SAOVA updated 2014 election website

The Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance (SAOVA) today unveiled its updated 2014 Election website at http://saova.org/

The site contains our endorsements of more than 250 candidates running for Congress in the elections on November 4, 2014. In addition, we have provided our analysis of candidates in several state legislative contests. SAOVA ENDORSED candidates understand the anti-hunting, anti-animal ownership threat of animal rights ideology, and have voting records or exceptionally strong values that demonstrate their commitment to protecting our interests and not burdening us with unnecessary, restrictive regulation. Animal Rightist Endorsed politicians are the problem. They are formally endorsed or highly rated by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and they consistently vote for legislation to strip us of our rights to hunt, fish, and own pets and livestock.

Key incumbents endorsed in this election include:

Mike Coffman (R-CO 6)

Rick Scott (R-FL Governor)

John Barrow (D-GA 12)

Pat Roberts (R-KS Senate)

Lee Terry (R-NE 2)

Kay Hagan (D-NC Senate)

Important SAOVA candidate endorsements include:

Dan Sullivan (R-AK Senate)

Steve Knight (R-CA 25)

Brian Nestande (R-CA 36)

Cory Gardner (R-CO Senate)

Bruce Rauner (R-IL Governor)

Mike Bost (R-IL 12)

Bobby Schilling (R-IL 17)

Joni Ernst (R-IA Senate)

Bill Cassidy (R-LA Senate)

Steve Daines (R-MT Senate)

Alex Mooney (R-WV 2)

Evan Jenkins (R-WV 3)

There are also ballot initiatives for voters in several states.  Maine voters must decide on Question 1, the Bear Referendum – an HSUS initiative which would ban the use of bait, dogs or traps in bear hunting.  The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Maine’s Bear Biologists, and Maine Game Wardens are opposed to Question 1 based upon over 40 years of scientific research conducted by state wildlife biologists in Maine.  The state already has one of the largest bear populations in the country, estimated at over 30,000 bears.  Vote NO on Question 1.

Right to Hunt and Fish Amendments will be on the ballots in Alabama and Mississippi to ensure the continuation of hunting, fishing, and trapping traditions for future generations. If passed, Alabama and Mississippi will join 17 other states in ensuring constitutional protections for their citizens.

Please take the time to visit and study our analyses. We make no pretense of evaluating candidates' positions on national security, taxes, education, medical care or social issues. To the degree that hunting and animal ownership are important to you, we offer this review to be combined with other, personal considerations to determine your vote on November 4, 2014.

The world not only belongs to those who show up, it's controlled by the best informed and most motivated.  Vote on November 4th!

Cross posting is encouraged.

Susan Wolf
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators

Legislation Briefs January 15, 2014

SAOVA Friends,

Another year is beginning and promises to see ever increasing pressure and legislative action by animal activist groups.   HSUS sent a missive this month announcing they had big plans for the year ahead and listed some of their top priorities for 2014.  Their list included:

1. Passing legislation in all 50 states to set so-called “humane” breeding standards;
2. Banning use of lead ammo for hunting;
3. Fighting the King amendment which would prevent states like California from imposing their own animal welfare standards on farm goods brought in from other states;
4. Stopping (ag-gag) bills that prohibit unauthorized video-taping or delayed cruelty reporting;
5. Securing a ballot initiative to end wolf hunting in Michigan; and a ballot initiative in Maine to ban bear hunting over bait and with hounds.

Remain alert for activist legislation introduced in your area. SAOVA monitors a limited number of bills on our website. Working together we can protect our traditions, avocations and livelihoods from anti-hunting and anti-animal breeding radicals.  The world not only belongs to those who show up, it's controlled by the best informed and most motivated.

Thanks for reading.  Cross posting is encouraged.

Susan Wolf
Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
Working to Identify and Elect Supportive Legislators
saova@earthlink.net
Like us on Facebook

PETITION TO PROMULGATE STANDARDS FOR BEARS
APHIS received a petition from PETA requesting an amendment to the Animal Welfare Act regulations to add specific standards for the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of all species of bears held in captivity except polar bears, for which there are already standards. The petition states that the generic standards in subpart F of 9 CFR Part 3 are inadequate and do not address the complex and unique behavioral, dietary, and physiological needs of bears. APHIS is soliciting comments on a list of questions, such as requirements for environmental enrichment and prohibition of public contact, which are posted in the Proposed Rule Docket.  Comments may be mailed to: to Docket No. APHIS-2012-0106, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238 or submitted on line http://tinyurl.com/mklfc2o  Comment period closes January 27 2014 at 11:59 PM ET.

APHIS PET RULE UPDATES
APHIS created a new, online form in December for the public to submit their concerns about animals that are covered under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), submit complaints against pet breeders, and report pet breeders they think should be licensed.  Anonymous complaints are accepted and all complaints are investigated.

On December 16 Associated Dog Clubs of New York State (ADCNYS), an AKC Federation of Dog Clubs with 56 member clubs in New York State, filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court in Washington DC. The lawsuit asks the Court to declare that the Retail Pet Store Rule is “arbitrary, capricious and inconsistent" with law, and to remand the Rule back to the USDA. The lawsuit also seeks an injunction that would bar the USDA from enforcing the Retail Pet Store Rule. The complaint in the lawsuit was filed on behalf of 42 Plaintiffs that consisted of dog and cat clubs, associations and a registry representing approximately 19,000 breeders who potentially would be adversely affected by the Rule. Those 42 Plaintiffs represent less than 1% of the more than 5,500 Dog and Cat Clubs in the U.S., which supports the assertion that the Rule potentially affects far more than the 4,640 breeders that APHIS stated was the maximum number of breeders who potentially would be affected by the Rule.  One of the cornerstone assertions in the complaint is the fact that APHIS failed to document how it arrived at its figure of 4,640 breeders, which figure is exponentially below the number of hobby breeders who potentially could be affect by the Rule. The complaint is posted and can be viewed here: http://tinyurl.com/mqltngb

On December 30, 2013, HSUS formally filed a Motion to Intervene in the case, and its Motion and accompanying exhibits totaled over 100 pages. The HSUS complaint can be viewed here: http://tinyurl.com/p5jb4d7  In the motion, HSUS states, "The Final Rule is the culmination of years of effort on the part of The HSUS to bring about meaningful change to existing law. If Plaintiffs are successful in their efforts to set aside the Final Rule, The HSUS will suffer immediate and concrete harm."

On January 7 HSUS posted notice of a complaint filed with USDA requesting that the agency take enforcement action against more than 50 commercial dog breeders who appear to be operating in violation of federal law. The breeders appear to have illegally sold puppies to middleman Purebred Breeders, LLC, without a USDA license. The complaint filed by HSUS also urges the USDA to take enforcement action against Purebred Breeders for failing to obtain a license in light of recent changes to federal regulations that require retailers who sell puppies to consumers sight-unseen to obtain a federal license.  HSUS is wasting no time reporting breeders even though APHIS has not had time to answer all questions or issue new licenses.

On January 13 the Justice Department filed a response to the HSUS Motion to Intervene stating, "Defendants take no position regarding the Motion to Intervene of the Humane Society of the United States."  Also on January 13, ADCYNS filed a Response to the HSUS Motion to Intervene as a Defendant in the Lawsuit.  The ADCYNS response is posted at http://www.keepourdomesticanimals.com/


ALDF WATCH
Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) posts that they reviewed inspection records of commercial breeders in the state of New Jersey and singled out what they have determined are the worst breeders.  ALDF then sent a formal letter this week to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) demanding the agency enforce the law against violations of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA).  In the letter ALDF urged APHIS to move the animals to reputable shelters where they can receive veterinary attention, apply civil penalties, and revoke the licenses of the commercial dealers that have violated the AWA on multiple occasions. ALDF announced a similar review of inspection reports from licensed dealers in Nebraska, claiming their review shows that animal cruelty routinely goes unpunished. “We call upon the USDA to act now on these ongoing violations, which have been thoroughly documented in their own records,” posted Stephen Wells, executive director of ALDF.  Source: ALDF website

SAVE NEW YORK CARRIAGE HORSES
The horse-drawn carriage business is an iconic part of New York City, employing hundreds of dedicated, hard-working men and women, caring for well-bred, well-trained horses and attracting tourists to New York City. Newly elected Mayor Bill de Blasio said that one of his first acts after taking office will be to ban horse-drawn carriages in Central Park.  His plan is to replace the historic horse-drawn carriages with electric cars and redevelop the prime real estate that currently accommodates the stables. Supporting de Blasio’s mission to ban carriage horses is the ASPCA who told press, “The ASPCA believes that the use of carriage horses in 21st-century New York City is unnatural, unnecessary and an undeniable strain on the horses’ quality of life.”

The ban would end jobs for the 300 carriage drivers and force owners to retire their horses.  Steve Malone, spokesman for the Horse and Carriage Association of New York, told reporters “It’s unconstitutional to take my private property unless I’ve done something wrong.”

NY State Horse Council Statement of Support is posted below. Letters in support of the carriage industry are urgently needed.  Send your letters to:

Stephen Malone, President
Horse & Carriage Association of New York
618 West 52nd Street, New York NY 10019
malonecarriages@aol.com

NEW YORK STATE HORSE COUNCIL STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
FOR THE NEW YORK CITY CARRIAGE HORSE/CARRIAGE HORSE INDUSTRY
It is not a question of whether the carriage trade is necessary to New York City or not. The carriage horses are an iconic symbol of NYC; they are part of the cultural heritage not only of NYC but also of America. They provide economic benefits to the City through tourism and tax revenues. Today’s carriage horses provide a presence and exposure to rural animals not available to many anywhere else.

Some people have labelled the carriage horse industry as “inhumane.” It is not. While the word “inhumane” is not mentioned in the law, cruelty is. NYS Agriculture & Markets Law, Article 26 and more specifically, Section 353, defines cruelty as “failure to provide proper sustenance, such as food, water, shelter and veterinary care.

All the NYC carriage horses are well taken care of and have better than average stabling available to them. Each horse is provided food and water (each carriage carries food and water for the horses so they may eat/drink during working hours); the stables are warm, well-ventilated and have spacious stalls for resting during non-working hours; veterinary care is required and provided annually and on-call; each horse also has a mandatory 5 week vacation break. The NYC carriage horses are probably the most regulated horses in the country, if not the world. They are covered by approximately 144 pages of regulations; they are watched over very closely by several organizations, including the ASPCA.

It is the opinion of the Board of Directors of the New York State Horse Council that the NYC carriage horses and their owners should be allowed to continue to operate their small businesses without fear of reprisal or loss of livelihood. The horses are a great tourist attraction because they ARE horses - not cold, impersonal pieces of metal.

The NYS Horse Council calls on all other State Horse Councils and all concerned horse groups and horsepersons throughout the country to come to the support of the New York City carriage horses and the carriage industry. The world is watching what happens here; the outcome could affect YOU!
Marsha S. Himler, President, NYS Horse Council

Kudos to Rep. Steve King's Amendment to the Farm Bill

In more specific news about the House Ag Committee markup earlier this week, Chris Clayton reported yesterday at the DTN Ag Policy Blog that, “In a shot against state ballot initiatives on agricultural production standards, the committee adopted an amendment thatprevents states from denying the trade of an agricultural product from another state based on its means of production.

“Committee members got into the details of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution and the way it may be usurped by state ballot initiatives on issues such as pork gestation or egg production. The amendment goes after the spreading use of such state ballot measures.

“Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, who introduced the amendment, characterized it as a ‘protect interstate commerce amendment’ by prohibiting states from regulating the means of production over a particular farm product. King cited issues such as pork production, eggs and cages for hens and expressed concern that states adopting such laws on production standards would restrict shipping of those products from other states.”

Speaking on yesterday’s AgriTalk radio program with Mike Adams, Senior Director of Congressional Relations at the American Farm Bureau Federation, Mary Kay Thatcher, indicated that the King Amendment was “the Amendment of the Farm Bill yesterday.” To listen to a portion of Ms. Thatcher’s remarks on this issue from yesterday’s AgriTalk show, just click here (MP3- 1:27).

To listen to the full discussion leading up to the vote on the King Amendment that took place Wednesday night during the House Ag Committee markup, just click here (MP3- 23:00). The clip includes remarks from Reps. Steve King (R., Iowa), Kurt Schrader (D., Ore.),Dennis Cardoza (D., Calif.), Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.), Chairman Frank Lucas (R., Okla.), Ranking Member Collin Peterson (D., Minn.), Mike Conaway (R., Tex.), and Marlin Stutzman (R., Ind.).
The audio clip is a bit lengthy, but the discussion regarding the King Amendment was interesting and educational. Source: FarmPolicy.com, Inc.

Related: Rep. King statement on the Protect Interstate Commerce Act (PICA) Amendment

MO Farm Bureau Opposes HSUS Initiative Petition

Farm organization warns Missouri citizens that HSUS group's 'Your Vote Counts' initiative petition is dangerous.
Compiled by staff Published: Aug 2, 2011

Missouri Farm Bureau's board of directors recently voted to oppose an initiative petition being circulated to require a three-fourths vote of the Missouri legislature to change an initiative statute.

The "Your Vote Counts" initiative petition is bankrolled by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), a national organization with no affiliation to local Humane Society chapters in the state.

"Missourians should be alarmed by organizations like HSUS who are hijacking Missouri's initiative petition process," said Blake Hurst, president of Missouri Farm Bureau. "They are using their vast financial resources to buy their way on the ballot with paid signature gatherers and then buy voter support by flooding the air waves with slick, misleading commercials. This is government by fundraising, legislation by thirty-second commercials.

"By requiring a three-fourths vote, the 'Your Vote Counts' proposal creates an unrealistic threshold for legislative action as a check and balance against the influence of multi-million dollar organizations like HSUS," Hurst said. "The Missouri Legislature can override a governor's veto with a two-thirds vote. They can even vote to amend the U.S. Constitution with a two-thirds vote. I sincerely doubt HSUS's ideas are more lofty or important than the Bill of Rights."

HSUS spent more than $2.5 million last year to gain voter approval of Proposition B, a state statute that further regulated dog breeders. During the 2011 legislative session, the governor and Missouri Legislature made changes to improve the initiative statute so it would put unlawful, instead of reputable, dog breeders out of business. Angered by this action, HSUS now proposes to use some of its $150 million annual budget to again buy its way on the ballot and tell Missourians how to conduct their business.

"Look no further than a state like California where budget problems are well documented and are largely a result of the ballot initiative process. California's legislature cannot itself amend ballot initiatives approved by the state's voters, not much different than what HSUS is proposing for Missouri," Hurst said. "Initiative petitions are a valuable part of the democratic process, but the process needs checks and balances. Absolute power is dangerous, and absolute power in the hands of groups with unlimited funding is a recipe for the worst kind of government of all."

Source: Missouri Farm Bureau

Landmark deal to remake how eggs produced

By Philip Brasher

July 8, 2011. A stunning, landmark deal between the largest animal rights group and the egg industry would change the way hens are raised in this country. It shouldn't be surprising that it's making others in the livestock industry nervous.

The agreement, announced today, marks a victory for both the industry and the Humane Society of the United States, which has been seeking to use a series of ballot initiatives, most successfully in California, to force some major changes in way that livestock are raised in the United States.

The egg industry has known for some time that the so-called battery cages that are now the standard industry practice would have to be replaced with something more acceptable to the public. But producers didn't want to go cage-free, as HSUS had been pushing, in part because cage-free operations require more and better trained workers. Cage-free hens also need more feed, further increasing production costs. The industry preferred instead to switch to a larger style of cages, known as "enriched colony" housing, that give the birds more room to move around and also include perches and nesting areas. (See photo) The deal announced today between HSUS and the United Egg Producers allows the industry to do just that and gives farms a decade and a half to phase in the new housing.

There's a big catch, however. The two groups agreed to jointly ask Congress for a federal law that set standards and a timeline for the changes, and that legislation will have to pass for the deal to go through. If the bill doesn't pass, "then the agreement would be off and we'd be likely to see more ballot measures, litigation, etc. Both sides want to work together to enact," HSUS' Paul Shapiro told me.

Most hens now have about 67 square inches of space in conventional cages. Under the HSUS-UEP deal that would increase up to 144 square inches.

As HSUS notes, such a law would mark the first time Congress has ever set standards for how any species of animals is raised on farms. No small achievement for HSUS.

The pork industry, which has tangled with HSUS for years over the way sows are housed, doesn't like the idea of federal standards for animal welfare. "It would inject the federal government into the marketplace with no measurable benefit to public or animal health and welfare," the National Pork Producers Council said. The group said it is "gravely concerned that such a one-size-fits-all approach will take away producers' freedom to operate in a way that's best for their animals."

Get some more details of the agreement here, in, of all things I thought I'd never see, a joint statement from HSUS and a major livestock producer group.

Nebraska to HSUS: No deal

Feedstuffs December 16 2010 by Rod Smith

Neb. Gov. Dave Heineman has laid out his position on any effort by The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to change agricultural practices in Nebraska: "No compromise, no deal."

In an interview, he said HSUS "is anti-agriculture and out to destroy animal agriculture," and if the organization tries to do in Nebraska what it has done in other states, it will be "in for a fight."

HSUS has increased its presence in Nebraska in recent weeks, with chief executive officer and president Wayne Pacelle conducting a town hall meeting and retaining a state coordinator.

Prop B Support Isn't Missouri-based

Missouri Farm Bureau finds interests outside of Missouri are financing Proposition B.

Compiled by Missouri Ruralist staff Published: Nov 1, 2010

An analysis of Proposition B campaign reports clearly reveals that organizations and individuals outside of Missouri are bankrolling the campaign to further regulate Missouri dog breeders. Almost 82% of the funds reported thus far are coming from out-of-state organizations and individuals, with most of the funds coming from the Humane Society of the United States based in Washington D.C., according to the Missouri Farm Bureau.

"We don't need out-of-state interests setting public policy here in Missouri," says Charles Kruse, president of Missouri Farm Bureau. "We already have Missouri laws on the books regulating dog breeders. Proposition B will do absolutely nothing to shut down unlawful dog breeders and will instead cause reputable and lawful dog breeders to close their businesses.

"Furthermore, if Proposition B passes, these radical animal rights organizations and individuals won't stop there. As experienced in other states, they will work to further regulate Missouri farmers, driving them out of business as well and driving up food costs," Kruse adds.

Through Oct. 21, the Proposition B campaign is reporting receipts of $4.363 million. Of that amount, $3.09 million is from out-of-state organizations and $486,099 comes from residents outside of Missouri. This equates to 82% of the campaign funds raised to promote Proposition B.

Following is a breakdown of the receipts for the Proposition B campaign through Oct. 21:

$4.363 million --Total campaign receipts
$3.09 million -- Total contributions by out-of-state organizations
$2.12 million -- HSUS (Washington D.C./Maryland)
$511,119 -- ASPCA (New York)
$250,000 -- Best Friends Animal Society (Utah)
$110,000 --The Fund for Animals (New York)
$80,000 -- Doris Day League (Washington D.C.)
$10,000 -- Animal Welfare Advocacy (New York)
$10,000 -- Big Cat Rescue (Florida)
Source: Missouri Farm Bureau

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

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:

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 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

Voices: Vote NO to Prop B

By Ruthie Snodgrass
Special to The Globe Thu Sep 23, 2010, 07:38 AM CDT

LAMAR, Mo. — Missouri voters will find Proposition B on the ballot when they go to their polling places on Nov. 2. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has contributed more than $1.2 million in support of Proposition B.

Missouri Farm Bureau opposes Proposition B, Missouri Farmers Association opposes Proposition B, the Missouri Department of Agriculture believes its current program will do more for animal welfare than Proposition B. The Missouri Veterinary Medical Association opposes Proposition B. For more information, go to www.mofb.org.

Several state organizations have joined together to form Missourians for Animal Care Coalition.

Its purpose is to inform the public about Proposition B. The American Veterinary Medical Association opposes HSUS and Proposition B. Go to www.humanewatch.org and www.thealliancefortruth.com.

Millions of dollars worth of income and revenue will be gone from the state of Missouri.

Hundreds of thousands of tax dollars a year will be wasted enforcing needless regulations on Missouri’s respected, licensed breeders, while the unlicensed problem breeders remain unchecked.

HSUS is the richest and most powerful animal rights organization in the world.

Do not confuse animal rights organizations with animal welfare organizations.

For those folks who have been duped by HSUS into sending $240 annually in $19.99 monthly payments, less than $1.03 goes to feed a dog or cat.

Conscientious people concerned with the welfare of animals should support their local shelter. Every voter must not let themselves be fooled by wording on the ballot.

Vote “no” on Proposition B.

Prop B no good for dog breeders

The Maneater Column: Prop B no good for dog breeders By Ryan Schuessler
Published Aug. 31, 2010

Can you define the term "puppy mill?"

If you say something along the lines of a cramped, dirty, abusive farm where dogs are bred and sold, then you're wrong. In reality, there is no legal definition of a puppy mill.

Let me get this out of the way first: no animal should be abused. Ever. The picture of puppy mills that has been implanted in people's heads is undoubtedly, wrong, immoral and shouldn't be allowed. Every animal in the care of a human deserves the utmost respect and basic right to a decent life on this Earth, as does every living creature.

But don't be fooled. The Puppy Mill Prevention Act or Prop B, which will be appearing on the November ballot in Missouri, isn't a good idea.

It's not that Missouri doesn't have laws regulating the facilities and care of dog breeding establishments already. A set of laws was passed over 18 years ago that mandated breeders to provide enough food, water, shelter and veterinary care.

They're also required to provide regular exercise, socialization and enough space for each dog to turn, stand, sit and lie in a comfortable position and walk freely in a normal matter. And that's just the beginning of a list of regulations already in place. This law is about 22 pages long (I've seen a copy) and addresses virtually everything that Prop B wished to handle. It was created by a group of 13 people from all corners of the dog-breeding world; from breeders to shelter workers, veterinarians to department of health employees.

Missouri's "puppy mill" problem does not come from a lack of legislation. It stems directly from a lack of enforcement and funding of adequate legislation already in place.

The biggest problem with Prop B is that it limits every dog breeder, no matter how well they treat their animals, to having a maximum of 50 animals at a time. Even if there is a staff member assigned to each dog, it still isn't allowed.

Full article at link

Missouri Animal Care coalition to discuss strategy

Brownfield Ag News. August 17, 2010 by Tom Steever

A coalition of Missouri pet breeding and animal agriculture groups plans to further discuss strategy following a judge’s ruling last week rejecting a challenge to the so-called puppy mill ballot measure to put restrictions on dog breeders.

Missouri Cattlemen’s Association Executive Vice President Jeff Windett says Missourians for Animal Care will meet next week. He says coalition members are disappointed that the court didn’t agree that language in the ballot summary is unfair. Windett says the coalition exists because of what’s happened with other state’s ballot issues sponsored by the Humane Society of the United States.

“We know it’s a history of HSUS to come back after agriculture, and more specifically the livestock industry, in other states and we expect them to do the same [in Missouri],” said Windett, during an interview with Brownfield Tuesday.

Aside from expecting further efforts from HSUS to restrict animal agriculture, Windett says the measure as written won’t fix problem dog breeders.

“This ballot initiative does nothing to identify some of the unlicensed breeders,” said Windett. “The only people that this ballot initiative is going to affect is the licensed dog breeders; those are the ones we know about and the unlicensed breeders are going to continue to operate.”

Karen Strange, president of the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners, filed the suit arguing that the measure unfairly describes a violation of the proposed restrictions as a misdemeanor called “puppy mill cruelty.”

Among other things, the measure restricts possession to no more than 50 breeding dogs.

HSUS dog breeding act makes MO ballot

Brownfield AgNews. August 3, 2010 by Julie Harker

The initiative petition to place more restrictions on Missouri dog breeders has been certified by the Missouri Secretary of State’s office.

Missourians for the Protection of Dogs, a coalition of groups which includes the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), says enough signatures out of the 190,000 it submitted in May will put the issue before voters in November.

Karen Strange, the president of the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners (MO-Fed), one of the groups fighting “The Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act”, as it is named, says Missouri’s “legal licensed” dog breeders are already highly regulated and have to pass numerous inspections.

“This will eliminate many dogs from their kennels regardless of the excellent care,” said Strange.

The proposed changes to state law would limit breeders from having more than 50 breeding dogs, and, Strange says, wrongly places restrictions on how often licensed breeders can breed them.

“We don’t feel like a ballot initiative put forth by animal rights people should interfere with the relationship for the animals between the veterinarian and the breeder,” said Strange.

Mo Fed’s pending lawsuit against the proposal charges the ballot title is prejudicial and the summary misleading.

“The summary states that each animal will be provided with clean water and food and an exercise area and those are already required by state law,” said Strange.

The news release from Missourians for the Protection of Dogs says “lawmakers in Iowa and Oklahoma enacted puppy mill legislation in those states earlier this year, and after Missouri, they are the next largest dog breeding states in the nation.” Their release says 10 states approved legislation last year “to address puppy mill problems.”

Strickland and Kasich denounce HSUS ballot initiative in Ohio

Ohio Gov. Denounces HSUS Ballot Plan
By Pork news source Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Ohio Democratic Governor Ted Strickland and his GOP rival candidate John Kasich both declared their opposition to a ballot measure being planned by the out-of-state activist organization the Humane Society of the United States. The Washington, D.C.-based animal rights organization has prepared to use paid petition gatherers to place on the November ballot a measure to overturn State Issue 2, which was approved by Ohio voters by a nearly 2-1 margin just under four months ago.

Issue 2 created the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board to allow broad public input into farm animal care issues. The HSUS plan would force the Care Board to adopt HSUS policies.

Both gubernatorial candidates endorsed Issue 2 and now agree that it’s wrong for HSUS to attempt to overturn the will of Ohio voters.

"If we want to eat, and if we want access to affordable and inexpensive food, it is important for the agricultural community within our state not to be hamstrung and to have their hands tied behind their back by those who do not fully appreciate the value of what happens on our farms," said Gov. Strickland.

Referencing HSUS’s "extremism," candidate Kasich said, "No outsiders ought to come in here and try to destroy our farms."

Last week a HSUS watchdog Web site, www.HumaneWatch.org was launched which plans coverage on HSUS’ efforts at the national as well as state levels. “Ohio and Missouri are big battlegrounds for HSUS this year and we will be covering them extensively,” says David Martosko, Center for Consumer Freedom, the site's sponsor.

"The Ohio pork industry demonstrates to its consumers that the well-being of hogs in the state is a top priority," says Dick Isler, executive vice president, Ohio Pork Producers Council. “I would add that HSUS should try to work with the Animal Care Standards Board, not try to highjack it."

The Ohio governor candidates join Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern and Ohio Republic Party Chairman Kevin DeWine, who also condemned the HSUS plan during a broadcast of OFBF's radio program Town Hall Ohio.

"We don't need extreme out-of-state groups coming into Ohio. It just shows the political angle of the Humane Society," said DeWine.

"It's pretty remarkable. We haven't even had a chance to write the rules and somebody else is going to tell us what the rules should be," said Redfern. He added that HSUS "is clearly out of touch with Ohioans."

HSUS, which is not the parent of locally operated humane organizations, advocates for reducing and eliminating consumption of animal products.

Source: Ohio Farm Bureau Federation