January 2 have got to be the worst time of the year for adding a new animal to the household.

Foster a pet for Christmas? BAH! HUMBUG!

After yesterday's blog I seem to be on something of a roll. Please refrain from reading my comments until after you have read what the below link has to say.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/life/20091125/fosterpets25_st.art.htm

http://tinyurl.com/ydndjpu

Foster a dog for Christmas? What ever happened to the warning, "Never bring home a new animal during the holidays?" Funny thing, that. Seems to me I don't remember at time in the last 40 years when many people thought getting a puppy, kitten, dog, cat between Thanksgiving and New Year's was a good idea.

Well, that may be a tad bit too all encompassing. While it has always been true that those who already know how to handle, train and care for a house pet are able to do so anytime of the year it's still not easy to do during the major holidays at the end of the year.

Just about every place that has an animal control department also seems to have limit laws. What this very efficiently does is make sure the only people available to take part in this harebrained scheme are those who know the very least in the way of practical knowledge of good, honest animal husbandry type care of the fosters they will be taking in.

How many will understand the need to maintain some sort of quarantine to protect the resident dogs/cats from any disease being harbored by the incoming foster? How many will understand how to orchestrate a safe introduction between the resident animals and the incoming foster?

The few questions I just posed hardly touch the tip of the iceberg when it comes to bringing a new animal into a household with resident dogs/cats firmly in place.

Then again, maybe the entire plan is to turn down those who may actually have the experience and know how and replace knowledge with warm fuzzy thinkers who don't have a clue as to what it takes to properly care for, feed, train and exercise a dog or even a cat. When they fail, as a very large majority will, the number of anti-animal people just increased yet again. After all, the thinking goes, if I can't even take care of one dog/cat then there is no way Sally Smith or Jill Jones can take care of 50. Never mind that both Smith and Jones have the proper set-up, coupled with some full time help and a part timer or two. Nope, if Ms. Fuzzybrain Lovesdogs finds it next to impossible to love her just 'rescued' 90 pounds of wild, untrained young, male Lab, then it's a slam-dunk that neither can anyone else.

The entire "Foster a Pet for Christmas" just stinks. If you are just itching to help then actually go do some volunteer work. Take a couple 40# bags of food, bedding, even toys to the local shelter and then should you decide that giving temporary housing is something you want to do, do it AFTER January 1.

Besides which, the generic you needs to remember the reality is you are not strictly speaking engaging in rescue when you go to a shelter, group, pound to pick out a pet. You are doing the equivalent of going to a used car lot, only instead of cars/trucks you are buying a used or what do they call them now? Previously owned. That's right, you are buying a previously owned animal. Mind you there is not a single thing wrong with buying a previously owned animal as long as you admit that is what you have done. You didn't rescue it. You bought and paid for it.

Just do the homing, rehoming stuff after the first of the new year.

The Taming of the Beast (Part 5)

Actually this is Brandy's youngest human. We thing she is just the cutest thing for miles around. She's currently learning how to move, play and "work" around lots of dogs and who knows? Some day she might just become a dog trainer.

And now moving on, here is a short clip showing Brandy doing her first set of stays in a group. This is very special since Brandy came here believing she would be doing the world a big favor to eliminate all small dogs. Note the dogs on either side of her.



If you look very closely you can see just how hard Brandy is working. She was a vibrating machine during the entire set of stays. I left the voice so you can hear the dialogue as I do my very best to build human confidence while Brandy learns how to control herself.

SPCA Outrage in Philadelphia

How much longer will this sort of theft uncover of questionable laws be allowed to continue before animal owners all over the country finally wake up and realize HSUS has you and me and all our friends, family, neighbors firmly locked in their gun sights.

Isn't it Philadelphia that is supposed to be the city of brotherly love? Must be too old fashioned an idea.

http://neveryetmelted.com/2009/08/05/spca-outrage-in-philadelphia/#comment-140915

Read this and begin to wonder just how long it will be before they come for you. How much longer before owning one dog with no reproductive parts will still label you a puppy mill, whatever that is. The term "puppy mill" is so elastic and slippery the animal radicals are able to stretch it and twist it and curl it and fluff it to mean anything they want it to mean.



Please pass on the word about this latest travesty of animal "protection". It is important that everyone know what is happening.

Dispelling the term "Puppymill"

I really am going to try and make this the last polical rant for a time. Please read what Karen Strange has to say and at least give it some thought. "Puppymill" really does need to be seen as a bad word.

There is no legal definition for the term "puppymill".

The term "puppymill" is a phrase coined by animal rights activists and
supporters against anyone who breeds dogs, regardless of the care the animals
receive. The name-calling is a means to turn the unknowing public against all
dog breeders and to raise endless funds for continuous propaganda and
money-making schemes by animal rights activists and organizations.

There is a difference between professional kennels and sub-standard
kennels.
Professional breeders operate legal kennels, licensed by the state
department of agriculture as well as USDA, and meet or exceed all guidelines
pertaining to the health, care and well-being of their animals. They are active
members in good standing of state associations, attend seminars, and earn
continuing education hours for lectures on such topics as pre-natal and
post-natal care, nutrition, health care, socialization, grooming, kennel
management, tax preparation, ventilation, incubation and reproduction.

Substandard kennels are illegal, unlicensed facilities that produce
animals with no regards to their health and well-being.

No one supports neglect or abuse of animals. Calling legal, licensed,
professional breeders "puppymills" and claiming that they abuse their animals is
grossly unfair and unjust, and is not acceptable.

The term "puppymill" is a derogatory word used by animal rights activists
and supporters against anyone who breeds dogs, and is no more acceptable than
using slur names for those of different ethnic backgrounds. It is as degrading
and offensive to professional breeders to call them "puppymills" as it is to
call our fellow man slur names. It is not socially acceptable to call our fellow
man names, nor is it acceptable to call breeders slur names.

We ask that you refrain from using the term "puppymill", and that you
correct others that use the term to describe dog breeders. Animal rights
activists use the term to garner support for fundraising, and those funds are
being used to eliminate all agriculture, use and enjoyment of animals. Please
help us to stop the spread of animal rights issues. Let's all begin by
eliminating the term "puppymill" from our vocabulary.
　
Karen Strange,
President & Lobbyist
MoFed

Noose Set to Tighten on Los Angeles Purebred Dogs

While the title is "Noose Set to Tighten on Los Angeles Purebred Dogs" keep in mind it is also set to tighten on cats as well. The H$U$ goal is to have no animals come in contact with any human for any reason at any time. There MUST be no compromise with these animal radicals. Any compromise is viewed as weakness and exploited to the fullest extent possible. Please read the below article. Please think long and hard about just how it will have an effect on you and your animals even if you live 3,000 miles away.

Meanwhile help this information go viral on the web. It is one more way to fight for your dog/cat. It is one more way to stay an owner.

The below is exactly why there can be no compromises with Animal Radical groups.

Judy Goldberg
Greylock Poodles

Noose Set To Tighten On Los Angeles Purebred Dogs

AKC Disqualification Shows Entire Nation The Danger of
Compromise, Apathy Or Agreeing To Biased Task Forces

by MARGO MILDE AND JOHN YATES
American sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org/
asda@csonline.net

This report is archived at
http://eaglerock814.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=\44

LOS ANGELES, CA - It will be next to impossible to own a sexually intact registered dog or cat within the City of Los Angeles, if City Council approves a series of recommendations by the Spay/Neuter Advisory Committee in a March 30, 2009,report. These recommendations have been sent to Los Angeles City Council and to Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa in final form, the American Sporting Dog Alliance has documented. Action on the recommendations could happen at any time.

It already is illegal in Los Angeles to possess a sexually intact dog that is registered with the Field Dog Stud Book (FDSB), and the committee's recommendations would cancel out current exemptions for approved show, field trial, performance and breeding dogs registered with the American Kennel Club (AKC), and also rare breed and smaller registries. The recommendations also may affect dogs registered with the United Kennel Club (UKC), and cats registered with the three top feline registries. Beginning this year, the ordinance has required all dogs and cats that did not qualify for an intact exemption to be spayed or neutered at the medically unsafe age of four months.

Now, however, it is clear that even these few exemptions are intended to be phased out, if recommendations from the committee are approved by the City Council. The committee's recommendations also contain a series of "Catch 22's" that would make it virtually impossible for the owner of an intact dog to maintain an exemption for competition, field trials and shows, even if the registry itself maintains its exemption, documents show.

The unfolding situation in Los Angeles gives dramatic and clear proof that the ultimate goal of all animal rights-inspired legislation is a step toward the elimination of animal ownership in America. Each law, ordinance and regulation is merely the first step toward a tightening of the noose in this incremental approach to making America a nation without dogs, cats and other domesticated animals. Each step is designed to lead to another, until no more animals are left.

For dog owners, it means that any compromise with animal rights activists is illogical, unwise and totally illusory. Dog owners who agree to negotiate, participate on task forces or committees that are stacked against them, compromise, cut deals, remain apathetic, or fail to fight hard for their rights in the political arena, are slitting their own throats. The only alternative is to fight back courageously against all animal rights legislation, and refuse to quit, surrender or compromise.

That lesson applies equally to all Americans who own dogs or cats, and has immediate meaning to Illinois, which has set up a task force to study new dog laws, and Maine and Santa Barbara, CA, which are now in the process of having the results rammed down their throats by task forces that were designed to have strong animal rights biases.

The Los Angeles Committee also provides a clear lesson to dog owners about how task forces and committees can be taken over by nonresident animal rights extremists, who now are incorporating these committees into their nationwide strategy. The American Sporting Dog Alliance first uncovered this strategy in the City of Dallas, TX, which passed a repressive spay/neuter mandate last year based on the recommendations of a committee with official status that pointedly excluded anyone who was not an animal rights activist.

The Los Angeles Committee includes at least one person who does not live in the city: noted animal rights extremist Judie Mancuso of Laguna Beach, CA. Mancuso was a major force behind last year's failed effort to enact statewide mandatory spay/neuter legislation, and is leading efforts for legislation this year.

Mancuso also works on mandatory sterilization issues nationwide, and recently testified in Chicago, where she claimed that these ordinances do not affect the availability of purebred dogs. The Los Angeles proposals contradict and discredit Mancuso's statements in Chicago and elsewhere, and show clearly that her real goal is to eliminate purebred dogs.

Here are the Los Angeles Spay/Neuter Committee report's highlights pertaining to owning intact purebred dogs.

Almost all of America's dog and cat registries would be removed from the list of approved registries, because they do not have official policies to protect the health and soundness of dogs eligible for registration and used in breeding programs, as would be required by the new recommendations. We see this requirement as a "Catch 22" that is impossible to fulfill, because the science of canine genetics is in its infancy and does not allow many conditions to be predicted accurately (and thus prevented), and the Los Angeles ordinance is essentially requiring registries to be liable (including financially liable) for the results of matings over which they have no real control. Private breeders of high quality dogs also would object to a distant registry taking control of their breeding decisions, if for no other reason than the fact that registry officials would have no first-hand knowledge of the dogs involved, their progeny or their ancestors.

Dogs registered by the American Kennel Club (AKC), which is the nation's largest registry, could not be kept sexually intact or bred in Los Angeles if these
recommendations are adopted. This also would apply to dogs registered through
the American Dog Breeders Association (American pit bull terriers), the Continental Kennel Club, the American Rare Breed Association, the Australian Shepherd Club of America and the Dog Registry of America, and possibly cats registered by the three major feline registries.

The status of UKC-registered dogs could not be determined from the report. The UKC already has an extensive list of breeding policies, but they are essentially recommendations to breeders and most are not mandatory. Nor is it known if the UKC would be willing to assume liability for the actions of breeders.

Field Dog Stud Book, which is America's oldest registry and the premiere registry for pointers and setters bred for hunting and field trials, is not included in the current list of approved registries and also could not possibly meet the requirements of the committee report. It is currently illegal to own a sexually intact FDSB-registered dog, or breed it, in the City of Los Angeles.

To obtain a breeding permit, the report recommends requiring that a dog must be temperament tested, have Orthopedic Foundation of America certification for hip dysplasia, meet other unspecified "health requirements," and have earned or be earning a title in competition through an approved registry (of which there would be
none). We regard all of these as cynical "Catch 22s."

Temperament testing would be done by the animal control agency, which lacks the expertise to evaluate dogs of most breeds and could not do a fair evaluation in the chaotic environment of an animal control facility. Thus, many good dogs would be set up to fail.

OFA hip certification cannot be obtained until a dog is two years old and the Los Angeles ordinance requires dogs to be spayed at age four months(long before they would be bred, entered in serious competition or could be certified by OFA), and animal control personnel do not have the knowledge or experience to evaluate genetic health problems or the ways to reduce or eliminate them.

The report also recommends that all dogs be entered into a show or competition at least annually to qualify for an exemption (the current requirement is one show every two years). However, this fails to account for the reality that many dogs are kept for evaluation for a year or two before they are entered in competition or sent to a professional trainer, an injury or illness can hold a dog out of competition for lengthy periods, and many outstanding champions are retired from competition early to use for breeding in order to pass on their outstanding genetics to future generations. These dogs would have to be sterilized, under the recommendation.

The current ordinance exempts a dog that is being trained for competition, or as a guide, service or military dog. However, the committee report recommends eliminating this exemption if the dog's trainer is not an officially licensed business in the City of Los Angeles,as well as stating that dog trainers should meet certain unspecified "qualifications" to be licensed.

The dog world is not local. Many serious breeders are themselves highly competent and qualified trainers, and many send their dogs to trainers who are located in other parts of the state or nation. These trainers could not qualify for a Los Angeles business license for the simple reason that they do not live in the city (and possibly not even in the state), and the breeders could not qualify for a business license because they are hobbyists who are not in the business of training dogs for the public.

Moreover, no one in the animal control department is even remotely qualified to pass judgment on the ability or qualifications of a professional trainer. It is doubtful if any professional trainers of field trial or hunting dogs live within the city, as there would not be enough suitable grounds nearby, and regulations and taxation would be prohibitive in an urban environment.

Requirements to maintain a sexually intact dog also would be tightened generally, including mandating spay/neuter for a second offense of leash laws or a second impoundment by animal control, shortening time limits for compliance, denying permits to dog owners to whom even one warning had been issued, and raising prices of intact and breeding permits (current permits cost $100 per animal per year, and allow the holder only one litter per year per each female animal for which a permit has been obtained).

The Los Angeles Committee report to City Council is contained in a 91-page (pdf file) report that can be viewed at
http://www.laanimalservices.com/spayneuterlaw/committee/march09_rep.pdf.

See pdf pages 68-through-74. Look for Recommendation Twelve.

This report was located and researched by ASDA advisor and researcher Margo Milde of Glenview, IL.
The current ordinance can be viewed at
http://www.clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2007/07-1212_ord_179615.pdf
.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges all Los Angeles dog owners to oppose this report to City Council. We also ask dog owners everywhere in America to learn from what is happening in Los Angeles and spurn the idea of task forces, negotiations with animal rights activists, or agreeing to compromises. Failing to fight back courageously is the first step in participating in the destruction of the dogs that you love, and your own freedom and basic rights as an American.

We also challenge the purebred dog and cat registries themselves, but especially the American Kennel Club (AKC), the largest purebred dog registry in the United States, to vigorously oppose the Los Angeles committee's recommendations. We also urge these registries to make adverse legislation involving any facet of dog and cat ownership and breeding their utmost priority. We especially ask the AKC to clearly communicate to its affiliated and member clubs the dangers of seeking purebred or show exemptions in any proposed legislation involving dog ownership or breeding, since, as these Los Angeles committee's recommendations illustrate, such legal exemptions are only a sham, to be all too easily removed by the Animal Rights zealots who seek the extinction of all purebred breeds of dogs.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life. The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.

Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org/

Our email is asda@csonline.net .
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS