News Briefs and Updates September 16, 2015

SAOVA Friends,

The epidemic of animal abuser registry proposals continues among New York Counties. Niagara County Legislature’s Minority Leader Dennis Virtuoso proposed creation of a database similar to those covering individuals who commit sex crimes. The registry would contain the names and address information for all convicted abusers in Niagara County. Repeat offenders would be assigned to the list for life. County Sheriff James Voutour, whose office would be responsible for monitoring and updating, supports the registry. The registry is based on the Orange County law. Orange County lawmaker Mike Anagnostakis introduced the registry proposal earlier this year which passed the Legislature in August. County residents over 18 years of age convicted of an animal cruelty crime must be listed on the registry and cannot own another animal for 15 years. The registry will be maintained by the County sheriff.

According to a report by Mid-Hudson News, out of several New York counties that have passed animal abuse registry laws only 3 have actually been implemented. If true, this is good news. Perhaps this means that after rushing to appease activists by passing a registry law, legislators had a renewed moment of common sense.

Thank you for reading. Cross posting is encouraged.

Susan Wolf

Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance

EPA WAS WRONG TO APPROVE DOW PESTICIDE HARMFUL TO BEES

September 10, 2015. A U.S. appeals court ruled on Thursday that federal regulators erred in allowing an insecticide developed by Dow AgroSciences onto the market, canceling its approval and giving environmentalists a major victory. The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, is significant for commercial beekeepers and others who say a dramatic decline in bee colonies needed to pollinate key food crops is tied to widespread use of a class of insecticides known as neonicotinoids. Critics say the Environmental Protection Agency is failing to evaluate the risks thoroughly. The lawsuit was filed in 2013 against the EPA by a number of organizations representing the honey and honey beekeeping industry. The groups specifically challenged EPA approval of insecticides containing sulfoxaflor, saying studies have shown they are highly toxic to honey bees.

USDA said earlier this year that losses of managed honeybee colonies hit 42.1 percent from April

2014 through April 2015, up from 34.2 percent for 2013-14, and the second-highest annual loss to date. Continue reading http://tinyurl.com/nq2u7ru

US COURT OVERTURNS ESA LISTING

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas Sept. 1 overturned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) listing of the lesser prairie-chicken under the Endangered Species Act. Ruling in favor of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association and four New Mexico counties, the judge concluded the listing was arbitrary and capricious, and that the USFWS failed to properly follow its own process for listing determinations in this matter. Further, conservation efforts have already been undertaken across millions of acres over five states to improve habitat for the lesser prairie-chicken and diminish threats to its existence. The court determined these conservation efforts, which have resulted in a 25 percent increase in lesser prairie chicken populations from 2014 to 2015, were ignored by the administration. In a 29-page ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Junell stated, “The Court finds FSW did conduct an analysis, however this analysis was neither ‘rigorous’ nor valid as FWS failed to consider important questions and material information necessary to make a proper … evaluation.”

GROUPS FILE PETITION WITH FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE

Animal Legal Defense Fund, Compassion Over Killing, Farm Forward, Farm Sanctuary, Mercy for Animals, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, filed a rule making petition this month against USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) calling for additional regulations under the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) and Federal Meat Inspection Act. The coalition claims the FSIS is not meeting its statutory obligations under HMSA. The petition states the group based its claims on undercover investigations conducted by animal welfare groups and government reports. Requested changes include, codify the definition of “egregious” violations of the HMSA; issue Notice of Suspension for all egregious violations of the HMSA; require that intentional cruelty and egregious and reckless abuse be referred for criminal prosecution, fines, and imprisonment.

One proposed change calls for mandatory enforcement standards for Noncompliance Records (NR) and suspensions. For example, multiple stuns would always result in at least a plant suspension. The North American Meat Institute (NAMI) argued that adopting such a rule change would limit the ability of plants to take action when needed. “USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service wisely has permitted plants that acknowledge in advance through written plans that some animals, like large bulls or mature dairy cows, may be difficult to stun with a single blow as the law’s language requires,” Mark Dopp, senior vice president of regulatory affairs and NAMI general counsel, said in a statement. “FSIS’ approach also recognizes that livestock don’t always stand perfectly still and human beings charged with stunning and handling can’t executive every movement perfectly 100 percent of the time. If the agency is forced to use a regulatory sledge hammer when a plant does the right thing — like double stunning an animal when it appears necessary — it will only mean the wrong thing will happen more often — like failing to ensure an animal feels no pain.” Dopp continued. “During the time period detailed in this petition, our industry processed nearly 300 million cattle, pigs and sheep. While we work to ensure optimal welfare, perfection is simply not possible. Still, our overall record is one that reflects a committed, well-regulated and carefully inspected industry.” Sources: ALDF website; MeatPoultry.com

SEA WORLD OF TEXAS VS PETA

Sea World of Texas is rejecting the latest allegations raised by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), that the killer whales and sea lions at the park show signs of abuse and should not be held in captivity, News Radio 1200 WOAI reports. "I have to tell you, this is the ninth time in the past two years that PETA has filed claims about our animal welfare, and none of those claims were found to have any merit," Sea World Director of Corporate Communications Becca Bedes told News Radio 1200 WOAI's Megan Bishop.  "This is no different."  Source: WOAI http://tinyurl.com/o8xdyfk

ANIMAL RIGHTS GROUP SAYS IT WILL BILL INHOFE FOR DOWNED DRONE

September 14, 2015. An animal rights group said in a press release Monday that it plans to bill U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe for a drone that was shot down Friday while being flown over the Tulsa Republican's annual pigeon-shooting fundraiser. The Illinois-based group, SHowing Animals Respect and Kindness, or SHARK, was using the drone to monitor the event "for possible violations of Oklahoma law," and said it would release video of the shootdown and crash on Tuesday. SHARK said it would hand deliver a bill to Sen. Inhofe's DC office and file an amendment to SHARK’s ethics complaint against Sen. Inhofe "for the illegal and dangerous discharge of a firearm with his knowledge and potential consent." The complaint will be delivered to the offices of all the members of the Senate Ethics Committee, the group said.  Read more including SHARK press release http://newsok.com/article/5446774

MANDATORY SPAY NEUTER ORDINANCES

Mandatory spay/neuter (MSN) laws are promoted by groups who claim it will end euthanasia of animals, animal abandonment and shelter overpopulation. There is no success story for mandatory spay/neuter yet legislators still fall prey to the belief in a legislative quick fix.  Flyers opposing MSN can be found on the SAOVA website http://saova.org/download.html . Congratulations to the dog owners and groups who defeated recent attempts for MSN legislation.

* Whittier CA City Council removed MSN from a new animal ordinance which passed by a 5-0 vote.

* Proposals for MSN and Breeding Permits were presented for consideration to Spalding County GA Board of Commissioners at their August 3, 2015 meeting and both items were tabled.

City of Savannah GA spay neuter ordinance stalls after commissioners voice concerns. Residents of Savannah and Chatham County should continue to monitor.  

San Angelo TX council held a public hearing for proposed MSN ordinance which would require dogs and cats older than 4 months to be sterilized. Exceptions to the proposed ordinance include permitted/licensed breeders, medical reasons, competition animals, and law enforcement dogs. The ordinance will be considered at council’s October 6^th meeting.

Kangaroo courts are coming…

SAOVA Friends,

Steven L. Kopperud is executive vice president of Policy Directions Inc., a Washington, DC government affairs/specialty communications company specializing in animal production agriculture, nutrition, agribusiness, biotechnology, animal health and welfare, food, farm policy, trade and ag research and human health-related issues. As a recognized authority on activist assaults on animal agriculture and food technology, Mr. Kopperud has spoken to audiences in the U.S., Europe, Canada, China, Australia and Latin America on threats to food production.

Kopperud has long been one my favorite voices speaking out against the animal rights agenda and tactics. Never one to mince words, he tells his audience:  “You will never negotiate successfully with an animal rights group.”

Thanks for reading.  Cross posting is encouraged.

Susan Wolf
Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
Working to Identify and Elect Supportive Legislators


KANGAROO COURTS ARE COMING…
April 18, 2014 By Steve Kopperud

My opinion since moving to Washington, DC – where you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a law school graduate – is the world has enough lawyers.  However, there are times when lawyers are welcome because they’re very necessary.  Today there’s an animal rights initiative just getting legs and its success or failure will likely hinge on whoever has the most – and best – lawyers.  I’m talking about the legal concept of animal “personhood.” Stick with me; this may be esoteric and sound comical, but the threat is nevertheless very real.

“Personhood” under law recognizes only a natural person or “legal personality” has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability. “Personhood,” according to one legal journal, “continues to be a topic of international debate, and has been questioned during the abolition of slavery and the fight for women’s rights, in debates about abortion, fetal rights and reproductive rights (and) in animal rights activism…” (my emphasis).

In the 1980s-90s, we beat back an aggressive campaign by PETA and other animal rights groups to achieve “standing” in federal courts to sue on behalf of animals those who transgressed the animal rights philosophy, e.g. biomedical researchers, farmers and ranchers, zoos, rodeos and other legitimate users of animals. We watched class action suits filed on behalf of unnamed millions of consumers and lots of animals dismissed because the wannabe plaintiffs had no standing.

In the early 2000s, animal rights and real world lawyers sought to change companion animals’ legal status from property owned by someone to animals as semi-persons who enjoy not an owner but a “guardian.” Some California towns actually enshrined part of this philosophy in local law. The push was to allow owners who brought suit in cases of veterinary negligence or other wrongful acts to sue not just for the property value of the animal lost as is the case today, but for noneconomic damages, i.e. emotional distress, loss of companionship, etc. While pets don’t enjoy “personhood,” there is a trend in the courts to ignore the animals’ legal status and award non-economic damages.

The whole animal-as-person effort is the brainchild of Steven Wise. Wise, who’s practiced animal law for over 30 years, heads his own group called the Nonhuman Rights Project (http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/). In his own words:

“Our mission is to change the common law status of at least some nonhuman animals from mere ‘things,’ which lack the capacity to possess any legal right, to ‘persons,’ who possess such fundamental rights as bodily integrity and bodily liberty, and those other legal rights to which evolving standards of morality, scientific discovery, and human experience entitle them…The most powerful ram…is the litigating of the capacity for legal rights of those nonhuman animals who are both the most cognitively complex (they have extraordinary minds) and the most cognitively similar to humans. These include the four species of great apes, dolphins and whales, elephants, and African Grey parrots.”

Wise’s goal is to litigate state by state on behalf of “smart” animals, his targets chosen based on the evolution of common law in that state and whether there’s a “plaintiff” of sufficient standing. He’s filed three cases in New York, lost one on appeal and the other two appeals are pending. It will only take one or two successes for there to be sea change in the legal status animals, including those we raise for food, use in research to find cures and treatments or those who educate and entertain us.

Animal agriculture must pay attention to this legal threat now. This sounds fanciful, even ridiculous, but remember at least two European nations amended their national constitutions to recognize animals as “sentient creatures.” Remember there exists the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) to provide pro bono (free) legal assistance to animal rights groups, that HSUS and TV game show host Bob Barker have spent literally millions of dollars endowing “animal law” chairs at some of this country’s biggest and most prestigious law schools, and the American Bar Association (ABA) has an “animal law committee” and the majority of its members aren’t our industry’s best legal minds.

Which brings us back to lawyers, numbers and talent. We need to find working attorneys willing to donate – yes, I said donate – time and talent to help us prepare for this assault before someone files a personhood suit on behalf of pigs – deemed by those in the animal rights movement as one of the most intelligent animals we routinely kill and eat.

We need young attorneys and law school students to help us – and the rest of legal animal users – to maintain our legal rights and protections. We’re fortunate to have the National Agricultural Law Center at the University of Arkansas (http://nationalaglawcenter.org/). This is a group which needs our attention, our support and our donations. I have a feeling it may be our version of ALDF one day in the future.

Check out the websites I’ve listed; check the Internet and newsfeeds for “animal law” and “animal personhood.” It’s a serious issue – at least for the other side – and one that gives the term “kangaroo court” a whole new meaning.

Copyright 2014 Brownfield, All rights Reserved. Written For: Brownfield
Reprinted with Permission

http://brownfieldagnews.com/2014/04/18/kangaroo-courts-coming/
http://tinyurl.com/k69wg4b

SAOVA INTERVIEW WITH FRANKIE TRULL

Frankie Trull is president of the National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR), a Washington, DC–based organization that advocates for sound public policy in support of ethical and essential animal research. She is also the President of the Foundation for Biomedical Research, a non-profit organization that educates the public about animal research. In 1991, Trull was the recipient of the Distinguished Leadership Award from The Endocrine Society and the Presidential Award from the Society for Neuroscience. In 2003, she was given a Special Recognition Award from the American College of Laboratory Medicine (ACLAM). In 2005, Trull received the Public Service Award from the Association of Allergy and Immunology, the Society of Toxicology's Contribution to the Public Awareness of Animal Welfare Award, and the award for Education in Neuroscience from the Association of Neuroscience Departments and Programs (ANDP). The Association of American Medical Colleges awarded Trull their Special Recognition Award in 2007 and in 2010 she was made an Honorary Diplomate of the American College of Laboratory Medicine.

Mrs. Trull graciously consented to conduct an interview with SAOVA to discuss the benefits of animal research, the function of NABR, and federal legislation that would expand the scope of the Animal Welfare Act.

Q:   How does the focus of NABR differ from that of its sister organization, the Foundation for Biomedical Research?

A:            Whereas the Foundation is a public education charity that focuses on informing and educating the public about the importance of animals in biomedical research, NABR is an institutional membership  association with the mission of ensuring sound public policy for the humane use of animals in biomedical research. NABR spends a great deal of time educating law makers and executive branch officials, and when necessary engages the courts in support of its mission. NABR’s membership is comprised of 340 institutions, both public and private, in all 50 states and Puerto Rico.

Q:  This month PETA posted a job listing online for an Undercover Investigator. In the job description, the Position Objective is “to use a variety of undercover investigative methods to conduct field investigations in PETA's focus areas, including the use of animals for food, clothing, experimentation, and entertainment.”   How does the research community prepare itself for intrusions of this nature into their daily routines? 

A:            The threat of an animal rights activist infiltrating a biomedical research facility is very real and has occurred multiple times in the past. With more than three decades of experience, NABR advises facilities on best practices for both preventing and managing the consequences of infiltrations. We also provide each of our members with a comprehensive Crisis Management Guide which walks them through the process of protecting their facilities and employees and developing and maintaining a crisis management team.

Q:   The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) excludes coverage of rats, mice and birds used for research.  In December 2012, the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) introduced legislation that would rescind these exemptions, claiming it restores the original intent of Congress.  As NABR was instrumental in obtaining the statutory exemptions and amendments, has your position changed over the years regarding regulatory intent of the AWA?

A:            NABR is currently in the process of surveying its membership to determine how many rats and mice are in use at research facilities across the U.S. Although rats and mice make up more than 95% of all animals in biomedical research, the institutional responses to the survey will help NABR determine more precisely how such legislation may affect both the regulated community and those institutions that have never before been regulated by the USDA. For example, many small biotechnology companies only use rats and mice, meaning they would likely be subject to the same regulations as much larger institutions. This could potentially be very costly, time consuming, and could present a threat to struggling small businesses -- especially when one considers the Secretary of Agriculture has the legal authority to levy fines against a research facility up to $10,000 per animal, per day. The costs could be astronomical. Furthermore, because of the large number of rodents used in research it is unclear whether the USDA would have the resources to regulate the species. With the fiscal constraints Congress has been facing, it seems unlikely they would appropriate additional funds for these purposes.

Q:    In their white paper, ALDF claims that withholding federal protection from these animals means that researchers need not consider alternatives to animal research and are under no obligation to minimize an animal’s pain, provide a minimum standard of care, or implement proper euthanasia techniques.  Aren’t research animals already highly regulated? Are there industry standards and protocols to address any gaps in external regulations?

A:            If an institution receives federal funding from any branch of the Public Health Service, including NIH,   it must file an animal welfare assurance document with the agency which requires it to adhere to the recommendations contained in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. The Guide serves as the basis for welfare for all vertebrate biomedical research animals, and addresses all of the aforementioned concerns. Furthermore, many institutions and companies using animals in biomedical research are accredited by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC), which uses the Guide as the basis for its accreditation process. FDA and EPA regulated companies must comply with Good Laboratory Practices.  Finally, and most importantly, it's in the best interests of a research program to insure animals are treated well and without pain because stressed animals skew research results.

Q:   According to ALDF, this legislation will provide sweeping animal welfare benefits at little cost.  Has NABR completed any estimates of the cost burden should this additional regulation should become law?

A:            When this subject was under debate in 2001, NABR estimated that regulating rats, mice and birds under the Animal Welfare Act would cost USDA registered research facilities an additional $84 million annually, in mostly administrative compliance costs.  Facilities that would have been required to register with USDA for the first time might have spent $80 to $200 million to comply with all statutory requirements. The USDA APHIS budget would also be impacted – inspectors’ workload would double or even triple.

Q:   There are many steps being taken by animal rights lawyers to lay the groundwork in courts that test current requirements for legal standing and push the courts to give animals limited rights.  How would even small changes in property status affect use of animals in research?

A:            The ultimate goal of many animal rights lawyers is to obtain legal standing for animals.  Changing the property status of animals is the first step in a long term process aimed at enabling well-funded animal rights organizations to bring expensive and time-consuming legal actions that would entail potentially enormous costs.  Lawyers filing lawsuits on behalf of animals could challenge their use in research programs, as pets, in animal sports, in agriculture and in a multitude of other contexts. While some changes are being pushed for in the courts, animal rights organizations are simultaneously pursuing legal rights for animals through federal and state legislation, ballot initiatives and other means. In fact, just this year a bill was introduced in Massachusetts that would permit any person to bring a legal action "for the protection and humane treatment of animals." 

Q:     The recent panel study report to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommends downsizing chimpanzee facilities. Will the remaining colony of chimpanzees kept for research fill the needs for future studies? At one time, weren't chimpanzees the only good model for certain human HIV research? How did that change?  With emerging diseases and resistant infections, how might the loss of future research animals via regulation impact the prospect for advances in medical research to alleviate human suffering?

A:            Science is constantly evolving, so animal models change as well. The Institute of Medicine and an NIH working group have determined that the chimpanzee model is not necessary for some types of research. It is unclear whether the NIH director will simply accept the working group’s recommendations or will elaborate on the future of federal research chimps.  Much was learned about HIV from chimps, but the virus does not make them sick in the same way as it does people, so they did not prove to be the optimal model.  Should there be a disease as devastating as AIDS in the future, the chimp may prove pivotal to treating and curing the disease, so it would seem prudent and in the best interest of the public health to maintain a breeding colony.

Q:   Last month SAOVA reported to our readers that the ALDF website lists the formation of 171 U.S. Student Animal Legal Defense Chapters.  In addition there are State Bar Animal Law Sections and Committees in 24 states plus the American Bar Association.  Animal Law Courses are now taught in 144 schools, up from just 9 in 2000.   Realistically, the field of animal law exists for the purpose of changing how animals are viewed in the legal system.  How concerned is the research community about this rapidly growing field and its potential impact?

A:            As the field of animal law has grown, so have the legal departments and pro bono networks of sophisticated, well-financed animal rights organizations.  It is clear that many animal rights organizations and animal rights lawyers believe research with animals should be severely restricted or prohibited.  Through academic scholarship in five animal law journals and law reviews, lawyers and law students within the animal rights movement have begun to lay the groundwork and develop new legal theories to grant additional legal protections to animals, including research animals.  Ultimately, these efforts have the potential to seriously impact life-saving medical and scientific research.  NABR has been monitoring these developments for some time and has developed an Animal Law website that provides information tracking law courses, lawsuits, court decisions as well as the laws and regulations in place to ensure the humane use of animals in biomedical research. www.nabranimallaw.org/

Q:           We read headlines almost every day about breakthroughs in research.   Most medical advancements have been dependent upon animal research.  What species are most commonly used and why are these species so useful in biomedical research?

A:            Rodents are, by far, the most common animal model in biomedical research and safety testing.  And these are not your garden variety rodents.  For example, mice specially bred with specific genetic characteristics are designed for the disease under study, whether its diabetes, birth defects or obesity. This has revolutionized medical research and opened many doors to finding new cures for disease, especially cancer.

Research with dogs, cats, and non-human primates is necessary to study certain diseases. However, as biomedical research changes and evolves, the number of these animals used in research has dropped dramatically over the last several decades.  In fact, these animals account for less than .05 percent of the total number of lab animals used in research. Several additional species are proving to be increasingly important animal models, including zebrafish, C. Elegans (worms) and fruit flies

Q:  Human health has obviously benefited from animal research but animals benefit too through development of vaccines, cancer treatments, and surgical procedures. What are some of the most exciting areas of current research?

A:            Dr. James Cook, a researcher at University of Missouri, is developing biological joint replacements for both people and animals.  Cook has created new cartilage in animals using a biological “scaffold” in the animals’ joints. This research could do away with metal and plastic joints, and instead, regenerate a fully functional biologic joint for anyone who needs one.

Another exciting example of animal research is happening now at the Masonic Cancer Center at the University of Minnesota.  Doctors have developed a vaccine for a deadly brain cancer that affects both people and dogs.  Doctors recruit pet owners to enroll their dogs with brain cancer into a study.  After removing the tumor from a dog’s brain during surgery, the doctors create a cancer vaccine using that dog’s unique tumor cells. They inject the dog with several rounds of vaccination and eventually the dog builds up immunity to the cancer.  The dog’s immune cells act like an army to kill the foreign invader, the brain tumor.  This vaccine is extending dogs’ lives dramatically and many dogs become tumor-free. What the scientists are gleaning from this cancer research helps not only man’s best friend, but also may help human brain cancer patients facing a grim prognosis.

Q:   Animal Rights Activists who oppose use of animals in medical testing claim that various testing procedures exist, such as in vitro cell culture testing and computer simulations, as well as expanded use of human volunteers for micro dose drug testing, which make the use of animals in medical research obsolete. What role does the in vivo animal model fulfill in medical research that cannot be substituted through these other non-animal protocols?          

A:            To date, there is no comprehensive substitute for animal models in research. In certain areas of study, like toxicology, the number of animals required has dropped dramatically and been replaced with cell cultures, tissue cultures, mathematical and other models.  These non-animal methodologies are often much less expensive and faster than animal models. But for basic and biomedical research, there is a need for a whole, living system and an animal substitute does not exist.

In order to study something with a computer model you have to know enough about the disease to put it into a computer.  There are so many diseases scientists are still learning about, particularly diseases of the brain like Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and autism.  Understanding the underlying mechanisms of the brain must be studied in a brain.  A computer model simply can't substitute.

It would, of course, be preferable not  to use animals for research study, but simplistic claims that animal research should be obsolete ignores the complexity of the research process.  One only has to go to a children's cancer ward or a trauma center or have a parent with Alzheimer's disease to realize medical research has a lot of work to do to alleviate pain and suffering, and animal models remain our best bet to discover how to cure disease. When additional non-animal alternatives are developed, science will naturally reduce the need and use of animal models. This progression will only happen when viable alternatives exist and are scientifically validated.

Q:  Blum v. Holder is a federal lawsuit challenging the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) as an unconstitutional infringement on free speech.  How is NABR’s involved in this case?

A:            NABR, joined by eleven other organizations, filed an amicus brief in this lawsuit on March 12, 2012, explaining the specific Rules of Construction in the law which expressly exempts constitutionally-protected free speech from the AETA and urging the U.S. District Court in the District of Massachusetts to find the AETA constitutional.  NABR filed the brief to ensure the court is aware of the AETA’s importance to the biomedical research community and make certain that the strongest possible defense is presented.  The brief argues the law is a measured and important response to threats, intimidation, and economic harm committed by animal rights extremists against research facilities and scientists who conduct life-saving research with laboratory animals. During an August 29, 2012 hearing on the government’s motion to dismiss the case, several of the points raised by NABR’s brief were argued.  NABR, along with many others, is awaiting the court’s decision. 

APHIS rule update

SAOVA friends,

We should never underestimate the resolve of animal rights organizations to bring an end to animal ownership and breeding as we know it today. I trust all our readers have been following the progress of the APHIS proposed rule for regulating retail pet sellers. The rule is widely promoted by HSUS, ASPCA, PETA, ALDF and others as merely closing a loophole in the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and a means to run puppy mills out of business. Never forget that in the eyes of these radical groups and their brainwashed followers we are all irresponsible puppy mills. More than two decades ago, HSUS developed campaign materials promoting a moratorium on breeding cats and dogs and guidelines for mandatory spay/neuter laws. PETA stated long ago, “There is no such thing as a responsible breeder”; and went on to say, “Simply put, for every puppy or kitten who is deliberately produced by any breeder, an animal in an animal shelter dies.”

This week the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) weighed in on the APHIS rule. Their submitted comment should be a wakeup call to anyone who holds the illusion that any part of this rule is necessary or that a compromise should be negotiated.

After the tried and true AR-speak statement that “puppy mills produce an estimated two to four million puppies each year often in deplorable and inhumane conditions”, ALDF proceeds to support the rule as a beginning and highlight their ideas for additional steps needed. To summarize, ALDF opposed any expanded exemption from three to four breeding females for dog, cat, and small animal breeders; requested automatic license suspensions for repeat offenders; requested automatic confiscation of distressed animals.

Finally, ALDF requests the AWA be amended by Congress to allow private right of action for enforcement with fee shifting provision. ALDF suggests to APHIS that allowing third parties to file suit against violators would enhance enforcement process and at the same time remove some of the agency’s cost burden. The ALDF comment can be viewed online at the Federal Register.

The comment period for the proposed APHIS rule regulating retail sellers has been extended until August 15. If you value your right to own and breed dogs without federal restrictions, please continue to submit comments and encourage clubs and businesses to do the same.

Again, encourage organizations and businesses to join the SAOVA Opposition List. To add your organization's name, send an email signed by an officer of the organization stating opposition to: Susan Wolf cubhill@earthlink.net. Please include organization's address. http://www.saova.org/APHIS_Opposition.List.html

Cross posting is encouraged.

Susan Wolf
Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
Working to Identify and Elect Supportive Legislators

Attorneys disqualified in Palm Springs Animal Shelter lawsuit

An animal rights group will likely appeal an Indio judge’s ruling to disqualify attorneys representing it in a suit against the Palm Springs Animal Shelter, a spokeswoman for the group said.

Riverside Superior Court Judge John G. Evans granted a motion Monday by shelter attorneys to disqualify Marla Tauscher, a private practice attorney in Palm Springs representing the Animal Legal Defense Fund, and fund attorney Michelle Lee.

Evans granted the motion because Tauscher at one point gave Friends of the Palm Springs Animal Shelter legal advice, helped prepare manuals and waivers and attended at least one closed-door board meeting, according to court records.

Lee was disqualified because she had access to the information Tauscher had, Palm Springs city attorney Doug Holland said.

"Disqualification is mandatory in light of the substantial relationship,” court records on the ruling stated. “It is immaterial that Ms. Tauscher did not have an express contact for legal services, as an attorney-client relationship can be established when the attorney volunteers his or her legal services or otherwise provides legal advice to a prospective client even where there is no free agreement.”

Friends of the Palm Springs Animal Shelter is a nonprofit group that raised money to build the new city shelter, scheduled to open Oct. 22.

The Animal Legal Defense Fund filed a suit in April against the city alleging the shelter euthanizes animals too quickly and has lax record-keeping.

“Even though we have an abundance of evidence about the unlawful killing of animals at the Palm Springs Shelter, the city has maneuvered to try to kill the case by getting rid of the lawyers representing the interests of the animals,” said Lisa Franzetta of the Animal Legal Defense Fund.

“We are currently considering our next legal options for how best to win the justice that the homeless animals of Palm Springs so desperately need and deserve.”

A status hearing is scheduled for Dec. 2 at the Larson Justice Center in Indio. Full story

Related:
Lawsuit alleges Palm Springs Animal Shelter Euthanizes Too Soon

New ag organization started to protect state's animal agriculture

By Robert Pore robert.pore@theindependent.com
Published: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 8:27 PM CDT

Animal agriculture in Nebraska is a more than $7 billion industry that supports thousands of jobs.

But a group of agricultural organizations believes the livestock industry is threatened by outside groups, such as the Humane Society of the United States and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

These organizations have formed We Support Agriculture (WSA) to educate Nebraskans about modern agricultural practices and to defend against attacks and misinformation about modern technology used to raise livestock.

WSA was announced on Tuesday at Husker Harvest Days. Pete McClymont, vice president of government affairs for the Nebraska Cattlemen, is WSA president.

He said Nebraska's farmers and ranchers are "caring people who know how to care for their animals properly."

"They go to great lengths to protect their animals from disease, predators and harsh Nebraska climate while feeding their neighbors and the world."

But they now have a new predator to contend with, McClymont said, in the form of increased activity across the country by "extreme animal rights groups who have an agenda to make Americans eat less food originating from animals -- such as meat, eggs and dairy."

He said these groups want to institute "hostile regulations that will increase the price of food and make them much more difficult to produce."

According to WSA, "This negatively affects consumers by inflating the cost of food and limiting the availability of nutritious food choices for their families."

WSA said its goal is to "defend agriculture against this extreme agenda."
Full story
Visit We Support Agriculture website

Senate approves Pearson for U.S. District Court in Northern Ohio

Judge Pearson was recommended for the District Court position by Sen. Sherrod Brown and nominated by President Obama in December, 2009.

Pearson is currently an Adjunct Professor at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law where she teaches Animal Law. Listed in her Senate questionnaire responses were memberships in Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). Senate Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees

Her association with animal rights groups, particularly ALDF, was questioned by Senator Jeff Sessions (R, AL):

"In your questionnaire, you noted that you are a member of the Animal Legal Defense Fund (“ALDF”). As you noted during your hearing, you also teach Animal Law at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. According to the syllabus you provided, your course includes a section devoted to constitutional standing. The ALDF advocates that animals should be considered “legal persons” and have “standing” in court. Do you believe that animals should be conferred legal standing to bring a lawsuit?"

Judge Pearson Response: Existing laws do not confer standing upon animals. On a case by case basis, however, courts have addressed whether standing should be conferred upon the legal representative of an animal. See, e.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (finding that respondent lacked standing); Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Glickman, 154 F.3d 426 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (en banc) (finding ALDF had standing to challenge the treatment of primates). If confirmed as a United States District Judge, I will enforce applicable legal precedent.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) expressed its opposition to Pearson's nomination as a federal judge, claiming she has ties to animal activists and urged Senate members to vote against her appointment. NCBA Vice President of Government Affairs Colin Woodall said Pearson’s connections to the Animal Legal Defense Fund, an organization that advocates giving animals the same legal rights as humans, would make it difficult for her to be an impartial judge in cases regarding actions by animal rights activists.

December 21, 2010. U.S. Senate confirmed U.S. Magistrate Judge Benita Y. Pearson by a vote of 56-39 to sit on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND
ALDF describes itself as attorneys active in shaping the emerging field of animal law. They specialize in "filing groundbreaking lawsuits to stop animal abuse and expand the boundaries of animal law." ALDF advocates changing the legal status of animals from property to personhood.

“Everything we are doing lays the foundation for the one day when animals will have rights" ....“We need to get in their faces and sue the animal users so often they don’t know which courtroom they’re supposed to appear in next.” Valerie Stanley, ALDF Attorney June, 1996

ALDF is a partner in The Great Ape Legal Project, a joint project between ALDF and the Great Ape Project International, working to establish legal rights for nonhuman great apes.

The ALDF website explains, "Through this groundbreaking enterprise, ALDF is working to improve the legal status of nonhuman animals, who continue to be viewed by the courts — despite the clearer vision of scientists, philosophers and animal guardians everywhere — as mere property. "Animals have never been made a part of our legal system," explains ALDF President Steve Ann Chambers. "As a result, there is no legal recourse when they're exploited and abused."

According to the Great Ape Project mission statement, "the exploitation of great primates in laboratories, circus, entertainment shows and zoos can be considered a kind of slavery, reminding what men used to do with others of his own kind who were considered to be inferior a little bit more than one century ago."

ALDF also works to establish Student Animal Legal Defense Fund Chapters at Law Schools. Student chapters work with ALDF to advance the interests of animals through the legal system. Currently 152 U.S Chapters and 8 International Chapters have been established.