Cassville Democrat: Editorial Thursday, October 28, 2010
Lisa Schlichtman
This week I had intended to write an editorial opposing Proposition B that will appear on the Nov. 2 ballot. The ballot initiative would create tougher rules for dog breeders and ultimately would put a large number of reputable breeders out of business in Barry County. The state of Missouri already has laws in place that regulate dog breeders, and I believe we need to enforce the existing laws we have rather than adopt a law that is being pushed by people outside the state, namely the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), a group that would be pleased to see all forms of animal agriculture abolished. I am offering my editorial space this week to Kristin Crawford, who has written a guest editorial that mirrors my opinion on Proposition B. I hope you will read her piece and inform yourself about this ballot issue. Crawford is a dog breeder herself, but her opinion on Proposition B is the same as the Missouri Farm Bureau, the Missouri Dairy Association and many veterinarians across the state, who all oppose the ballot measure. I urge you to go the polls next Tuesday and vote "NO" on Proposition B.
"Puppies, Bacon and Eggs"
by Kristen Crawford, of Cassville
Proposition B, referred to as "The Puppy Mill Cruelty Bill", is a deceptive list of "new" rules aimed at existing, licensed and fully compliant dog breeders. This measure will not shut down puppy mills in Missouri as is stated in all forms of media put forth by its proponents. Do not be fooled by the media endorsements by politicians, an out-of-state veterinarian or even the misinformed coach of our beloved Cardinals.
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the world's largest animal rights (not animal welfare) lobbying group is backing this bill. They have, to date, spent more than $3 million on promoting this bill alone. The bill is worded in a fashion that implies that all breeders are cruel by not caring for their dogs by providing: food, clean water, shelter, regular vet care and exercise...things that compliant breeders are already inspected for and provide as required under the current 22 pages of rules and regulations through the Animal Care Facilities Act (ACFA).
Full editorial at link
Friday, October 29, 2010
UKC Opposes Missouri’s Proposition B
UKC recognizes that irresponsible breeders and kennels are a valid concern, and UKC strongly believes that irresponsible breeders and dog owners should be dealt with accordingly. Obviously, dog welfare in all aspects of dog ownership, from pet owners to exhibitors to breeders, is a priority and no form of neglect or abuse should be tolerated in any aspect of dog ownership. However, Missouri’s Proposition B is not really about dog welfare as it outwardly appears to be. It’s a creation of the animal rights movement to restrict all dog breeding in Missouri. If Proposition B passes, it would label many responsible breeders as ‘puppy mills,’ an offensive and negative term created by animal rights proponents, simply due to the number of dogs the breeder has. The Humane Society of the United States, an animal rights (not welfare) organization is one of the major proponents of Prop B, and has already spent $2.18 million dollars on emotional advertisements to persuade citizens that this is about animal welfare, when in reality it’s another way to criminalize dog breeding.
Proposition B defines a puppy mill as any breeder that owns ten or more intact female dogs over the age of six months. It also creates a cap on the number of dogs a person can own. Realistically, dog welfare isn’t about the quantity of dogs one owns, but about the quality of care the dogs are given, which is why UKC is opposed to numerical limits on dog ownership. The number of pups whelped per year is in no way relative to the welfare of dogs owned by a breeder; a person can just as easily neglect or abuse one dog as they can sixty dogs.
Missouri already has a law that regulates pet breeders called the Animal Care Facilities Act, and it’s actually more comprehensive than Prop B. It has requirements for adequate care, not only for the facilities themselves, but also for transportation of animals. Prop B does not cover transportation at all. The current law also requires inspections of animal shelters and pounds, and includes cats as well as dogs. Prop B specifically excludes animal shelters and pounds. The current law requires licensing and inspections for all covered breeders, while Prop B does not provide for how violations are to be enforced. Violators of the current law could face class A misdemeanor charges while Prop B violators will only face a class C misdemeanor. The current law provides an exemption for registered show and hobby breeders, while Prop B provides no such exemption.
Clearly, the current law is much more applicable and reasonable, and actually regulates dog welfare while Prop B does not. If Prop B was really intended to protect so-called ‘puppy mill’ dogs, then it would focus more on welfare, provide for an inspection and licensing system, and exempt hobby and show breeders from being negatively labeled as ‘puppy mills.’ The current law is much more specific and comprehensive not only in what it covers, but also in its standards of care. Instead of Prop B, the current law should be more strongly enforced, and possible stronger penalties should be considered for repeat offenders. There is simply no need for Missouri’s Proposition B.
United Kennel Club
Proposition B defines a puppy mill as any breeder that owns ten or more intact female dogs over the age of six months. It also creates a cap on the number of dogs a person can own. Realistically, dog welfare isn’t about the quantity of dogs one owns, but about the quality of care the dogs are given, which is why UKC is opposed to numerical limits on dog ownership. The number of pups whelped per year is in no way relative to the welfare of dogs owned by a breeder; a person can just as easily neglect or abuse one dog as they can sixty dogs.
Missouri already has a law that regulates pet breeders called the Animal Care Facilities Act, and it’s actually more comprehensive than Prop B. It has requirements for adequate care, not only for the facilities themselves, but also for transportation of animals. Prop B does not cover transportation at all. The current law also requires inspections of animal shelters and pounds, and includes cats as well as dogs. Prop B specifically excludes animal shelters and pounds. The current law requires licensing and inspections for all covered breeders, while Prop B does not provide for how violations are to be enforced. Violators of the current law could face class A misdemeanor charges while Prop B violators will only face a class C misdemeanor. The current law provides an exemption for registered show and hobby breeders, while Prop B provides no such exemption.
Clearly, the current law is much more applicable and reasonable, and actually regulates dog welfare while Prop B does not. If Prop B was really intended to protect so-called ‘puppy mill’ dogs, then it would focus more on welfare, provide for an inspection and licensing system, and exempt hobby and show breeders from being negatively labeled as ‘puppy mills.’ The current law is much more specific and comprehensive not only in what it covers, but also in its standards of care. Instead of Prop B, the current law should be more strongly enforced, and possible stronger penalties should be considered for repeat offenders. There is simply no need for Missouri’s Proposition B.
United Kennel Club
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Vote ‘No’ on Proposition B
Millions of dollars from outside the state are being spent by HSUS to try to convince people to vote for Proposition B. Here’s hoping Missourians reject their message.
Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 6:00 am
By Paul Campbell paulc@buffaloreflex.com
The Buffalo Reflex doesn’t endorse candidates, but this doesn’t mean I can’t write an opinion column on issues facing Missouri voters on Nov. 3. One of those is Proposition B, the so-called Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act.
This ballot initiative would establish new restrictions on the state’s dog breeders, in addition to those regulations already placed on them. What’s more, the motives of some of its proponents, the Humane Society of the United States, is greatly in question.
Two factors alone would cause me to vote against Proposition B. One is that under the proposal no breeder would be allowed to have more than 50 dogs in a facility. This is an arbitrary and unfair figure, penalizing the many good breeders who have more dogs than that.
This segment of the proposition causes me to question the motives of the proponents of the bill. Such a regulation would be similar to a rule that would require farmers to have no more than 10 cows or no more than 12 hogs. Agricultural organizations in the state believe that HSUS’s ultimate goal is to limit the number of farm animals or eliminate them altogether.
The Missouri Veterinary Medical Association, an opponent of Proposition B, put it this way, “The ballot being proposed would completely outlaw our state’s well-run and licensed facilities that have over 50 breeding dogs. This is unfair and misguided. These are operated properly under the guidance of extensive current regulations in order to provide families with pets to love and cherish.”
Full story at Buffalo Reflex.com
Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 6:00 am
By Paul Campbell paulc@buffaloreflex.com
The Buffalo Reflex doesn’t endorse candidates, but this doesn’t mean I can’t write an opinion column on issues facing Missouri voters on Nov. 3. One of those is Proposition B, the so-called Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act.
This ballot initiative would establish new restrictions on the state’s dog breeders, in addition to those regulations already placed on them. What’s more, the motives of some of its proponents, the Humane Society of the United States, is greatly in question.
Two factors alone would cause me to vote against Proposition B. One is that under the proposal no breeder would be allowed to have more than 50 dogs in a facility. This is an arbitrary and unfair figure, penalizing the many good breeders who have more dogs than that.
This segment of the proposition causes me to question the motives of the proponents of the bill. Such a regulation would be similar to a rule that would require farmers to have no more than 10 cows or no more than 12 hogs. Agricultural organizations in the state believe that HSUS’s ultimate goal is to limit the number of farm animals or eliminate them altogether.
The Missouri Veterinary Medical Association, an opponent of Proposition B, put it this way, “The ballot being proposed would completely outlaw our state’s well-run and licensed facilities that have over 50 breeding dogs. This is unfair and misguided. These are operated properly under the guidance of extensive current regulations in order to provide families with pets to love and cherish.”
Full story at Buffalo Reflex.com
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
BLM backs wild-horse sanctuary
State Board of Finance to mull touchy land purchase Nov. 16
Staci Matlock The New Mexican
Posted: Monday, October 25, 2010
The head of the federal Bureau of Land Management's Wild Horse and Burro Program supports a plan for a proposed mustang sanctuary in New Mexico near Cerrillos and said it could serve as a model for other states.
Don Glenn, chief of the BLM's Division of Wild Horses and Burros, said the agency solicited ideas for more sustainably handling an ever-growing number of wild horses that need homes. "One idea was to seek out partners and places to put sanctuaries," Glenn said. "We are interested in a partnership with the state if they buy this land."
A few weeks ago, the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, which oversees the State Parks Division, announced plans to purchase the 12,000-plus-acre Ortiz Mountain Ranch, also known as the Ball Ranch. The property is south of Madrid. The $2.9 million for the purchase would come from Gov. Bill Richardson's discretionary portion of New Mexico's federal stimulus funds. The purchase would expand Cerrillos Hills State Park tenfold, although the ranch is not contiguous with the existing park. A portion of the ranch would be set aside for a wild horse sanctuary, according to Jim Noel, Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Cabinet secretary.
Gubernatorial candidates Diane Denish and Susana Martinez both oppose using federal stimulus funding to create the wild horse sanctuary. The purchase must still be approved by the eight-member New Mexico Board of Finance, of which Richardson is president and Denish is a member. Full story
Staci Matlock The New Mexican
Posted: Monday, October 25, 2010
The head of the federal Bureau of Land Management's Wild Horse and Burro Program supports a plan for a proposed mustang sanctuary in New Mexico near Cerrillos and said it could serve as a model for other states.
Don Glenn, chief of the BLM's Division of Wild Horses and Burros, said the agency solicited ideas for more sustainably handling an ever-growing number of wild horses that need homes. "One idea was to seek out partners and places to put sanctuaries," Glenn said. "We are interested in a partnership with the state if they buy this land."
A few weeks ago, the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, which oversees the State Parks Division, announced plans to purchase the 12,000-plus-acre Ortiz Mountain Ranch, also known as the Ball Ranch. The property is south of Madrid. The $2.9 million for the purchase would come from Gov. Bill Richardson's discretionary portion of New Mexico's federal stimulus funds. The purchase would expand Cerrillos Hills State Park tenfold, although the ranch is not contiguous with the existing park. A portion of the ranch would be set aside for a wild horse sanctuary, according to Jim Noel, Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Cabinet secretary.
Gubernatorial candidates Diane Denish and Susana Martinez both oppose using federal stimulus funding to create the wild horse sanctuary. The purchase must still be approved by the eight-member New Mexico Board of Finance, of which Richardson is president and Denish is a member. Full story
It's time to get a clue about deer hunting
Covington News Sports Editor Josh Briggs ignited a firestorm on Wednesday with his column on deer hunting. In case you missed it, Briggs questioned the need and the motivations of hunting deer as a sport. Read the article: What if the hunted was the hunter?.
By far most readers took Briggs to task, saying he missed the point of hunting. Here is a response from Matt Fry, a wildlife biologist in Covington, GA with WildCo LLC.
It's time to get a clue about deer hunting
By Matt Fry sports@covnews.com
As a wildlife biologist and an educated human being I would like to inform you that your article entitled, "What if the hunted was the hunter?" was extremely distasteful and more importantly, showed a great deal of ignorance on your part.
White-tailed deer are wild animals, and as such, have what biologists call a "carrying capacity" meaning there is a limit to the number of deer that a given habitat can support. If the deer population reaches or exceeds that limit, disease and starvation are nature's way of bringing it down.
Deer hunting, although it is a sport, is the scientifically proven BEST method of controlling these populations without letting starvation and disease do it for us. Unfortunately, many of our natural predators, such as the panther and red wolf (all but a few captive animals are extinct) have been extirpated and now have no affect on deer populations. This is the reason deer hunting is ESSENTIAL to our state. Some of the diseases that deer carry, such as Lyme's Disease, increase as deer populations rise and these diseases can cause human sickness and fatalities.
Deer hunters are responsible for a large percentage of funding for wildlife and habitat conservation throughout Georgia and the rest of the US. These funds go to game and non-game conservation include birds, amphibians, parks, nature trails, and the list goes on forever. Without hunting license fees, you may not have the wonderful natural resources that we are blessed with in this state.
Deer hunting is a sport that allows everyone, including children, to develop a love for the outdoors so that we can continue to conserve our natural resources for years to come. The sport is not about killing the animal, it is about learning about nature and enjoying it. Your comment that "hunting deer is the same as hunting humans" is appalling to me and reflects the ideals of those that are responsible for our decaying society.
I cannot believe that CovNews would even publish such ridiculous article and I will be boycotting the entire newspaper because of this article and will be persuading my friends and family to do so as well.
You should educate yourself on a subject before you write about it, sir.
By far most readers took Briggs to task, saying he missed the point of hunting. Here is a response from Matt Fry, a wildlife biologist in Covington, GA with WildCo LLC.
It's time to get a clue about deer hunting
By Matt Fry sports@covnews.com
As a wildlife biologist and an educated human being I would like to inform you that your article entitled, "What if the hunted was the hunter?" was extremely distasteful and more importantly, showed a great deal of ignorance on your part.
White-tailed deer are wild animals, and as such, have what biologists call a "carrying capacity" meaning there is a limit to the number of deer that a given habitat can support. If the deer population reaches or exceeds that limit, disease and starvation are nature's way of bringing it down.
Deer hunting, although it is a sport, is the scientifically proven BEST method of controlling these populations without letting starvation and disease do it for us. Unfortunately, many of our natural predators, such as the panther and red wolf (all but a few captive animals are extinct) have been extirpated and now have no affect on deer populations. This is the reason deer hunting is ESSENTIAL to our state. Some of the diseases that deer carry, such as Lyme's Disease, increase as deer populations rise and these diseases can cause human sickness and fatalities.
Deer hunters are responsible for a large percentage of funding for wildlife and habitat conservation throughout Georgia and the rest of the US. These funds go to game and non-game conservation include birds, amphibians, parks, nature trails, and the list goes on forever. Without hunting license fees, you may not have the wonderful natural resources that we are blessed with in this state.
Deer hunting is a sport that allows everyone, including children, to develop a love for the outdoors so that we can continue to conserve our natural resources for years to come. The sport is not about killing the animal, it is about learning about nature and enjoying it. Your comment that "hunting deer is the same as hunting humans" is appalling to me and reflects the ideals of those that are responsible for our decaying society.
I cannot believe that CovNews would even publish such ridiculous article and I will be boycotting the entire newspaper because of this article and will be persuading my friends and family to do so as well.
You should educate yourself on a subject before you write about it, sir.
Monday, October 25, 2010
MO: Proposition B not the right answer to problem
By Robin Nuttall October 22, 2010
COLUMBIA — In November, Missourians will get a chance to vote on Proposition B, the “Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act.”
For most of us, “puppy mill” conjures images of shivering, emaciated, matted dogs standing in their own filth, terrified of people, bereft of the most basic necessities, socialization and care. None of us want puppy mills in Missouri, and for those of us involved in dogs — as I have been for over 25 years as a trainer, exhibitor, local and national club member and instructor — it’s a passion and a vocation to try to eliminate them. So why would I oppose this bill?
There are several reasons.
Our existing laws are better. Misssouri’s Animal Care Facilities Act is more clear, detailed, specific and typically more stringent than Proposition B.
Prop. B covers only breeders. ACFA covers “any person or organization operating an animal shelter, boarding kennel, commercial kennel, contract kennel, pet shop, pound or dog pound, or acting as a dealer, commercial breeder, intermediate handler or exhibitor in Missouri.” Violating Prop. B will be a Class C Misdemeanor. ACFA starts right out with a Class A Misdemeanor, which is up to a year in jail and up to $20,000 fine. To see a detailed side-by-side comparison, click here.
Proposition B punishes legitimate breeders. Prop. B caps the total of intact dogs to be owned by any breeder at 50, the inference being that no one can adequately care for more than 50 dogs. I mean, that’s a lot, right? Who has the time and energy to take care of all those animals? But the bill's sponsor, the Humane Society of the United States, is confining its proposed legislation to breeders. What about kennels, rescues, shelters, humane societies and pet shops? If you’re going to say that 50 is too many dogs, it should apply to them, too, right? So this really isn’t about numbers of dogs, it’s about punishing breeders.
Full commentary at link:
COLUMBIA — In November, Missourians will get a chance to vote on Proposition B, the “Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act.”
For most of us, “puppy mill” conjures images of shivering, emaciated, matted dogs standing in their own filth, terrified of people, bereft of the most basic necessities, socialization and care. None of us want puppy mills in Missouri, and for those of us involved in dogs — as I have been for over 25 years as a trainer, exhibitor, local and national club member and instructor — it’s a passion and a vocation to try to eliminate them. So why would I oppose this bill?
There are several reasons.
Our existing laws are better. Misssouri’s Animal Care Facilities Act is more clear, detailed, specific and typically more stringent than Proposition B.
Prop. B covers only breeders. ACFA covers “any person or organization operating an animal shelter, boarding kennel, commercial kennel, contract kennel, pet shop, pound or dog pound, or acting as a dealer, commercial breeder, intermediate handler or exhibitor in Missouri.” Violating Prop. B will be a Class C Misdemeanor. ACFA starts right out with a Class A Misdemeanor, which is up to a year in jail and up to $20,000 fine. To see a detailed side-by-side comparison, click here.
Proposition B punishes legitimate breeders. Prop. B caps the total of intact dogs to be owned by any breeder at 50, the inference being that no one can adequately care for more than 50 dogs. I mean, that’s a lot, right? Who has the time and energy to take care of all those animals? But the bill's sponsor, the Humane Society of the United States, is confining its proposed legislation to breeders. What about kennels, rescues, shelters, humane societies and pet shops? If you’re going to say that 50 is too many dogs, it should apply to them, too, right? So this really isn’t about numbers of dogs, it’s about punishing breeders.
Full commentary at link:
Time to swing for the fences
The problem with our nation today isn't with what people know; it is that too much of what they know isn't so. Whether it is a protester at the front gate or a longtime teacher, we must be transparent. We must explain exactly how it is and hide nothing.
By TRENT LOOS Posted on: 10.22.2010
I had hoped for a grand slam but probably only got a single instead. I was in San Francisco, Cal., where the Giants baseball team was attempting to go onto the World Series.
However, I am actually not talking about baseball at all. I am referring to putting the "cow" back into Cow Palace.
Seth Daulton called me last spring and asked if I would be willing to help bring the emphasis on the cow back to the Grand National Livestock Show & Rodeo.
On the first night of the event, I was in the administration office when the call came over the radio that protesters were at the front gate. Without hesitation, I went to monitor the situation, and what I saw was extremely interesting.
The thing that impressed me most was the manner in which the situation was handled. As general manager Joe Barkett told me, "We have plenty of practice dealing with protesters."
Still, it really hit me that you must maintain your composure, grant the protestors the opportunity to say their spiel yet establish a set of guidelines they must follow. Each of the eight protesters who showed up in opposition to the rodeo were handed a piece of paper with the guidelines they would be expected to follow.
One key thing about these protesters is that they were seeking to intimidate, pure and simple. They had cameras rolling on rodeo management just hoping to catch someone making a mistake.
I thought I would attempt to turn the table on that, so I took out my camera and microphone to interview the lead protester. The minute I turned on my camera, they put three cameras on me and made it look like a video camera duel at the front gate of the Cow Palace. Full commentary
By TRENT LOOS Posted on: 10.22.2010
I had hoped for a grand slam but probably only got a single instead. I was in San Francisco, Cal., where the Giants baseball team was attempting to go onto the World Series.
However, I am actually not talking about baseball at all. I am referring to putting the "cow" back into Cow Palace.
Seth Daulton called me last spring and asked if I would be willing to help bring the emphasis on the cow back to the Grand National Livestock Show & Rodeo.
On the first night of the event, I was in the administration office when the call came over the radio that protesters were at the front gate. Without hesitation, I went to monitor the situation, and what I saw was extremely interesting.
The thing that impressed me most was the manner in which the situation was handled. As general manager Joe Barkett told me, "We have plenty of practice dealing with protesters."
Still, it really hit me that you must maintain your composure, grant the protestors the opportunity to say their spiel yet establish a set of guidelines they must follow. Each of the eight protesters who showed up in opposition to the rodeo were handed a piece of paper with the guidelines they would be expected to follow.
One key thing about these protesters is that they were seeking to intimidate, pure and simple. They had cameras rolling on rodeo management just hoping to catch someone making a mistake.
I thought I would attempt to turn the table on that, so I took out my camera and microphone to interview the lead protester. The minute I turned on my camera, they put three cameras on me and made it look like a video camera duel at the front gate of the Cow Palace. Full commentary
Friday, October 22, 2010
Missouri's Prop B Bad For Beagles & Beef
Missouri’s Proposition B which is on the ballot for the Nov. 2 election would establish new regulations for licensed dog breeders in Missouri regarding the design of kennels; minimal veterinary care; access to food, water and the outdoors; and numbers of breeding animals allowed. Not surprisingly, the Washington, D.C.-based anti-agriculture Humane Society of the United States sponsored this initiative that can have potential far-reaching ramifications for the Missouri livestock industry.
Folks, it ain’t about the puppies.
I hate “puppy mills”, too. I also hate people who indiscriminately breed horses and flood the market . I have no tolerance for companion-animal or livestock-owners who don’t take care of their animals. But that’s not what this bill is about.
Missouri already has strict laws on the books about the standards of care for licensed dog breeders. If HSUS wants to make an impact they need to go after the unlicensed breeders who disregard the laws, not put ridiculous and costly regulations on the law-abiding breeders whose very livelihood depends on the quality and care of their animals.
They say this bill will give law enforcement more “teeth” to go after breeders. Law enforcement doesn’t have the time, money or resources now to investigate the egregious breeders, how is this going to help them?
The Alliance for Truth says, “HSUS has introduced Prop B as a means of eliminating the legal, licensed professional dog breeders in Missouri, according to the Department of Agriculture. No current licensed breeder can comply with the regulations put forth in Prop B, no matter how clean and well-run the facility. Cost-prohibitive space requirements coupled with misdemeanor crimes for the most minor of issue will eliminate the legal industry in Missouri. Only unlicensed, substandard breeders will be left to produce puppies while continuing to hide from state laws.”
What does this have to with livestock? Plenty. full story at CattleNetwork
Folks, it ain’t about the puppies.
I hate “puppy mills”, too. I also hate people who indiscriminately breed horses and flood the market . I have no tolerance for companion-animal or livestock-owners who don’t take care of their animals. But that’s not what this bill is about.
Missouri already has strict laws on the books about the standards of care for licensed dog breeders. If HSUS wants to make an impact they need to go after the unlicensed breeders who disregard the laws, not put ridiculous and costly regulations on the law-abiding breeders whose very livelihood depends on the quality and care of their animals.
They say this bill will give law enforcement more “teeth” to go after breeders. Law enforcement doesn’t have the time, money or resources now to investigate the egregious breeders, how is this going to help them?
The Alliance for Truth says, “HSUS has introduced Prop B as a means of eliminating the legal, licensed professional dog breeders in Missouri, according to the Department of Agriculture. No current licensed breeder can comply with the regulations put forth in Prop B, no matter how clean and well-run the facility. Cost-prohibitive space requirements coupled with misdemeanor crimes for the most minor of issue will eliminate the legal industry in Missouri. Only unlicensed, substandard breeders will be left to produce puppies while continuing to hide from state laws.”
What does this have to with livestock? Plenty. full story at CattleNetwork
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Hunters are ready to defend our rights at the ballot box
8:27 PM 10/20/2010
As we all know, the midterm elections could be a major turning point in the direction of this country. Federal spending, jobs, the economy and health care are topics at the top of the national mind, but a recent Safari Club International poll shows that sportsmen and women will also have a significant impact on the November elections — precisely because hunting is a major economic powerhouse in the U.S. economy. Hunters are standing ready to protect their sport, and the jobs it brings to rural economies, in the voting booth. Our poll also shows that the sportsmen’s community is more interested in these elections than ever before, and hunters stand ready to vote on November 2nd.
A few facts demonstrate the impact of hunting in the United States:
•16 million Americans actively participate in hunting every year.
•The hunting industry contributes over $30 billion to the U.S. economy each year and supports over one million jobs across the country.
•The $4.95 billion in annual federal tax money generated by hunters’ spending could cover the annual paychecks of 150,000 U.S. Army sergeants.
•Sportsmen contribute $7.5-plus million to wildlife and habitat conservation every day — more than $2.7 billion every year.
Of those hunters surveyed, an overwhelming nine out of ten say they are “very” likely to vote in the upcoming elections for Congress. In the typically lower turnout of a midterm cycle, this finding suggests that the level of sportsmen’s participation in the November election will be significant. Safari Club’s members and hunters around the country are concerned about protecting the freedom to hunt, gun rights, land use and wildlife management issues and we are ready to make our voices heard at the ballot box in a few short weeks.
But it’s not just the federal level where sportsmen stand ready to make a difference this year. Safari Club International and our allies are involved at all levels of government — from state and local to national and international. There’s an alarming trend, particularly in some states, to restrict hunters’ freedoms. This year, Safari Club International and our members are involved in ballot initiatives in four states to pass state constitutional amendments that will guarantee the future of our right to hunt and fish, even in the face of anti-hunting extremists’ attacks. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and others are trying to delude voters into believing that these amendments are unnecessary, but the true agenda of the extremists was revealed in a recent article in Tennessee’s Jackson Sun. Tennessee is one of the states where a constitutional amendment is on the ballot, and a spokeswoman from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) told the paper that “Tennesseans should vote against the amendment and that hunting and fishing should be stopped.”
Read more: Daily Caller
As we all know, the midterm elections could be a major turning point in the direction of this country. Federal spending, jobs, the economy and health care are topics at the top of the national mind, but a recent Safari Club International poll shows that sportsmen and women will also have a significant impact on the November elections — precisely because hunting is a major economic powerhouse in the U.S. economy. Hunters are standing ready to protect their sport, and the jobs it brings to rural economies, in the voting booth. Our poll also shows that the sportsmen’s community is more interested in these elections than ever before, and hunters stand ready to vote on November 2nd.
A few facts demonstrate the impact of hunting in the United States:
•16 million Americans actively participate in hunting every year.
•The hunting industry contributes over $30 billion to the U.S. economy each year and supports over one million jobs across the country.
•The $4.95 billion in annual federal tax money generated by hunters’ spending could cover the annual paychecks of 150,000 U.S. Army sergeants.
•Sportsmen contribute $7.5-plus million to wildlife and habitat conservation every day — more than $2.7 billion every year.
Of those hunters surveyed, an overwhelming nine out of ten say they are “very” likely to vote in the upcoming elections for Congress. In the typically lower turnout of a midterm cycle, this finding suggests that the level of sportsmen’s participation in the November election will be significant. Safari Club’s members and hunters around the country are concerned about protecting the freedom to hunt, gun rights, land use and wildlife management issues and we are ready to make our voices heard at the ballot box in a few short weeks.
But it’s not just the federal level where sportsmen stand ready to make a difference this year. Safari Club International and our allies are involved at all levels of government — from state and local to national and international. There’s an alarming trend, particularly in some states, to restrict hunters’ freedoms. This year, Safari Club International and our members are involved in ballot initiatives in four states to pass state constitutional amendments that will guarantee the future of our right to hunt and fish, even in the face of anti-hunting extremists’ attacks. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and others are trying to delude voters into believing that these amendments are unnecessary, but the true agenda of the extremists was revealed in a recent article in Tennessee’s Jackson Sun. Tennessee is one of the states where a constitutional amendment is on the ballot, and a spokeswoman from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) told the paper that “Tennesseans should vote against the amendment and that hunting and fishing should be stopped.”
Read more: Daily Caller
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Humane Society ad backs Sen. David Vitter
We reported last week that Humane USA PAC (the HSUS money donor) had already contributed $5,000 to Sen. Vitter, one of the top amounts listed in FEC disclosures for the 2010 election cycle.
As announced on NOLA.com, not only has Sen. Vitter won endorsement of the Humane Society, but it's political arm Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF) began running a TV commercial in the New Orleans area Tuesday.
Michael Markarian, HSLF president, said the group plans to spend $88,000 over the next two weeks running the ad, which also praises Vitter for co-sponsoring legislation to increase federal regulation of "puppy mills."
Markarian also said HSLF has issued endorsements in about 300 races around the country, but that Louisiana's Senate race is one of only four contests where they are running TV ads. The others are U.S. House races in California, Michigan and Ohio.
This announcement leaves no doubt how important Vitter is to the HSUS agenda. Vitter sponsored S3424 Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act (PUPS) a bill that subjects home breeders and rescuers of dogs to USDA licensure and its 60+ pages of regulations.
As announced on NOLA.com, not only has Sen. Vitter won endorsement of the Humane Society, but it's political arm Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF) began running a TV commercial in the New Orleans area Tuesday.
Michael Markarian, HSLF president, said the group plans to spend $88,000 over the next two weeks running the ad, which also praises Vitter for co-sponsoring legislation to increase federal regulation of "puppy mills."
Markarian also said HSLF has issued endorsements in about 300 races around the country, but that Louisiana's Senate race is one of only four contests where they are running TV ads. The others are U.S. House races in California, Michigan and Ohio.
This announcement leaves no doubt how important Vitter is to the HSUS agenda. Vitter sponsored S3424 Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act (PUPS) a bill that subjects home breeders and rescuers of dogs to USDA licensure and its 60+ pages of regulations.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Missouri Prop B Opposed by Agricultural Business Council
Kansas City Agricultural Business Council is latest to join in opposition of Missouri dog breeding regulation ballot initiative.
Missouri Ruralist. Compiled by staff
Published: Oct 15, 2010
The Agricultural Business Council of Kansas City is officially on record in opposition to Proposition B, the Missouri Dog Breeding Regulation Initiative that will appear on the Nov. 2 ballot in the state of Missouri as an initiated state statute.
"Missouri currently has stringent laws, regulations and reporting systems in place to prevent animal abuse," said the Agricultural Business Council of Kansas City. Proposition B adds to that litany of regulations, but does nothing to provide resources for enforcement. The Missouri Veterinary Medical Association as well as the American Kennel Club join the Council in opposition.
The council feels that Proposition B, slated to appear on the November ballot, is a misleading attempt to further the animal rights agenda promoted by activist groups such as the Humane Society of the United States. The Council said the initiative targets the already heavily regulated family owned professional kennels, which are inspected and licensed by the Missouri Department of Agriculture, and if passed, it means more big government, more bureaucracy and more unfunded mandates on the private business owners. Prop B is also an attempt by HSUS to limit the number of animals someone can own.
"HSUS, who has reportedly already invested over $2 million in the Prop B effort, is a multi-million-dollar factory fundraising machine that runs such misleading campaigns under the false guise of cute puppies and kittens," says Don Nikodim, chairman of Missourians for Animal Care. "They have no connection to our local shelters and unfortunately have no interest in solutions. In their own words, the ultimate goal of HSUS is to end animal agriculture. Bottom line – Washington D.C. factory fundraisers like HSUS, who according to HumaneWatch actually spends less than half of one percent of their $100M plus budget for hands on animal care, shouldn't be telling Missourians how to run our businesses."
The Agricultural Business Council of Kansas City joins with the St Louis Agri-Business Club, the Columbia Chamber of Commerce, and Missourians for Animal Care to oppose Prop B.
Missouri Ruralist. Compiled by staff
Published: Oct 15, 2010
The Agricultural Business Council of Kansas City is officially on record in opposition to Proposition B, the Missouri Dog Breeding Regulation Initiative that will appear on the Nov. 2 ballot in the state of Missouri as an initiated state statute.
"Missouri currently has stringent laws, regulations and reporting systems in place to prevent animal abuse," said the Agricultural Business Council of Kansas City. Proposition B adds to that litany of regulations, but does nothing to provide resources for enforcement. The Missouri Veterinary Medical Association as well as the American Kennel Club join the Council in opposition.
The council feels that Proposition B, slated to appear on the November ballot, is a misleading attempt to further the animal rights agenda promoted by activist groups such as the Humane Society of the United States. The Council said the initiative targets the already heavily regulated family owned professional kennels, which are inspected and licensed by the Missouri Department of Agriculture, and if passed, it means more big government, more bureaucracy and more unfunded mandates on the private business owners. Prop B is also an attempt by HSUS to limit the number of animals someone can own.
"HSUS, who has reportedly already invested over $2 million in the Prop B effort, is a multi-million-dollar factory fundraising machine that runs such misleading campaigns under the false guise of cute puppies and kittens," says Don Nikodim, chairman of Missourians for Animal Care. "They have no connection to our local shelters and unfortunately have no interest in solutions. In their own words, the ultimate goal of HSUS is to end animal agriculture. Bottom line – Washington D.C. factory fundraisers like HSUS, who according to HumaneWatch actually spends less than half of one percent of their $100M plus budget for hands on animal care, shouldn't be telling Missourians how to run our businesses."
The Agricultural Business Council of Kansas City joins with the St Louis Agri-Business Club, the Columbia Chamber of Commerce, and Missourians for Animal Care to oppose Prop B.
Humane Society gives nod to Ohio's incumbent governor
NECN. Oct 18, 2010 5:25pm
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — The political arm of the Humane Society of the United States has made its first-ever foray into the Ohio governor's race, endorsing Gov. Ted Strickland over Republican opponent John Kasich.
The nation's top political organization for animal rights cited the Democrat's role in negotiating a June agreement between animal-rights and agriculture interests. The deal called for the Humane Society to pull an anti-animal cruelty measure off the fall ballot in exchange for tougher rules governing farm animal care and a host of other animal protection measures.
Kasich spokesman Rob Nichols says Strickland deserved the endorsement. He says he placed the Humane Society among "left-coast and Washington-based groups that wage war against Ohio's farmers."
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — The political arm of the Humane Society of the United States has made its first-ever foray into the Ohio governor's race, endorsing Gov. Ted Strickland over Republican opponent John Kasich.
The nation's top political organization for animal rights cited the Democrat's role in negotiating a June agreement between animal-rights and agriculture interests. The deal called for the Humane Society to pull an anti-animal cruelty measure off the fall ballot in exchange for tougher rules governing farm animal care and a host of other animal protection measures.
Kasich spokesman Rob Nichols says Strickland deserved the endorsement. He says he placed the Humane Society among "left-coast and Washington-based groups that wage war against Ohio's farmers."
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Top 2010 Humane USA PAC donations
Humane USA is the political action committee (PAC) formed by HSUS and various animal rights groups. In addition to making monetary campaign contributions, the PAC organizes activists to work on the campaigns of animal rights friendly candidates. According to their website, Humane USA claims in most cases to already have a working relationship with the office holder.
Who were the top Congressional recipients of Humane USA PAC donations for 2010?
In the U.S. Senate: David Vitter (LA) with $5,000; Harry Reid (NV) with $3,000; Richard Blumenthal (CT) with $2,500; followed by Charles Schumer (NY), Mark Kirk (IL), and Michael Bennet (CO) with $2,000 each.
Top U.S. House recipients were: Elton Gallegly (CA) with $5,750 and Earl Blumenauer (OR) with $5,250; followed by Gary Peters (MI) and Rosa DeLauro (CT) each with $3,500.
Who were the top Congressional recipients of Humane USA PAC donations for 2010?
In the U.S. Senate: David Vitter (LA) with $5,000; Harry Reid (NV) with $3,000; Richard Blumenthal (CT) with $2,500; followed by Charles Schumer (NY), Mark Kirk (IL), and Michael Bennet (CO) with $2,000 each.
Top U.S. House recipients were: Elton Gallegly (CA) with $5,750 and Earl Blumenauer (OR) with $5,250; followed by Gary Peters (MI) and Rosa DeLauro (CT) each with $3,500.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Food producers fighting hunger
U.S. food producers continue to respond to hunger in America, with Cargill Inc. announcing this week that its turkey business has teamed up with Feeding America for the second straight year to provide turkeys for 1.75 million meals for people who count on Feeding America's network of food banks for food every year.
Cargill said it will donate $250,000 worth of its Honeysuckle White and Shady Brook Farms turkeys in time for Thanksgiving this year, a 6.0% increase over last year.
Cargill said it will also speak to the hunger issue through an advertising campaign tied to the donation with the theme "The One Turkey That Can Feed A Million People." Cargill said the ads will appear in magazines, newsletters and online, and the message will also be supported by point-of-sale materials in retail stores.
At the same time, Feeding America said nearly 30% of Hispanic children and 40% of African American children live with families needing emergency food assistance, based on its "Hunger in America 2010" study.
Full Story at Feedstuffs
Cargill said it will donate $250,000 worth of its Honeysuckle White and Shady Brook Farms turkeys in time for Thanksgiving this year, a 6.0% increase over last year.
Cargill said it will also speak to the hunger issue through an advertising campaign tied to the donation with the theme "The One Turkey That Can Feed A Million People." Cargill said the ads will appear in magazines, newsletters and online, and the message will also be supported by point-of-sale materials in retail stores.
At the same time, Feeding America said nearly 30% of Hispanic children and 40% of African American children live with families needing emergency food assistance, based on its "Hunger in America 2010" study.
Full Story at Feedstuffs
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Wolf's Den: Hunting rights vs.Humane Society
Vote YES on Proposition 109
DAVID WOLF azdailysun.com Posted: Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The first thing you should know is that the biggest anti-hunting organization in the nation, the euphemistically named Humane Society of the United States -- which really is an anti-hunting lobby group -- is vehemently opposed to Proposition 109, which is all the more reason to support it.
The HSUS says Proposition 109 is a power grab by the legislature. The reality is the legislature has always had authority over wildlife in the state of Arizona. They choose, thanks to the never-ending effort of Arizona's hunters, to let an independent commission set wildlife management policy based on the recommendations of professional wildlife biologists. (See Arizona Revised Statues -- 17-201 -- for the truth)
The HSUS says Arizonans already have the "right" to hunt and fish. Nothing in state statute or the Arizona Constitution currently declares the ability to hunt and fish as a right. Unlike the right to bear arms, which the U.S. Constitution guarantees, there are no provisions that provide the same right to hunt and fish. It is a fact that the ability to hunt and fish has been threatened time and again. The president and CEO of the HSUS, Wayne Pacelle, is on record in Full Cry magazine saying, "We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States... We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state."
The HSUS says Proposition 109 will end the use of sound science in wildlife management. Provision B of the proposition says, "laws and rules authorized under this section shall have the purpose of wildlife conservation and management and preserving the future of hunting and fishing." The Legislature could have, at any time, taken science out of wildlife management. This HSUS argument is another red herring. FULL STORY
DAVID WOLF azdailysun.com Posted: Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The first thing you should know is that the biggest anti-hunting organization in the nation, the euphemistically named Humane Society of the United States -- which really is an anti-hunting lobby group -- is vehemently opposed to Proposition 109, which is all the more reason to support it.
The HSUS says Proposition 109 is a power grab by the legislature. The reality is the legislature has always had authority over wildlife in the state of Arizona. They choose, thanks to the never-ending effort of Arizona's hunters, to let an independent commission set wildlife management policy based on the recommendations of professional wildlife biologists. (See Arizona Revised Statues -- 17-201 -- for the truth)
The HSUS says Arizonans already have the "right" to hunt and fish. Nothing in state statute or the Arizona Constitution currently declares the ability to hunt and fish as a right. Unlike the right to bear arms, which the U.S. Constitution guarantees, there are no provisions that provide the same right to hunt and fish. It is a fact that the ability to hunt and fish has been threatened time and again. The president and CEO of the HSUS, Wayne Pacelle, is on record in Full Cry magazine saying, "We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States... We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state."
The HSUS says Proposition 109 will end the use of sound science in wildlife management. Provision B of the proposition says, "laws and rules authorized under this section shall have the purpose of wildlife conservation and management and preserving the future of hunting and fishing." The Legislature could have, at any time, taken science out of wildlife management. This HSUS argument is another red herring. FULL STORY
Animal Welfare Is Presenting Farm Groups With Uphill Battle
New research shows consumers believe HSUS, PETA over farm groups.
Compiled by Missouri Ruralist staff Published: Oct 7, 2010
New research from the Center for Food Integrity shows most consumers as twice as likely to believe the Humane Society of the United States and People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals over farm organizations when it comes to humane treatment of farm animals.
The research was released Wednesday at the CFI's Food Summit, held in Chicago.
After HSUS and PETA, farm animal veterinarians, USDA and university experts ranked next, followed by state and national farm organizations and small livestock farmers. Large-scale livestock farmers ranked last in animal welfare credibility.
"The research shows that the closer you are to a profit motivation, the lower your credibility," says Charlie Arnot, CEO at CFI. "Information from an NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) was found to be significantly more credible than an association that represents the livestock industry. The closer you are to the money, the less credible your information, which is really why early adopter consumers like information from academics."
The research also reveals that consumers favor more laws to ensure the humane treatment of farm animals in their state. That explains why voters have looked favorably on HSUS-driven ballot drives in California, Michigan and Ohio to reform livestock housing rules.
But there was a significant increase in favorable consumer attitudes toward raising animals indoors to protect from predators and weather extremes. "Those areas were the ones where we saw the greatest increase in attitudes in early adopters," Arnot says.
Even so, farmers and their farm associations appear to have an uphill battle in changing consumer perceptions. "The perception is that because HSUS is an NGO, they are committed to a cause. Source credibility is a crucial issue with consumers," says Arnot.
To overcome the credibility gap, farm groups need to partner with groups outside their comfort zone and continue to drive home messages based not on science but on shared values. "We need to talk about the fact we recognize we have an ethical obligation to ensure our animals are well cared for, so we've moved them indoors to protect them, and that they have adequate vet supervision," concludes Arnot.
Farm Progress
Compiled by Missouri Ruralist staff Published: Oct 7, 2010
New research from the Center for Food Integrity shows most consumers as twice as likely to believe the Humane Society of the United States and People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals over farm organizations when it comes to humane treatment of farm animals.
The research was released Wednesday at the CFI's Food Summit, held in Chicago.
After HSUS and PETA, farm animal veterinarians, USDA and university experts ranked next, followed by state and national farm organizations and small livestock farmers. Large-scale livestock farmers ranked last in animal welfare credibility.
"The research shows that the closer you are to a profit motivation, the lower your credibility," says Charlie Arnot, CEO at CFI. "Information from an NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) was found to be significantly more credible than an association that represents the livestock industry. The closer you are to the money, the less credible your information, which is really why early adopter consumers like information from academics."
The research also reveals that consumers favor more laws to ensure the humane treatment of farm animals in their state. That explains why voters have looked favorably on HSUS-driven ballot drives in California, Michigan and Ohio to reform livestock housing rules.
But there was a significant increase in favorable consumer attitudes toward raising animals indoors to protect from predators and weather extremes. "Those areas were the ones where we saw the greatest increase in attitudes in early adopters," Arnot says.
Even so, farmers and their farm associations appear to have an uphill battle in changing consumer perceptions. "The perception is that because HSUS is an NGO, they are committed to a cause. Source credibility is a crucial issue with consumers," says Arnot.
To overcome the credibility gap, farm groups need to partner with groups outside their comfort zone and continue to drive home messages based not on science but on shared values. "We need to talk about the fact we recognize we have an ethical obligation to ensure our animals are well cared for, so we've moved them indoors to protect them, and that they have adequate vet supervision," concludes Arnot.
Farm Progress
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Proposition B on Facebook
Connect with Vote no on Prop B Missouri!!! on Facebook
Proposition B is little more than another attempt by those on the fringe to push their agenda of animal ownership abolishment. It seeks not to end animal cruelty, but to limit the opportunities for many animal loving Missourians.
Proposition B is little more than another attempt by those on the fringe to push their agenda of animal ownership abolishment. It seeks not to end animal cruelty, but to limit the opportunities for many animal loving Missourians.
Proposition B opposition
Missouri voters need to be educated on Proposition B and the harm it will do to dog breeders in the state. More information and links are available on the SAOVA website. Proposition B is a ballot initiative introduced by HSUS. The issue is control - not animal welfare.
Southeast Missourian. Monday, October 4, 2010
Proposition B opposition by Dale E. Steffens, President, Cape Girardeau County Farm Bureau, Jackson
Don't be fooled by the slick television ads or the Hollywood celebrities. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is not your local pet shelter but an east coast fundraising organization. Very little (less that one-half of 1 percent) of the money it raises is used to rescue dogs and cats but rather to finance an extremist agenda that is targeting pet breeders, livestock producers and hunters.
As a livestock producer, hunter and dog breeder, I am very concerned about the threat posed by HSUS and other extremist organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Full story and comments at the link
Southeast Missourian. Monday, October 4, 2010
Proposition B opposition by Dale E. Steffens, President, Cape Girardeau County Farm Bureau, Jackson
Don't be fooled by the slick television ads or the Hollywood celebrities. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is not your local pet shelter but an east coast fundraising organization. Very little (less that one-half of 1 percent) of the money it raises is used to rescue dogs and cats but rather to finance an extremist agenda that is targeting pet breeders, livestock producers and hunters.
As a livestock producer, hunter and dog breeder, I am very concerned about the threat posed by HSUS and other extremist organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Full story and comments at the link
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
