News Briefs and Updates March 11, 2015

 SAOVA Friends,

Again as legislatures open, animal abuser registries have been introduced in several states.  Although they may not seem to be as pressing as tethering, anti-hunting, or commercial breeder bills they should be addressed. Bills have been introduced in Arizona, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and West Virginia.  Numerous versions have been introduced in New York where support is strong and registry bills have been passed in a handful of counties and also in New York City. 

Establishing animal abuser registries is a campaign championed by the extremely radical Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF). ALDF and other registry supporters justify the need for a registry with the claim that convicted animal abusers pose a real, ongoing threat to pets, family, and community, further claiming abuser actions will escalate to committing crimes against people. Activists have even gone so far as to say animal abusers are potential serial killers. Advocates claim the registry will make neighborhoods and pets safer.  To date, there is not a shred of evidence that registries can achieve any of the supporters’ claims.

The vast majority of animal cruelty involves neglect by the animal’s owner and many cases often involve hoarders. Animal hoarding refers to the compulsive need to collect and own animals for the sake of caring for them that usually results in accidental or unintentional neglect or abuse. Animal hoarding is a mental disorder and approximately 40 percent of object hoarders also hoard animals. Hoarders have an intense emotional attachment to the animals in their care and confuse loving the animals with the reality of their inability to provide a safe, clean, and healthy home for them. Treatment of hoarders by mental health services is a more prudent course of action in these situations than years of public exposure and humiliation on web site lists where hoarders are unrealistically stereotyped as dangers to society.

The SAOVA website has extensive information on the negative side of abuser registries.  http://saova.org/ALDF_AbuserRegistry.html  if a bill has been introduced in your state, review our site and take time to send an email to committee members where the bill resides.  This is a chance to educate them regarding the flawed concept of these dangerous animal abuser registries.

 Cross Posting is encouraged.

Susan Wolf

Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance

Working to identify and elect supportive legislators

5TH CIRCUIT NIXES USDA HORSE-PROTECTION RULE

By Lorraine Bailey

February 23, 2015. (CN) - The 5th Circuit struck down a USDA rule aimed at penalizing horse owners who purposely injure their horses to achieve a gait prized at horse competitions.

Contender Farms, owned by Mark McGartland, sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture to block federal regulations aiming to crack down on cheaters who attempt to win horse shows by harming their horses.

Tennessee show horses have a distinctive high-stepping gait, achieved through extensive training. But it can also be achieved by illegal means by injuring the animal with harmful chemicals to get them to high step, a technique known as "soring."

Soring is prohibited by the Horse Protection Act, which also authorizes the USDA to regulate the management of horse shows, and set licensing requirements for inspectors who examine horses for signs of soring.

In the attempt to achieve a consistent punishment for the practice, the USDA adopted a new regulation in 2012 requiring horse organizations adopt mandatory minimum suspension penalties for soring violators as a condition of participating in the department's inspection program, a necessity for putting on a horse show.

However, the 5th Circuit ruled last week that the regulation overstepped the USDA's authority.  "The suspensions target participants in Tennessee walking horse events like Contender Farms and McGartland, and they are as much objects of the Regulation as the HIOs [horse industry organizations] themselves," Judge E. Grady Jolly said, writing for the three-judge panel. (Emphasis in original.)

The regulation states that if an inspector discovers a violation, individuals responsible for showing the horse, allowing entry of the horse into a show, or selling the horse must all be suspended.   "Although participants in horse shows have always been subject to regulations from both HIOs and the USDA, the USDA has now taken intrusive steps into the private scheme to strengthen the penalties that HIOs must levy against those found to sore horses," the 23-page opinion said.

While a horsing organization may decline to hire USDA-approved inspectors, it must then accept liability for failing to disqualify a sored horse, even if management was unaware the horse was sore, a choice very few organizations make, according to the judgment. 

"The plain language of the HPA suggests that Congress intended a private horse inspection system. This statutory regime does not support the USDA's position that Congress authorized it to promulgate the regulation, which requires private parties to impose government-mandated suspensions as an arm of HPA enforcement," Jolly concluded. (Emphasis in original.)   SOURCE:  Courthouse News 

ARKANSAS COMMERCIAL BREEDER BILL

HB 1620 To Regulate the Breeding of Certain Animals; Create the Arkansas Commercial Breeding Kennel Act; and Declare an Emergency    Sponsor: Representative Sorvillo (R-District 32).  The bill is intended to, among other things, require the licensing of commercial breeding kennels and of dogs sold for commercial purposes and to increase the standards of care for commercial breeding kennels.  Items of concern include the following: An unclear definition of commercial breeding kennel; unclear exemption for hunting dogs; a definition of "sufficient housing, including protection from the elements" that would prevent a breeder from keeping a dog in an outdoors enclosure with access to an adequately insulated dog house. HB 1620 would also define how frequently a dog may be bred. This decision is best left to the breeder and veterinarian, not a lawmaker. The bill is now scheduled to be heard in the House Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development Committee on Friday, March 13.  Arkansas dog owners,  breeders, and sportsmen should continue to contact the bill's sponsor, the Agriculture committee members, and other House members immediately with their concerns. Track the bill here: http://tinyurl.com/pp8fboa

Contact for committee members here: http://tinyurl.com/l62jwhl

NORTH CAROLINA COMMERCIAL BREEDER BILL HB159

Once again the misguided McCrory/HSUS breeder regulation bill has been introduced by Rep. Jason Saine (R-Lincoln). This latest version attempts to create an exemption for those who keep dogs exclusively for herding, guarding livestock or farm animals, hunting, tracking, or exhibiting in dog shows, performance events, or field and obedience trials. However, the bill defines commercial breeder as anyone who owns or maintains 11 or more female dogs over the age of 6 months primarily for the purpose of breeding. This bases the law once again on ownership and not sales and requires no sales activity in order to enact regulation. The bill includes requirements for kennel standards, outdoor lighting, perimeter fencing, temperature control, and record keeping. The bill would also transfer animal welfare oversight from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Public Safety. Law enforcement should not be burdened with developing, administering, and regulating animal policy. Their time is too valuable to be to be spent as HSUS foot soldiers. Moving Animal Welfare to the Department of Public Safety is an attempt to start rewriting laws regarding animal welfare in accordance with the animal rights agenda. Track the bill here: http://tinyurl.com/qbtq899 HB159 has been assigned to House Judiciary II Committee. http://tinyurl.com/kesckyn  Contact committee members and your representative now with opposition to this bill.

SOUTH CAROLINA PUSH FOR COMMERCIAL BREEDER BILL

Senator Greg Hembree (R-Dillon and Horry Counties) recently delivered a report to the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on animal welfare laws.  Senator Hembree believes the problem of puppy mills is recognized by both the House and the Senate.  Hembree told reporters, "They know it's there. It's a matter of getting enough momentum behind the problem to push legislation along." Currently, puppy mills, breeders, and nonprofits are not regulated. Hembree said the General Assembly is moving in the right direction, but lawmakers need help from home to get legislation filed. Hembree added that he strongly believes some legislation regarding the regulation of puppy mills and nonprofits organizations will go before the General Assembly this year.  SOURCE: Carolina Live 

An Open Letter to all HSUS Agriculture Council Members

If you are not aware, one of the HSUS programs is to establish state Agriculture Councils in a poor attempt to have input on agriculture production and standards. According to their website they have established councils in 10 states that supposedly provide "guidance" on better, more responsible farming practices.  Protect The Harvest sent a letter to these councils.  Good reading. . .

I would like to start out by wishing you a good day, and to point out that the following message is not meant to have accusatory or otherwise menacing intentions. We realize that many of you are involved with your respective state’s HSUS Ag Council because you sincerely desire to make a positive impact on agriculture. We take very seriously the importance of promoting and supporting the hardworking American farmer who provides nourishment for American families.

A select group of you are even involved in animal agriculture. Meat and dairy products are essential components of a well-rounded diet, providing vitamins and nutrients that can’t be properly provided through other means. We commend you for your service to the industry and for the work you put in day in and day out to make a living while feeding our population.

All that being said, there are many things you need to know about the organization with which you have partnered. You may be aware of some of the criticisms that have been leveled against them, but we want to encourage you not to write this off — what is written below is very serious and should be of critical importance to you as a food producer in America.

Within this letter, we hope to have consolidated some of the most vital information about HSUS and its leaders as it directly pertains to your way of life and your ability to make a living doing what you love.

Please carefully examine the following information about your “friends” at the Humane Society of the United States:

1)      The Humane Society of the United States is a Washington, D.C. special interest group that was originally formed to unite the animal rights movement under a single banner. Their interest in modern animal agriculture is to see it done away with and nothing more.  Sure, they have their state directors and other outreach personnel (you’d know far more about these people than we would), but their higher-ups likely see you as nothing more than a stepping stone to furthering an agenda laid out a long time ago. They’ve realized that their legislative efforts have been futile in recent years as they’ve increasingly encountered strong opposition to their attempts to pass policy favorable to their cause. Therefore, they’ve moved on to appealing to farmers and ranchers on a more personal level.
         That’s where you come in. The idea is that good people like you might be attracted to a message that they think you want to hear, and that in response, you will take what they’ve taught you and spread it on to your fellow farmer or rancher and your customers.

2)      You might think that HSUS is putting its money where its mouth is, or at least where their donors would assume it is spent.  Let’s examine that for a second. In 2012, for example, HSUS generated $125 million dollars. Of that money, $42 million went towards fundraising and $44.3 million was spent on salaries. Do you know of many non-profits that spend such an exorbitant amount on fundraising or have such an expensive workforce?
          Both those numbers are higher than the amount they spend on advocacy and public policy — the issues they must be telling you are of utmost importance to them, because of how important it is to you.
          No, that would interfere with the bottom line. They spend so much money and resources just to make more money, which is the same reason why they don’t bother to correct donors who have the misconception that they are associated in any way with local Humane Societies. In actuality, they have absolutely no affiliation with them nor do they allocate more than 1% of donations for that cause, yet they happily benefit from exploiting this name association.

3)      In its own “Statement on Farm Animals and Eating with Conscience”, HSUS reveals its true beliefs about food and your chosen profession and way of life.  Outlined in that document available on their website is what they call their “Three R’s”:
         Reducing the consumption of meat and other animal-based foods; Refining the diet by eating products only from animals who have been raised, transported, and slaughtered in a system of humane, sustainable agriculture that does not abuse the animals; and Replacing meat and other animal-based foods in the diet with plant-based foods.
         We’re not sure what they are telling you or how they’ve explained that your involvement with their state Ag Council will benefit you as a farmer or rancher, but if you’re at all involved in animal agriculture and you’re a member of one of HSUS’s Ag Councils, you are working for an organization that is actively seeking to reduce demand and dry up the market for your goods.

4)      Most people aren’t quick to name Humane Society of the United States among others when asked to think of radical animal rights groups. They have been careful to watch what they say in public to avoid the kind of controversial radicalism that has cratered the credibility of outspoken groups like PETA.

However, HSUS has absorbed some of the smaller, more radical animal rights organizations and brought some of their staff with them. When HSUS brings staff over from the extreme animal rights groups, those individuals may begin to project a different image than their former cohorts who stage protests and resort to property damage to convey their message, but it would be foolish to assume they check their radical ideology at the door.

5)      Much has been said here in the hopes of helping you see exactly who it is that you are working with, but we can’t say it any better or more convincingly than HSUS’s leaders have, in their own words.

More of the letter at Protect the Harvest

New Dog Breeding Standards

Dear SAOVA friends, this article was originally published in the January 30, 2015 issue of Dog News and is reprinted here by permission of the author.

New Dog Breeding Standards

Carlotta Cooper

Just when you thought the issue of dog breeding standards was settled with the publication of the APHIS rule – and the subsequent dismissal of the Associated Dog Clubs of New York State lawsuit challenging the legality of the rule – there is a new study being conducted by Purdue University that could impact dog breeders. The project is funded by the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC), the Pet Food Institute, and the World Pet Association. Additional support is being provided by the Science Fellows program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the USDA-APHIS Center for Animal Welfare – our good friends at USDA-APHIS.

Candace Croney, an associate professor of animal sciences at Purdue University and director of its Center for Animal Welfare Science, is in the process of conducting a two-year research project that will collect data and test current nationwide dog breeding standards. The purpose of the study is to create a uniform standard for dog care and well-being in all 50 states.

"There are lots of breeders who are not doing the best for their dogs, and they don't know that they could be doing better," Croney said. According to Croney, many breeders ignore certain unique and complex challenges such as genetic characteristics and behavioral and physical sciences. She cited breeds such as French Bulldogs and Pugs as examples which required litters to be delivered by caesarean section, saying that the constant surgery is harmful.

Croney said she will also study several other factors that affect dog welfare, such as housing.

Croney said that her goal is education, not enforcement. "We're not trying to police people," Croney said. "We want to give them a tool to assess and improve the quality of life of a dog."

However, Croney said that the study will include tools that could help consumers and governments. Most of the data collected will come from sites in Indiana and other midwest states because they are "perceived to be the hotbed of problems of the commercial breeding of dogs," she said.

Croney said her research will address many current problems in dog breeding. She said that she hopes it leads to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is a consultant on the project, updating its guidelines (the Animal Welfare Act) — which would effectively create a national dog breeding standard.

When the standards are finalized, the Purdue Center for Animal Welfare Science will develop education programs for breeders.

"Using this approach will ensure the production and proper vetting of the standards developed to improve voluntary compliance with best practices," Croney said.

Croney said the approach will also:

• Help breeders make informed choices about participating in voluntary dog welfare assurance programs.
• Create a mechanism by which to address public concerns about commercially bred dog welfare.
• Demonstrate the pet industry's willingness to assume its ethical obligation to regulate its animal care practices.

Croney said the standards could also be adapted to enhance the care and welfare of dogs in shelters, laboratories and other commercial venues.

"It is imperative that the U.S. pet industry demonstrate commitment to animal well-being and to broad social responsibility by facilitating efforts to improve the welfare of breeding dogs," Croney said.

"Capitalizing on the center's expertise in animal welfare science and ethics will help the pet industry

ensure that all dogs are offered the quality of life they deserve."

A final draft of the project has supposedly been written. Data collection is due to begin this spring, and the study is supposed to be complete by 2016.

Croney said, "We don't want to write really good standards that no one could live up to. And we don't want to write low standards that impacts the quality of life for dogs." You can listen to an interview with Dr. Croney on the Trent Loos radio program here.

Croney was awarded both the HSUS Animals and Society Course Award, and the Outstanding New Professor Award from the College of Agricultural Sciences at Oregon State in 2003 for her teaching on Contentious Issues in Animal Agriculture and Ethical issues in Animal Agriculture. She has also been an animal welfare adviser to the American Humane Association.

Some dog breeders have applauded the project but it could present problems for several reasons. Don't we already have what are supposed to be science-based standards with the USDA's Animal Welfare Act? The USDA is consulting on this project and Dr. Croney would like to see them use the results to update their dog breeding guidelines. How much more government intervention is acceptable in dog breeding? Should the USDA/APHIS and the Animal Welfare Act tell breeders whether or not their bitches can have caesarean sections or make other breeding decisions for them?

One-size-fits-all standards are never appropriate for dogs. With over 180 recognized AKC breeds (and more breeds with other registries, as well as intentionally crossbred dogs); in a country as large as the United States with varying climates; and dogs bred and raised for different purposes – is one national dog breeding standard really possible, or even desirable? No one in their right mind would raise sled dogs for the Iditarod the same way someone would raise Chihuahuas intended to be pets. There are often good reasons why dogs are raised differently.

PIJAC is one of the groups funding this study. They represent a number of commercial dog breeders and brokers and it's likely that they are interested in finding ways to fight back against the ordinances that have been banning the sale of pets in pet stores in various cities. One way would be to be able to claim that their commercial breeders meet voluntary blue ribbon standards of care.

“Many involved in the breeding and sale of purebred dogs are understandably concerned about the torrent of ordinances and statutes recently adopted which essentially or outright ban the sale of purebred dogs. But hope may be on the way-namely, Purdue’s animal care standards.

“These standards are uniform 'science-based, nationwide animal care standards for the commercial breeding and raising of dogs' that will exceed those currently required by the Animal Welfare Act ('AWA')...

“According to Andrew Hunte, president and CEO of The Hunte Corporation, a USDA licensed animal dealer, '[a]nimal rights organizations spend millions of dollars annually to promote negative messages about pets sold at retail, even though the facts do not support their claims. While they tout adoption as an ‘alternative’ to purchasing a pet at retail, their ultimate goal is to make sure that adoption isn’t just an alternative—it’s the only option available to consumers. Groups that once were considered mainstream are now promoting adoption as the only responsible path to pet ownership. As a result, dozens of responsible, well-regulated, tax-paying pet businesses across the country have been forced to close.'”

The article closes by saying, “Hopefully, when the Purdue Standards are published and adopted, the public will feel assured that dogs raised, bred, and housed according to those standards receive proper care.”

Mr. Hunte has even stated that some of the commercial breeders that supply puppies to his corporation will participate in the breeder pilot program.

While it might sound like a good idea for commercial breeders to “raise the bar” and try to silence their critics, organizations like HSUS will never be satisfied. Breeders could breed and raise puppies in palaces and HSUS would still find something to criticize.

Aside from trying to please animal rights groups, the first problem with this study is that it is using data from what is perceived to be “the hotbed of problems of the commercial breeding of dogs” to try to create a national standard for breeding dogs. I do not want to speak ill of any breeders but they are intentionally looking for problem breeders to use in their study. What about all of the great breeders who far exceed any rules and regulations that USDA-APHIS could imagine? There are some excellent commercial breeders. There are incredible show and hobby breeders who breed dogs beyond anything Purdue could come up with in their guidelines. But they aren't using this data in their study. Doesn't that mean the study is skewed from the start and that it won't be helpful to good breeders? Yet good breeders could also be forced to follow the rules that are created by this study, even if it means a reduction in quality.

Secondly, if the “Purdue Standards” are used as some kind of seal of approval, what would that mean for a small breeder who does not breed commercially or sell to pet stores? If that breeder did not (voluntarily) follow the publicized and touted Purdue Standards, would puppy buyers believe that their puppies were inferior? You might breed show quality puppies in your home but if you don't follow these allegedly voluntary Purdue Standards, would a puppy buyer prefer to buy a commercially-bred puppy from a pet store?

Third, whether or not the Purdue study comes up with guidelines that could ever be applied to hobby breeders, we need to remember that, thanks to APHIS, many former hobby breeders are now classified as “commercial” breeders by the USDA. Any changes in dog breeding standards that are adopted by the USDA in the future can impact many de facto show and hobby breeders. While Dr. Croney may hedge and use the term “voluntary” with regard to the standards, she has also mentioned having the USDA adopt the standards in place of the current Animal Welfare Act, so they would affect all breeders.

The AVMA has previously tried to create a model law for dog breeders that included behavioral, exercise, and enrichment guidelines. It didn't go far but it didn't have this kind of backing.

All this boils down to the fact that while the Purdue study on dog breeding may sound good in concept, it is loaded with potential pitfalls for small breeders. Like every other attempt to regulate some breeders, the results often blow back and affect all breeders. Keep watching for updates about this study and how it may affect show and hobby breeders in the future.

Dog Rescue Gone Wrong

A must read article for all dog breeders in today's market. A family's nightmare when their Olde English Bulldog litter was seized by rescuers.


Report by Donna Joyce, photos courtesy Mrs. John Bass

In the quiet evening of December 23, 2014, a Marine Corps veteran named John Bass and his family were preparing for a happy Christmas celebration at their Waukegan, Illinois home. The children were looking forward to opening their presents, and the refrigerator held delicious holiday foods. Their female Olde English Bulldogge Lola was sleeping peacefully, surrounded by 8 of the 10 healthy puppies she had birthed 6 weeks ago.

This was the Bass’s only litter of 2014. Earlier that afternoon, they had taken all ten puppies to the vet for their certifications of health and first shots. The vet had pronounced them all very healthy, and even stated that two could go to their new homes that day. Shortly after the New Year, the remaining puppies would be leaving. One little girl had yet to find her new family.

Possibly, that might change soon, Mr. Bass thought. He was downstairs waiting for a prospective buyer named Alyssa Finkel. She was very eager to buy the remaining pup and had insisted on coming over that evening. He picked up the sale contract he required puppy buyers to sign and placed it next to copies of the puppy’s veterinary health certificate and proof of vaccination. All buyers were expected to submit to a thorough verification process and a home visit, to ensure that they would be worthy homes. He waited, idly petting Lola and her pups.

The doorbell rang upstairs. Mrs. Bass opened the door. Two women entered.

Two hours later Mr. Bass was at the Lake County Jail. Lola, left alone at home, bewildered by the presence of so many loud strangers in her home, was fretting nervously about the sudden disappearance of her 8 puppies. She was not confiscated along with her puppies only because “there was no legal way to impound the adult dog,” according to Waukegan Police Sgt. Cory Kelly, who engineered the raid.

While the Bass family agonized at the jail, the puppies were on a 70 mile journey three counties south, where a year-old Joliet-based rescue group called Wags 2 Wishes (W2W) quickly offered them for sale at $400 on their website and Facebook page as “saved from a breeder.” The W2W rescue group also asked for donations for veterinary care for the pups. They were either unaware of, or ignoring the fact that the pups had been pronounced very healthy by the Bass’s vet earlier that same day. Dozens of prospective buyers quickly responded. The price was allegedly increased to $600.

FULL STORY AT LINK

 

HSUS Marches into the New Year; News Briefs January 12, 2015

Dear SAOVA Friends,

Welcoming in the New Year, HSUS posted their continuing list of legislative goals.  In Pacelle’s words, this will make 2015 even bigger and better than the year before.   The list includes:  Securing breeding standards in all fifty states to “crack down” on puppy mills; securing legislation against use of gestation crates and what HSUS determines are inhumane factory farming practices; ending horse slaughter.

In 2014 bills attempting to define commercial breeders and/or the departments responsible for regulation were defeated in AZ, MI, NC, PA, and TN.  Whether or not your state has an existing law is immaterial to HSUS; additional regulation can still be introduced.  In states where HSUS plans to introduce new legislation, kennel raids and illegal seizures will increase as HSUS lays the propaganda groundwork to “justify” passage of their bill. 

SAOVA posted a report on the HSUS Taking Action for Animals (TAFA) conference from summer 2014 in which we noted the formation of the HSUS District and County Leader Programs.   http://saova.org/HSUS_TAFA.html    This program is designed to engage people in all 435 Congressional Districts and have those District Leaders lead political efforts to advance federal legislation by concentrating on influencing members of Congress.   Under the guidance of HSUS staff, the Leader is to develop an action plan for successful completion of one goal related to Legislative Advocacy.  In addition to lobbying Congress, Leaders will work with school districts to establish Meatless Mondays; connect with small farmers to unite them against "factory farms;" and work with animal shelters on spay/neuter initiatives in the community.   This program is forging ahead.  You can look up your state and congressional districts on the HSUS site to see if these positions have been filled: http://tinyurl.com/kgnz4nu

 
Within this framework, HSUS also plans to include County Leaders in all 3,100 counties across the U.S.

The world not only belongs to those who show up, it's controlled by the best informed and most motivated.  It is time to sharpen your writing skills, contact your legislators, and take back the conversation.  Silence HSUS in 2015!

Cross Posting is encouraged.

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

saova@earthlink.net

http://saova.org

FOUR CHARGED UNDER UTAH’S AG-GAG LAW

SALT LAKE CITY – Four animal activists who took pictures of a large southwestern Utah hog farm have pleaded not guilty to charges filed under a controversial law that criminalizes undercover investigations of slaughterhouses and factory farms. The four from California and Maryland entered the pleas Wednesday and Thursday to charges of trespass and agricultural operation interference. The activists from the Farm Animal Rights Movement are accused of driving onto private property at Circle Four Farms in Milford and taking pictures Sept. 24. The second count against them comes under a law that makes it a crime to conduct undercover investigations of slaughterhouses and factory farms. It’s being challenged by activists who say it’s designed to prevent exposure of unsafe practices.  Six other states have similar measures, but the only person to be charged was also from Utah, said Matthew Liebman, an attorney from the Animal Legal Defense Fund challenging the law. Full story at the Washington Times: http://tinyurl.com/mdww2gh

PENNSYLVANIA GOVERNOR’S TRANSITION TEAM

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf begins to make good on his animal welfare campaign promises.  HSUS PA State Director Sarah Speed was named to his transition team on agriculture issues.  According to a prepared release, the transition review teams work with the outgoing administration to better understand the issues and challenges that face the executive branch.  Wolf was endorsed by Humane PA PAC and by HSUS.

RIGHT TO HUNT AND FISH

Recapping 2014, Mississippi became the 18th state with a constitutional right to hunt and fish provision with 88 percent of voters in favor of the amendment. Alabama voters, nearly 80 percent of them, refined already existing language, adding that hunting and fishing are the “preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife.”   States protecting the right to hunt and fish are: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming

Moving forward, Texas Senator Brandon Creighton (R, Conroe) and Representative Trent Ashby (R, Lufkin) recently introduced resolutions SJR22 and HJR21 proposing amendments to the Texas constitution that will protect the right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife and preserve Texas' hunting heritage for generations to come.