News Briefs and Updates May 17, 2015

SAOVA Friends,

We have written before about animal abuser registries and how dangerous they are.  Establishing animal abuser registries is a campaign championed by the California-based Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) whose mission is to use the legal system to change the current property status of animals and advance the interest of animals under the law.

ALDF asserts that registries will not only prevent criminal conduct, but will also raise public awareness about the connections between animal cruelty and human violence. ALDF is a major promoter of the theory that animal abusers go on to victimize people. They have even gone so far as to say animal abusers are potential serial killers, citing the cases of Albert DeSalvo, the Boston Strangler; Jeffrey Dahmer; Ted Bundy; and other infamous serial killers.  

Manchester Metropolitan University researchers Heather Piper and Steve Myers looked at such claims and found a surprising lack of any actual valid evidence for it. They write, “Research supporting the supposed links is based mainly on extreme and non-representative samples. Accounts suggesting links between those who have harmed animals and later violence toward humans often rely on the same small sample of extreme criminals in the US. Researching a limited population to produce a broadly applicable generalization is problematic. Any number of life experiences could also be shown to correlate with the behavior. A further problem is that much of the research tends to suffer from fallacies of logic. Just because some serial killers have harmed animals, this does not mean that all or even the majority of those who harm animals will become serial killers. Yet this stance is taken in much of the literature.”

Now that the FBI has established a category for felony animal abuse and is preparing to collect data on animal cruelty crimes through its National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), it may become increasingly difficult to maintain logic over hysterics when dealing with proposed animal abuser registry bills. 

All abuser registry bills must be read very carefully to ascertain what sections of cruelty law apply. If the proposed registry bill is written to include misdemeanor offenses, then failure to provide specified shelter or tethering a dog incorrectly could place someone on the registry.  Dog breeders and sportsmen pride themselves on the care provided to their dogs.  Regardless, one should never assume it is impossible to become involved in a disagreement with local officials over the adequacy of shelter or condition of kennel dogs.  Lose the argument and your name, photograph, and case information could be included in an online registry which animal activists can access. Any information placed online about animal abusers will be widely circulated, putting these individuals at risk of harassment and vigilante justice.

Registries would also include hoarders who represent a large percentage of animal cruelty cases. 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 far better solution than years of public exposure and humiliation on web site lists where they are unrealistically stereotyped as dangers to society.

The first registry bill was introduced in Colorado in 2002.  Since then hundreds of bills introduced to enact animal abuser registries have been unsuccessful in twenty-seven (27) states.

It is not completely clear why in the current session the Tennessee Legislature became thoroughly enchanted with the animal abuser registry bills introduced by Senator Jeff Yarbro (D21-Nashville) and Representative Darren Jernigan (D-60). The online animal abuser registry was supported by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI). As first introduced the bills included misdemeanor offenses for general animal cruelty charges which could have placed every dog breeder, owner, and sportsman in the state at risk. The House passed this version. Fortunately, a Senate substitute proposed by Senator Brian Kelsey (R-31) removed the section citing general animal cruelty.  This substitute passed the Senate and was then accepted by the House.

ALDF suffered over a decade of failure with their registry campaign. This year Tennessee sadly became the first state in the nation to honor their campaign by enacting a registry bill.

Thank you for reading. 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   

ALDF OPENS NEW FRONTIER FOR ANIMAL PERSONHOOD

May 15, 2015. Christopher A. Berry, ALDF Staff Attorney, writes on the ALDF blog “What are the legal implications for splicing human cells into nonhuman animals? When does an animal become a person—how much human material is required? Where do we draw the legal line? Cutting-edge research in “chimera” science blurs traditional morality and raises critical new questions. And human protection laws may provide the clues we need to solve this puzzle.”

Berry continues, “. . . for more than a decade scientists have been creating human-animal chimeras by grafting human stem cells into animal bodies. This results in purely human cells replacing some of the animal parts.” “A traditional use of these chimeric and transgenic creatures involves grafting human immune cells into mouse bodies because this is thought to produce more accurate results in biomedical research that uses the mice to study human diseases. But a string of recent revolutionary new research involves humanizing animal brains, resulting in chimeras and transgenics with significantly enhanced cognitive abilities.”

Berry reports that in one study from 2013, researchers implanted human glial progenitor cells—a type of brain cell that supports neurons in the brain and contributes to cognitive function—into mice brains, causing a significant increase in mouse learning ability and change in behavior.  Berry warns there are no laws regulating this type of research humanizing animal brains and no requirement that any animals that might eventually exhibit human-like intelligence receive human-like rights.

One researcher involved in this project quickly dismissed any idea that the added cells somehow make the mice more human. "This does not provide the animals with additional capabilities that could in any way be ascribed or perceived as specifically human," he says. "Rather, the human cells are simply improving the efficiency of the mouse's own neural networks. It's still a mouse." (New Scientist  http://tinyurl.com/mgpq2tm)

However as they believe this area of research lacks proper regulation, ALDF filed a formal rulemaking petition with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) asking that agency to enact regulations under the Public Health Services Act. The Public Health Services Act imposes a duty on HHS to protect the rights of human research subjects in all federally-supported research. 42 U.S.C. § 289. These protections include informed consent, assessment of risks and benefits, and equitable selection of subjects. 45 C.F.R. §§ 46.101, et seq. Specifically, ALDF’s rulemaking petition asks HHS to enact regulations that (1) require special oversight of all research involving human-animal chimeras and transgenics, and (2) require that animals exhibiting human-like intelligence as a result of those experiments be granted all protection normally given to human research subjects. HHS has until December 2017 to respond to ALDF’s petition.

Berry summarizes ALDF’s efforts. “While the adoption of ALDF’s rulemaking proposal helps promote the welfare of human-animal chimeras and transgenics by requiring additional oversight, the real value is in obtaining personhood status for those animals exhibiting human-like intelligence. As it stands now, the only member of the animal kingdom with personhood status is the human species. By compelling the legal system to recognize that biologically manipulated animals with human-like intelligence and at least a drop of human DNA ought to receive the same rights as human research subjects, we can build a bridge between rights for humans and rights for all the other animals.” 

Source: ALDF Blog http://tinyurl.com/lalllqm

INDIANA DNR RULE CHANGES

The Indiana Department of Natural Resources has posted proposed rule changes for Section 312 IAC 9-10-16 Dog training ground permit. The proposed rule changes would adversely affect beagling in Indiana by placing time restrictions on field trials and unreasonably limiting training opportunities.   No fences that divide the training ground into parcels less than 10 acres would be allowed.  This would eliminate smaller pens necessary for use in training unstarted dogs and puppies. Permits would not be issued or renewed without the pen first being inspected by a conservation officer or wildlife biologist. Inspection process may include the removal of a sample of rabbits for biological examination.  Additional record keeping has been proposed including name and address of each person from whom rabbits are obtained and the dates and numbers of all rabbits released into the training ground. Also required would be the recording of date of death or discovery of a dead rabbit and proximate cause of mortality of any rabbit. Records must be kept for three years and made available at inspections.  There are questionable and vague requirements for supplemental feeding and watering of rabbits, with no criteria listed, and specified percentages of types of cover.

The rule with proposed changes is posted at IDNR http://www.in.gov/nrc/2377.htm with a link to submit comments.  On June 4, 2015, at 5:30 p.m., at the Fort Harrison State Park

Inn, 5830 North Post Road, Roosevelt Ballroom, Indianapolis, Indiana the Natural Resources Commission will hold a public hearing on this and other proposed amendments.  Submit your comments now.

PENNSYLVANIA TETHERING AND SHELTER BILL ON THE MOVE

Senate Bill 373 to amend the state’s cruelty laws has unanimously passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and is now eligible for a floor vote.

The bill prohibits a dog from being tethered outside for more than 30 minutes if the temperature is below 32 degrees. Compliance with this requirement would be impossible for those who work and are not home should the temperature drop during the day.  This would also have direct, negative impact on field trials and winter dog sports. 

The bill also sets specific standards for shelter and bedding for dogs that are kept outdoors.  SB 373 requires dog housing to be moisture proof with a floor raised 3 inches from the ground, wind proof, and have an eight-inch overhanging roof to keep out rain. These requirements would force dog owners, breeders, and sportsmen who keep dogs outside in winter to virtually custom build new dog houses.  The bill includes size requirements for dog houses and prohibits certain types of bedding such as hay.

Current PA law already states that it is an offense “to deprive any animal of necessary sustenance, drink, shelter or veterinary care, or access to clean and sanitary shelter which will protect the animal against inclement weather and preserve the animal's body heat and keep it dry”.

Animal rightists and those with no practical experience in animal husbandry or dogs’ needs should not be writing Pennsylvania law.  Look up SB 373 http://tinyurl.com/l3949q6 and contact your Senator now to oppose these burdensome and unnecessary regulation changes.  http://tinyurl.com/kf9qpwf

TN Alert: animal abuser registry advancing

SAOVA Friends,

We have a serious situation in Tennessee as the animal abuser registry bills continue to move forward.  The House version, HB 147, sponsored by Rep. Darren Jernigan (D, 60) has cleared the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee and has been referred to the Government Operations Committee.  The Senate companion bill, SB 1204, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Yarboro (D, 21) has cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee and has been referred to the Senate Calendar Committee where it could be sent directly to the Senate floor for a vote.

The bills require the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation to establish an online registry of anyone convicted of an animal abuse offense.  This includes even misdemeanor animal cruelty charges for failure to provide proper shelter or tethering a dog resulting in bodily injury. 

Dog breeders and sportsmen pride themselves on the care provided to their dogs.  Regardless, one should never assume it is impossible to become involved in a disagreement with local officials over the adequacy of shelter or condition of kennel dogs.  Lose the argument and your name, photograph, and case information will be included in an online registry which animal activists can access. Any information placed online about animal abusers will be widely circulated, putting these individuals at risk of harassment and vigilante justice.

Establishing animal abuser registries is a campaign created in 2002 and championed by the California-based Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) whose mission is to use the legal system to change the current property status of animals and advance the interest of animals in the legal system. In its history, ALDF has never promoted legislation to help people. Its litigation and legislative efforts are aimed at setting legal precedent for elevating the status of animals or adding costly regulations within animal agriculture, research, and pet industries that will undermine our use and ownership of animals.   ALDF justifies the need for a registry with the claim that convicted animal abusers pose a real, ongoing threat to pets, family, and community; further claiming their actions will escalate to committing crimes against people. ALDF has even gone so far as to say animal abusers are potential serial killers.

The first registry bill was introduced in Colorado in 2002 and failed. Dozens of registry bills are introduced annually. These attempts have continually failed in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and previously in Tennessee.  After suffering years of failure with their registry campaign, ALDF announced a new plan to create its own "Do Not Adopt List" which would contain the names of animal abusers from all 50 states. List information would be obtained from district attorneys nationwide after cases have been disposed.

Not even the HSUS or the ASPCA are in favor of these online registries.

In testimony submitted against the New York City registry, The American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) stated, “We have questions about the concept of animal abuse registries because we know of no evidence that they can achieve their purported aim, and we worry that they may instead unwittingly do more harm than good.  There are serious practical issues surrounding the concept of animal abuser registries, including the risk that having animal cruelty crimes associated with a long-term abuser registry could inadvertently decrease the prosecution of such offenses, that registries overlook the importance of addressing mental health issues often seen in animal cruelty offenders and that properly maintaining an animal abuser registry requires that there is a uniform, centralized tracking of animal crimes, which currently does not exist.”

HSUS issued the following statement of opposition to online registries. “Animal cruelty—like other crimes—must be reported, classified, and analyzed in a comprehensive manner that results in swift and efficient enforcement of the law and the general improvement of society. It is not clear that the current round of proposals to create a public registry database would materially advance these goals. In fact, it probably does nothing to help these people learn a new way of viewing and treating animals.”

Why is the Tennessee legislature pursuing this course of action to enact an unpopular registry and further the animal rights agenda of ALDF?

ACTION NEEDED.

DO NOT let the legislature continue to move forward with an animal abuser registry which would make Tennessee the first state in the nation to embrace this animal rights program.  Establishing the ALDF-inspired registry will bring shame forever to the state of Tennessee.

Contact your Representative and Senator immediately to oppose the animal abuser registry.  Find House member contact here: http://www.capitol.tn.gov/house/members/ and Senate member contact here: http://www.capitol.tn.gov/senate/members/

More information on animal abuser registries can be found at the SAOVA website:

http://saova.org/ALDF_AbuserRegistry.html 

Please cross post widely.

Susan Wolf

Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance

Working to identify and elect supportive legislators

saova@earthlink.net 

http://saova.org   

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.