Sportsmen’s & Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance newsletter

As always, we encourage cross posting of these messages.  

News & Legislation Briefs January 16, 2012

Dear SAOVA Friends,

It has been some time since we discussed federal dog breeder legislation. As 2011 ended, HSUS had gathered a substantial number of cosponsors for HR835 / S707 Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act (PUPS) reaching 192 in the House and 31 in the Senate. The escalating number of cosponsors prompted new dialogue among sportsmen and dog breeders regarding the bill’s potential impact and re-energized posting of online opposition.  

Previous versions of PUPS would have required the federal government to set standards for when to breed and how frequently to breed dogs, and relied on some numerical threshold for adding retailers under USDA regulation.  PUPS is the current example of overbearing regulation that attacks dog breeders and rescuers.

PUPS creates a new category, High Volume Retail Breeder, defined as someone who has ownership in or custody of an intact female dog 4 months of age or older and sells 50 offspring in a year.

Diana Culp, former HSUS employee, wrote in the Examiner, “These bills will have an effect on people who care for purebred dogs.”  Culp explains, "50 puppies" appears to affect only large volume breeders. However, good breeders and rescues (and shelters) maintain ownership interests in all dogs they place through sales and adoption contracts. And while a good breeder would never place 50 puppies in one year, a shelter certainly does. A rescue may have 50 puppies in foster homes and if they are not spayed by the time they are 4 months old (which is a controversial procedure) the rescue is subject to USDA inspection.  (Who is Against Puppies? Puppy Protection Act http://tinyurl.com/82dkn6c)

Some dog owners and breeders continue to struggle with this definition of “50 sales” thinking that according to this definition the proposed legislation can never affect them.  It is important not to become sidetracked with the numbers game.  The intent of PUPS as with all previous versions is to change the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and USDA/APHIS responsibility forever by granting authority for federal regulation to extend beyond commercial dog breeders. The policy to separate commercial and retail breeders has been challenged and defended in court. At that time, USDA attorneys defended this policy on several grounds, one of which was potential invasions of privacy that would result if federal inspectors began enforcing "cleaning, sanitation, handling, and other regulatory requirements in private homes." That concern is just as relevant now as it was in 2002.

Maine Hunting & Sporting Dog Owners writes, “It’s no secret HSUS goals include the elimination of ALL sport hunting.  Under PUPS new regulations, responsible breeding of hunting and sporting dogs for ethical hunters would be significantly reduced or eliminated all together.”

The United States Working Dog Foundation provides a succinct description of the bill, “PUPS epitomizes the grave danger imposed upon a society when animal rights activists and legislators attempt to regulate a highly complex specialty which they do not understand.”

Additional opposition statements are posted and can be read at PopVox  https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/hr835  The site is user friendly for registering either an organization or sending an individual letter to your Congressman.

On January 8^th SAOVA and other concerned groups sent a joint letter to the House Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry in opposition to PUPS.  The letter along with additional information about PUPS is posted on the SAOVA site http://www.saova.org/PUPS2011.html 

As always, we encourage cross posting of these messages.

Susan Wolf

Sportsmen’s & Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance

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

ACTION ALERT: NEW HAMPSHIRE SB 370 BREEDING AND CARE REQUIREMENTS

PUBLIC HEARING is scheduled Thursday, January 19^th at 10:45am; Senate Executive Departments and Administration Committee; Room 100, STATE HOUSE, Concord, NH

All dog breeders and owners are encouraged to attend the meeting Thursday to respectfully testify in opposition to SB 370 as it is currently written. 

SB 370 creates new sections in the statutes that seek to restrict dog ownership and breeding, and specify standards of care and treatment regardless of breed, health, or age of the dog.

SB 370 mandates a specific medical treatment by requiring that a veterinarian administer general anesthesia when performing a surgical birth, debarking operation, or tail docking.  Docking 6 day old puppies’ tails cannot be done under general anesthesia.

SB 370 imposes the requirement of costly immediate veterinary care for any illness or injury involving one of the 10 or more females owned for breeding purposes.  The bill fails to recognize that responsible breeders have first aid skills and basic medical information to deal with common illnesses and injuries.  This requirement will only serve to harass a responsible dog owner who is able to administer first aid for minor illnesses and injuries.

SB 370 restricts breeding and other procedures without consideration for the dog. The bill imposes arbitrary limits on the frequency of breeding females.

SB 370 allows the agent of a humane society or SPCA to investigate a complaint (no training required).

New Hampshire’s current laws and regulations provide sufficient protection for dogs, making this legislation unnecessary.

For additional talking points and contact information visit Dog Owners of the Granite State website: http://nhdogs.org/

Find your local state senator at http://gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/members/wml.aspx

ANIMAL ACTIVISTS

BLUM V HOLDER. Activists represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed suit in federal court in U.S. District Court in the District of Massachusetts., challenging the constitutionality of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA).  According to the CCR website Blum v. Holder is a federal lawsuit challenging AETA as an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. The plaintiffs are five longtime animal rights activists whose advocacy work has been chilled due to fear of being prosecuted as a terrorist under the AETA.

COURT TURNS OVER UFL RECORDS TO ANIMAL RIGHTS MILITANT

An Alachua County Circuit Court judge has ordered the University of Florida to provide an animal rights activist with records on primates involved in research. Camille Marino of Wildwood, who founded the group Negotiation is Over, received the records last week. She said she plans to use them to continue a campaign against animal research at UFL, which recently included the online posting of the layout of UFL laboratories and the university spokeswoman’s cell phone number.  The University spokeswoman received more than a dozen calls, including a death threat that UFL police are investigating.

The Florida Board of Governors is asking state lawmakers, as part of its legislative budget request, to create a public records exemption for the addresses of university faculty and staff who conduct research involving animals. Stump said UFL police are reviewing security measures and raising awareness of Negotiation is Over's tactics with university employees. Full story at Gainesville Sun http://tinyurl.com/77fl6ee