News Briefs and Updates August 20, 2015

SAOVA Friends,

The Texas Agriculture Law Blog is an outreach project of the Texas A&M Agrilife Extension Service.  It is specifically focused on water law, oil and gas law, leasing, property rights, right to farm statutes, and animal cruelty issues. The blog provides interesting reading not only on the variety of subjects listed above but others such as the Farm Bill, easements, landowner liability, and the ESA.  Currently the blog is offering a series on how to avoid and survive undercover video investigations.  This three-part series was previously published in Dairy Herd Management magazine. Part 1 covers hiring practices and Part 2 covers farm policies and training practices. The blog can be found at http://tinyurl.com/qbvrtky

Thank you for reading. Cross posting is encouraged.

The world not only belongs to those who show up, it's controlled by the best informed and most motivated.

Susan Wolf

Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance

Working to identify and elect supportive legislators

HSUS’s INTIMIDATION TACTICS IN RHODE ISLAND

HUMANE WATCH August 13, 2015. When is a “Humane Society” not humane? When it launches a harassment campaign singling out a state senator.

For over a month, Rhode Island State Senator Susan Sosnowksi has endured the bullying of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). The radical animal-rights group has taken out full-page ads attacking the Senator, passed around inflammatory fliers in her hometown farmers market, and accused Sosnowski of “doing the bidding of animal abusers.” What is Sosnowski’s offense? She doesn’t support an HSUS bill that creates cumbersome regulations for egg production that would have harmed a family farm in the state. Sosnowski is herself a farmer, so she most of all would understand what’s going on here.

What is particularly unjust about the Humane Society’s harassment is that there appears to be little-to-no evidence this bill would actually improve animal welfare. Rhode Island’s Livestock Welfare & Care Standards Advisory Council said the bill’s requirements are “far in excess of any standard set forth in any state without any evidence to support this increase improves hen welfare.” In fact, the legislation may result in worse conditions for hens with weaker chickens being left unprotected from the pecking of more aggressive chickens in the coop. The bill would also result in higher prices for eggs, and quite possibly lead to diminished food safety. Research published by Oxford Journals found that the safest housing system was a cage system that HSUS opposes.

However, the facts don’t matter to HSUS. Far from trying to improve animal welfare, what this extremist organization cares about is creating burdensome regulations that disrupt farming in every way possible. HSUS’s food policy director has compared farms to Nazi concentration camps and HSUS’s CEO has compared the treatment of animals to slavery. These guys don’t support any kind of egg farm—cage-free, free-range, or otherwise.

For years, animal-rights activists infamously used terror tactics against UCLA’s biomedical researchers. Activists set cars ablaze, placed incendiary devices on researchers’ doorsteps and under their cars, and sent violent threats to others. What HSUS is doing here obviously doesn’t rise to the level of violence, but it’s still disturbing. Is this how HSUS donors would want their money being used, to send some someone to Rhode Island to hassle people at a farmers market? Undoubtedly no.

Since no farm will meet HSUS’s standard of veganism, it appears unlikely that HSUS will stop harassing Senator Sosnowski anytime soon.  http://tinyurl.com/p2gcea2

COSTCO VS HSUS

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is taking its public relations fight against Costco Wholesale to another level. HSUS plans to broadcast graphic footage of hens allegedly being mistreated at a Pennsylvania supplier of eggs to Costco on a 1,700 square-foot billboard in Times Square. The undercover footage was shot at Hillandale Farms as part of a campaign to pressure the retailer to only sell eggs from cage-free hens. More than 300,000 pedestrians enter the heart of Times Square each day, according to the Times Square Alliance, a group that promotes businesses in the area.

HSUS also filed legal complaints with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleging that Hillandale Farms, a Costco egg supplier, deceived consumers with its poor animal welfare standards and “filthy and unsanitary conditions,” resulting in food safety concerns.

Costco’s CEO Craig Jelinek told FOXBusiness that they’re being unfairly targeted. Costco said in a June statement regarding the video that there are "vigorous debates about animal welfare and laying hens." "Some, such as the Humane Society, advocate that hens be cage free and not confined in cages. Some advocate that cages are safer for hens," the statement reads. “Inspections that we have conducted there as recently as this week confirmed for us that Hillandale is behaving appropriately. Hillandale has identified some areas in which it believes it can improve, including process improvement and more training for its employees.”

In the Hillandale Farms statement regarding this video they say that they have had audits by the FDA, United Egg Producers, and the Pennsylvania Egg Quality Assurance Program (PEQAP), all of which report excellent results for this farm. Hillandale provided copies of these reports to ABC after HSUS sent ABC a copy of the video.  “We believe our high standards were compromised by this undercover employee, who shot the video in a barn where he was the primary caretaker, with responsibility to maintain cleanliness in the barns, address any equipment issues and remove mortality on a daily basis. It appears clear that he disregarded required operational procedures and then videotaped the barn and flock with the intent to misrepresent Hillandale Farms. A full internal investigation by our team and by independent outside academic experts in food safety and hen welfare confirmed our belief – that the images in the video reflect an isolated incident in a barn where the undercover worker held primary responsibility. It was his job to identify and address the types of issues that were shown, and he did not adequately perform his job requirements.” http://tinyurl.com/q843rsh

Sources: HSUS website; Food Safety News; Egg-Cite; CBS Interactive

CHICAGO PET STORE BAN SUIT DISMISSED

A federal judge last week dismissed an amended lawsuit filed by area pet stores against a Cook County ordinance that limits the sale of animals from large-scale breeders. The ordinance, which was originally set to take effect in October 2014, limits the sale of dogs, cats and rabbits in Cook County pet stores to those that come from rescue groups, humane societies, government-run shelters or federally licensed breeders who possessed no more than 5 reproducing female dogs, cats, or rabbits. The ordinance was drafted to allow an incorporated municipality to opt out under home rule powers by passing its own ordinance governing pet shop sales. Plaintiffs, including the Missouri Pet Breeders Association (MPBA) and three Cook County pet shops and their owners, claim that the ordinance is invalid under the U.S. Constitution because it violates the Commerce Clause; the Equal Protection Clause; and that the ordinance is impermissibly vague. Pet shop plaintiffs also alleged violations of the Contract Clause.

The Court found the ordinance is facially neutral, and any disparate impact on out-of-state breeders is indirect and incidental. The Court also found it implausible that the ordinance will affect interstate commerce. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly wrote, “Plaintiffs' Equal Protection Clause and Contract Clause claims, which the Court dismissed in its order dated May 21, 2015, have not changed. Accordingly, the Court reaffirms its dismissal of those claims. (See Mo. Pet Breeders Ass'n, 2015 WL 2448332, at *6–7, *10–11.  In that opinion Judge Kennelly wrote, “The ordinance does not raise equal protection concerns, even if it will not completely solve the problems it was intended to address. Any disparate effect that stems from the distinction between sales by breeders and sales by pet stores is rationally related to the legitimate government interest of limiting the use of mass-breeding facilities.”  Kennelly continued, “Defendants have offered “plausible reasons” justifying the challenged classifications. Id. Lawmakers imposed breeder-size requirements to ensure that pet stores bought animals from small breeders as opposed to inhumane mass-breeding facilities. Because defendants have presented legitimate public interests that support the ordinance, the Court dismisses plaintiffs' Contract Clause claim”.)  http://tinyurl.com/q7oelrq

MASSACHUSSETTS BALLOT INITIATIVE

Citizens for Farm Animal Protection has announced a new ballot initiative in Massachusetts to curb extreme confinement of breeding pigs, veal calves, and egg-laying hens. The coalition includes the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Animal Rescue League of Boston, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), United Farm Workers, Center for Food Safety, veterinarians and others. Although confining-cage practices are virtually non-existent in Massachusetts, supporters claim a ban will prevent them in the future. While previous ballot measures backed by HSUS in other states limited the ways farmers can produce meat and eggs, the Massachusetts measure also targets what products businesses here can sell.  The measure is opposed by agricultural groups and the food industry who say a ban is costly and unnecessary, if not unconstitutional. The ballot question must first be certified by the attorney general. Once approved, the coalition must collect more than 90,000 signatures in order to qualify this proposal for the 2016 statewide ballot.

USDA ANIMAL HEALTH PANEL INCLUDES HUMANE SOCIETY VET

Agri-Pulse August 18, 2015. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has named 19 members of his Advisory Committee on Animal Health that will serve through June 2017. The panel, which is supposed to represent “a broad range” of groups within agriculture, includes a veterinarian from the National Pork Producer Council, several academics and livestock producers as well as the director of veterinary policy with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), an animal welfare group that is widely unpopular in some circles of the agriculture industry.

In a 2012 interview posted on the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association website, the HSUS vet, Michael Blackwell, called HSUS “the most capable organization to influence our direction as a society.” When asked to name his top priority issue, he pointed to the health of food animals “especially as that is threatened by mechanized and industrial systems” that he said “can and do threaten public health and environmental safety.” Agriculture groups have criticized HSUS for its tactic of engaging in lawsuits to force producers and producer groups to spend money on legal fees and for helping to create legislation perceived by some as harmful to agriculture, such as the California egg law, which increased the space allocated in cages for every egg-laying chicken in the state.  Continue reading: http://tinyurl.com/nvf6jlu

Pet Parents Or Owners: What’s In A Name?

Great article. We are owners and dogs are property, which is in the best interest of both. Read and share.

By Dana Scott in Holistic Care

I am not a pet parent or a guardian: I OWN my dogs.  While this may make many readers cringe, the terms ‘pet parent’ and ‘pet guardian’ really make me squirm.  As a pet owner, I don’t feel that I’m entitled to push my dogs around, treat them like slaves or tie them to the bumper of my car.  In fact, my dogs all live in my house, are allowed on any piece of furniture except my red fabric couches (what was I thinking?), they have their very own kitchen, their own bedroom with a real hand carved daybed to sleep on, with lovely, clean sheets that get laundered twice a week.  They drink spring water, they have three freezers full of fresh food taking up much of my garage (much to my husband’s chagrin), I never think to go out for  a ride without them (unless the weather is too hot), and I refer to myself as ‘mommie’ when I talk to them (which I do a lot).  So why don’t I call myself a pet parent?

 On the surface, it might appear to be a nice gesture to claim that I don’t own my dogs, but the fallout from that seemingly innocuous gesture could be very dangerous for our pets. That subtle slip in language  opens the door to Animal Rights activists.

According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, “Animal welfare is the ethical responsibility of ensuring animal well-being. Animal well-being is the condition in which animals experience good health, are able to effectively cope with their environment, and are able to express a diversity of species-typical behaviors. Protecting an animal’s welfare means providing for its physical and mental needs.” Animal Welfare supporters believe in our right to own, use and enjoy animals, but insist on humane standards and treatment for all animals, including proper housing, nutrition, disease prevention and treatment and humane handling.

Animal Rights advocates such as PETA (People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals), and HSUS (Humane Society Of The United States), want to end human “exploitation” of animals.  Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder and President of PETA, defines their vision: “[A]s the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship—enjoyment at ‘a distance.’” The goal of Animal Rights activists is to put an end to companion animals – and ironically, pet parents are helping them accomplish just that.  Continue reading at link

 

The Long Road to Animal Welfare

This is a very long essay by Wayne Pacelle published in the magazine Foreign Affairs by the Council on Foreign Relations. In this essay he covers ballot initiatives; use of Michael Vick to promote anti-dog fighting (not to mention raise money); history of the animal rights movement; HSUS successes. Pacelle covers his version of the HSUS heroic efforts in New Orleans following hurricane Katrina. Pacelle includes as a success story an anti-confinement ballot measure in Florida in 2002; however he fails to mention there were only 2 hog farmers in the state. After the ballot passed, both farmers sent their herds to slaughter. 

The article states: "The two largest groups, the HSUS and the ASPCA, together raise and spend nearly $400 million a year and have assets approaching $500 million."

The Long Road to Animal Welfare -

How Activism Works in Practice

By Wayne Pacelle

On election night in November 1992, I waited anxiously with other animal welfare activists at the Radisson Hotel in Denver, Colorado, to learn the outcome of a statewide ballot measure to ban the baiting, hound hunting, and spring hunting of black bears. The initiative was a big deal both for me (it had been my idea) and for the animal welfare movement more generally. Colorado was a political redoubt for the National Rifle Association and other pro-hunting groups; if the ballot measure passed, it might inspire other reforms for animals, and if it failed, it might set the movement back years. Most of my fellow activists had been skeptical about the initiative, arguing that it was a fool’s errand because the hunting lobby was too strong to defeat. But the leaders of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS—then as now, the largest animal protection organization in the country—had overruled their political staff and decided to support the effort, on principle. “It’s too important not to try,” John Hoyt, then the group’s president, told me. “If we lose, I want to be on the side of the losers.” In the end, we won big, getting 70 percent of the vote.

Full Article at link: 
 https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-06-16/long-road-animal-welfare

New Agency Rules Published August 2014

SAOVA friends,

Two new agency rules are now in effect.  It is important for you to review the rules and determine any potential impact on your breeding program or business.
 

The rule currently gathering the most publicity is the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulation for importing young dogs.  HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle is boasting that this rule is a blow against puppy mills abroad.  It is not surprising that he would work this to his advantage for publicity without mentioning the same rule also impacts rescue imports.  The new rule will slow the importation of foreign strays and street dogs for resale in U.S. shelters.
 

We find it interesting that after Congress directed this import rule in 2008 APHIS spent six years finalizing it.  In 2006 Congress enacted the PETS Act which directed State and local emergency preparedness plans to include household pets and service animals. In response, APHIS initiated a rule making process for licensed entities to also develop emergency contingency plans.  APHIS issued a final rule December 2012; however in July 2013 USDA issued a stay of the Animal Welfare Act Contingency Plan Regulation.  Moving forward to 2012, HSUS submitted a petition to APHIS requesting revision of the retail pet rule to include licensing small breeders inside their homes and all sight-unseen sales.  APHIS managed to accomplish the entire rule making process between May 2012 and September 2013.  
 

Thanks for reading. Cross posting is encouraged.

 Susan Wolf

Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting Alliance

 

IMPORTATION OF LIVE DOGS, Docket No. APHIS-2009-0053
 

Monday, August 18, 2014 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) issued a final rule for Importation of Live Dogs which goes into effect November 17, 2014.   In the 2008 Farm Bill Congress added a section to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) which would restrict the importation of certain live dogs.  APHIS began the rule making process in September 2011 and received over 74,000 comments. 
 

The rule prohibits the importation of dogs, with limited exceptions, from any part of the world into the continental United States or Hawaii for purposes of resale, research, or veterinary treatment, unless the dogs are in good health, have received all necessary vaccinations, and are at least 6 months of age.
 

The term ‘‘resale’’ includes, but is not limited to, any transfer of ownership or control of imported dogs to another person, for more than de minimis consideration.  The term de minimis has the standard dictionary meaning, which, according to Merriam-Webster, is “lacking significance or importance; so minor as to merit disregard.”  The term ‘‘consideration’’ has the standard dictionary meaning, which is defined by Merriam-Webster as ‘‘the inducement to a contract or other legal transaction; specifically:  an act or forbearance or the promise thereof done or given by one party in return for the act or promise of another.”  The rule does not consider an “adoption fee” to be de minimis consideration and therefore there is no exemption for dogs rescued in other countries and brought to the U.S. for resale.
 

This rule does not apply when there is no transfer of ownership or control of a dog to another person after the dog’s importation into the United States. Therefore, dogs imported by a person who will use the dog as a personal pet, for sport, for shows or competitions, breeding or for training as working dogs do not fall under this rule.
 

Under this rule, dogs may be imported for veterinary treatment without meeting all of the age, health, and vaccination requirements only if a licensed veterinarian in the country of export certifies that the dog is in need of veterinary treatment that cannot be obtained in the country of export.
 

Dogs imported for use in research, tests, or experiments at a research facility are exempt provided that satisfactory evidence has been submitted to APHIS along with import permit application.
 

RULE REQUIREMENTS
Dogs must be accompanied by an import permit issued by APHIS and imported into the continental United States or Hawaii within 30 days after the proposed date of arrival stated in the import permit.
 

Each dog must be accompanied by an original health certificate issued in English by a licensed veterinarian with a valid license to practice veterinary medicine in the country of export stating that the dog is at least 6 months of age and has been vaccinated in the past 12 months for distemper, hepatitis, leptospirosis, parvovirus, and parainfluenza virus at a frequency that provides  continuous protection of the dog from those diseases and is in accordance with currently accepted practices as cited in veterinary medicine reference guides.  The health certificate must also state that the dog is free of infectious disease that would endanger the dog or public health. Each dog must also be accompanied by a valid rabies vaccination certificate.
 

Any dog may be refused entry for noncompliance with the requirements of the rule or may be seized and the person intending to import the dog will be required to provide care at his or her expense. The AWA provides for both criminal and civil penalties for violations, including civil penalties of up to $10,000 for each violation. Any person who violates the regulations will be subject to these penalties.
 

All dogs imported into the U.S. may be subject to other laws and regulations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also has requirements for imported dogs that must be met.
 

The complete rule may be viewed at the Federal Register: http://tinyurl.com/nsd7zf2

 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANIMAL INCIDENT REPORTING, Docket DOT–OST–2010–0211

The Department of Transportation (USDOT) issued a final rule to amend the requirement for air carriers to report incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air transport. The final rule will expand the reporting requirement to U.S. carriers that operate scheduled service with at least one aircraft with a design capacity of more than 60 seats. The rule also expands the definition of animal to include all cats and dogs transported by covered carriers, regardless of whether the cat or dog is transported as a pet by its owner or as part of a commercial shipment shipped by a breeder, trainer, or handler. This rule goes into effect January 1, 2015.

Carrier reports will include carrier and flight number; date; time; description of the animal; name and contact information of owner, representative, or shipper of the animal; and a narrative of the incident and action taken.  Carriers must file monthly and annual reports and report “0” if there were no reportable incidents.
 

In August 2010, the Department received a petition for rulemaking from the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) requesting the reporting of loss, injury, or death of animals in air transport be revised to require airlines to report any such incident involving any animal they carry.  ALDF maintained that whether an animal is shipped as a pet or as an item of commerce has no bearing on its ability to suffer.
 

HSUS, ASPCA, Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association (HSVMA), Animal Welfare Institute, and other animal rights groups requested the airlines account for incidents involving all species of animals regardless of intended use.  Senator Richard Durbin and former Senators Bob Menendez and Joe Lieberman supported the ALDF petition and requested that the Department consider pursuing a comprehensive study on what animals are traveling in plane cargo holds and how the Department could further expand the definition of "animal" without placing undue burden on air carriers.
 

USDOT received 5,414 comments including airlines, six animal rights organizations, The Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) and the National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR). USDOT also received 5,403individual comments. While the individual comments also urged expanding the definition of animal to all species, the majority appeared to be form letters from members of the animal rights advocacy groups.
 

Airlines for America (A4A) opposed expanding the definition of animal on the basis that doing so would conflict with Congressional intent that the term animal in the original regulations meant pets.

AZA also commented that the Congressional intent of the underlying authorizing legislation was to focus on the loss, injury or death of family pets and that the proposed rule could not effectively and efficiently be applied to the entire animal kingdom.  AZA further noted that if the definition of animal were expanded to include all species, it is conceivable that the burden placed upon the airlines could effectively force air carriers to completely discontinue the transport of all animals. This would create catastrophic consequences for the AZA zoo and aquarium community and the sustainability of the animal collections in their care.
 

USDOT declined to expand the definition of animal to cover all species of animals stating, “We believe it would be unduly burdensome to require covered carriers to report the death, loss, or injury of all species of animals because there potentially could be thousands of individual animals such as fish, rodents, and insects that are transported by air carriers in a single commercial shipment.”
 

The complete rule may be viewed at the Federal Register http://tinyurl.com/phvs3gz

 

 

National Animals and Wildlife Special Interest Groups

Project Vote Smart reports on performance evaluations from all special interest groups who provide them. Descriptions of organizations posted are derived from the mission statement or description produced by each organization. The following list summarizes the years of reporting by these special interest groups on issues affecting Animals and Wildlife. The Sportsmen and Animal Owner's Voting Alliance (SAOVA) works for you as the only group consistently reporting lawmakers’ positions on the animal rightist measures that threaten our sport, avocations and livelihoods.

• American Humane Association (2004)
• American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (2004)
• American Veterinary Medical Association (2014, 2013, 2011)
• American Wilderness Coalition (2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001)
• Animal Welfare Institute (2013, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2003, 2002, 2000)
• Big Cat Rescue (2010, 2008, 2006)
• Born Free USA (2004, 2003, 2002)
• Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund (2013, 2012, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2003)
• Doris Day Animal League (2003, 2001)
• Food Policy Action (2013, 2012)
• Humane USA PAC (2012, 2006, 2004)
• National Animal Interest Alliance Trust (2006)
• Ocean Champions (2012, 2010, 2008)
• Sierra Club (2012, 2011, 2010, 2006, 2004, 2002)
• Sportsmen and Animal Owner's Voting Alliance (2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002)
• The Humane Society Legislative Fund (2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2000, 1996, 1995)
• The Humane Society of the United States (2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2000, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993)
• Western Organization of Resource Councils (2008, 2007)

Radical animal rights movement' gets new foe

Iowa-based group led by longtime congressional aide forms super PAC

An Iowa-based organization dedicated to combating “the radical animal rights movement” and led by a former Missouri Republican senator’s chief of staff has launched a new super PAC, according to paperwork filed with the Federal Election Commission.

The Protect the Harvest Political Action Committee told the elections regulator that it “intends to raise funds in unlimited amounts” to call for the election or defeat of federal candidates.

Which politicos will be targeted, however, is still unclear.

Neither the super PAC’s treasurer, Brian Klippenstein, nor its attorney, Mark Roth, responded to requests for comment from the Center for Public Integrity.

Super PACs are legally allowed to solicit unlimited contributions to produce political advertisements — so long as their spending is not coordinated with any candidates’ campaigns.

Klippenstein currently serves as the executive director of Protect the Harvest, a 501(c)(4) “social welfare” nonprofit established in 2011 to educate the public about “the benefits of farming, ranching and hunting” and to advocate “for the right to conduct such activities.”

The nonprofit may engage in politics, although federal law mandates that influencing elections may not be its primary purpose.

On its website, Protect the Harvest warns that “the animal rights movement in America, led by the Humane Society of the United States, has evolved into a wealthy and successful attack group determined to end the consumption of meat, threaten consumer access to affordable food, eliminate hunting, outlaw rodeos and circuses and even ban animal ownership (including pets) altogether.”

Full article Center for Public Integrity

Legislation Briefs January 15, 2014

SAOVA Friends,

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

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

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

Thanks for reading.  Cross posting is encouraged.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter From The Editor: A Trial Court Surprise

BY DAN FLYNN | NOVEMBER 3, 2013
Friday’s ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Christina Armijo surprised me.

I was expecting New Mexico’s top federal judge to issue a permanent injunction against USDA from providing equine inspection services. Then I thought Department of Justice attorneys assigned to represent USDA would appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals where Armijo’s ruling would be reversed.

My thinking was that New Mexico’s political  leadership, from both parties, are enough anti- horse slaughter that the body politic  would influence Armijo. It was part of a stereotype I’ve created in my own mind about New Mexican political groupthink.

But surprise me she did, especially by nailing the legal reasoning I thought we would see from a 10th Circuit panel of judges. After reading Armijo’s 33-page decision, I was struck by how clear everything looks now. With some tweaking along the way, Congress has for more than a century tasked USDA with inspecting meat and meat products, be it from beef, lamb, pork, horse or whatever else has hooves.

The legal challenge was based on apparently misguided readings of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Both are about government decision-making where discretion exists, not where government action is mandated.

USDA has a job to do, albeit one that some find unpopular. More at Food Safety News

APHIS RETAIL PET SELLERS RULE: Does APHIS have authority to enact this rule?

Re:  Docket ID:  APHIS-2011-0003, Animal Welfare; Retail Pet Stores and Licensing Exemptions

APHIS issued the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking May 16, 2012. The final rule was published in the federal register September 18, 2013 and goes into effect November 18, 2013. This Rule would extend APHIS authority to include large segments of the retail pet trade as regulated under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), including pet species as dogs, cats, guinea pigs, rabbits, and hamsters, among others. The overarching intent of the revision is to regulate sight unseen retail pet sales, which, without proof, APHIS claims have dramatically increased as a result of growing Internet usage.

In May, 2010, APHIS received severe criticism from the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) regarding lax enforcement of currently licensed dog breeders in the report, “Inspections of Problematic Dealers”. In June 2010 APHIS announced a plan to improve consistency in Animal Care inspectors’ approach for inspections, provide more complete guidance to its employees, and improve regulation of dog dealers particularly those who are repeat offenders.  As part of the Longer Term Actions included in the original Enhanced Animal Welfare Act Enforcement Plan in May 2010 APHIS set the following goal: “Develop regulations regarding Internet sales. This will transpire once legislation is passed to close a loophole in the law and enable APHIS to regulate this area of the industry.”  
http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/33002-4-SF.pdf 

It is very clear APHIS believed this measure was specifically dependent upon legislation; however, unwilling to wait for Congressional action and pressured by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), APHIS added the following comment to their enforcement plan in a report which was undated but, from text dates, obviously compiled after May 31, 2011: “USDA has determined that it has legislative authority to regulate Internet sales. A proposed rule will be submitted for departmental clearance in spring 2011 and published in the Federal Register for public comment in fall 2011.”
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/content/2010/05/AWA_enforcement_plan.shtml 

The retail pet store revision would not improve enforcement of substandard current license holders, the major focus of the original OIG report, but would instead regulate many retailers, hobbyists, rescues, and small business entities far above APHIS claims of closing a so-called “Internet loophole” and restoring the original intent of Congress for administration of the AWA.

It is our impression that the current APHIS administration finds it immaterial that the existing definition of retail pet store and method of enforcement has been upheld in a court of law. Decided January 14, 2003, Doris Day Animal League (DDAL) v. Ann M. Veneman (Secretary, USDA) provides compelling arguments for retaining the construct between wholesale and retail sellers. The issue at hand was to determine if the traditional exemption under pet retail store definition, which exempted breeders who sell dogs as pets from their residences, was valid.  In his opinion, Circuit Judge Randolph noted “Hundreds of thousands of dog breeders throughout the United States raise and sell puppies from their homes. Still it is true that in the years since passage of the Act and the Secretary's adoption of the regulation, Congress has not altered the regulatory definition of ‘retail pet store’ although it has amended the act three times.”  At that time USDA declined to amend the definition in light of the potential invasions of privacy that would result if federal inspectors began enforcing regulations in private homes.  USDA also maintained if they were to regulate these dealers in addition to state and local officials, it would clearly not be the most efficient use of their resources.

Efficient use of resources is just as relevant today, if not more so, considering the agency’s current budget challenges and the general state of the nation’s economy. The proposed rule threatens to exponentially increase the number of entities requiring licensure. Without a corresponding increase in inspection staff, the ability of APHIS to effectively enforce the AWA will be compromised.   Besides not being economically feasible, there are many state and local laws and ordinances already in place to monitor the welfare and housing for animals owned by residential retail breeder/sellers.

Revisiting Judge Randolph’s opinion regarding Congressional intent, he stated, “While the regulation's definition of ‘retail pet store’ does not exactly leap from the page, there is enough play in the language of the Act to preclude us from saying that Congress has spoken to the issue with clarity. From what we can make out, Congress has paid little attention to the question posed in this case. Still, it is true that in the years since passage of the Act and the Secretary's adoption of the regulation, Congress has not altered the regulatory definition of ‘retail pet store’ although it has amended the act three times. One line of Supreme Court cases holds that ‘when Congress revisits a statute giving rise to a longstanding administrative interpretation without pertinent change, the “congressional failure to revise or repeal the agency's interpretation is persuasive evidence that the interpretation is the one intended by Congress.”’ Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833, 846 (1986) (quoting NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267, 275 (1974)). The quotation fits this case perfectly.” http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/A30825ECFA88D2C985256F82005F4853/$file/01-5351a.txt

We agree with the Court’s decision and do not think that several decades ago, Congress ever intended USDA to enforce the AWA inside people’s homes.  However, now that the current APHIS administration has elected to make a determination granting themselves additional authority of such magnitude, we believe Congress is now obligated to review this issue, and should do so as quickly as possible.

MO Supreme Court Decision - MoFed wins

Missouri Federation of Animal Owners (MoFed) has received word that the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri just handed down its decision on the HSUS vs. State of Missouri concerning shelter fees for shelters and rescues. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court and ruled against HSUS in their effort to relieve licensed humane societies and shelters of paying the same fees as dog breeders in Missouri.

MoFed presented the idea in the state legislature and then Representative Brian Munzlinger attached the language to the omnibus agriculture bill several years ago. HSUS immediately filed a lawsuit which was ruled against all the way to the State Supreme Court. The 7 to 0 decision today is yet another defeat for HSUS!

MoFed held its ground and refused to let HSUS' attempts to pass legislation to circumvent the rulings of the courts. Defeating the efforts of HSUS in both the legislature and courts of Missouri is another win for animal owners and another sound defeat for HSUS!!! Read the Ruling

Legislation Briefs April 27, 2013

Dear SAOVA Friends,

Never underestimate the resolve of animal rights organizations to bring an end to animal ownership and breeding as we know it today.  Following release of the APHIS 2014 Budget request, SAOVA reactivated the APHIS Rule Opposition List and it continues to grow. The list is truly an attention-getter; however, we need a HUGE push now to build it even larger before carrying it again to Congressional staff.

If your organization or business is not listed please do so now! EVERY state needs to be represented.  Send an email signed by an officer of the organization stating opposition to the Rule to Susan Wolf: cubhill@earthlink.net.  Please include state where your organization is located.  

The world not only belongs to those who show up, it's controlled by the best informed and most motivated.  Thanks for reading.

Cross posting is encouraged.

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

DELISTING GRAY WOLVES
Plans have been drafted to lift protections for gray wolves across the Lower 48 states.
Roughly 5,000 wolves are now living in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes and are believed to be enough to ensure their long-term survival without introducing gray wolves elsewhere, such as the West Coast, parts of New England and the Southern Rockies. According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service the rule is under internal review and will be subject to public comment before a final decision is made.

FEDERAL EGG BILLS INTRODUCED
A bill based on the agreement between the HSUS and the United Egg Producers to set standards for egg-laying hens and the labeling of eggs has been introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).  Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) are cosponsors of S 820.  Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR) has introduced a companion bill in the House.  HR 1731 is cosponsored by Representatives John Campbell (R-CA45); Jeff Denham (R-CA10); Sam Farr (D-CA20); Michael Fitzpatrick (R-PA8); and Jared Huffman (D-CA2).

Sources say the United Egg Producers are committed to getting the legislation passed before the end of September. The Egg Bill establishes an approximately 18-year transition period where conventional cages will be phased out and hens will be housed in either enriched cages or in cage-free systems.

Fallout from Prop2, the 2008 HSUS backed ballot initiative in California, continues to threaten the California egg industry as 2015 draws closer and caged eggs will be banned. According to the 2008 UC Davis survey, California produces about 6 percent of the nation's table eggs, and consumes about 12 percent. The value of table egg production in California was about $330 million in 2007 and the industry produced almost 5 billion eggs per year from almost 20 million laying hens.

Although the number of eggs produced by cage-free hens has been increasing the last few years, hens housed in conventional cages are responsible for over 90 percent of egg production in the U.S.

HUDSON VALLEY WEBSITE HACKED
Animal rights activists hacked the website of Hudson Valley Foie Gras — a large U.S. supplier — and sent the names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses of their customers to animal rights groups.  North American Animal Liberation Press Office published the information online.  To commemorate Earth Day, hackers targeted Hudson Valley Foie Gras, the largest foie gras farm in the U.S., because they believe the ducks are being tortured.

Never one to let an opportunity for media attention slip by, Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) immediately sent a letter California Attorney General Kamala Harris asking her to investigate purchases by California residents that appeared on the hacked list.  ALDF wrote, “While wealthy restaurateurs and foreign corporations are exploiting California's under enforcement of the foie gras law, the state struggles with a budget crisis and cities flirt with bankruptcy. California taxpayers should not be subsidizing persistent violators when the state is nearly bankrupt and the foie gras law authorizes citations payable to enforcing agencies up to $1,000 per sale.”

AUTISM RESEARCH LAB TRASHED
Activists occupied an animal facility at the University of Milan, Italy releasing mice and rabbits and mixing up cage labels to confuse experimental protocols. Researchers at the university say that it will take years to recover their work. Many of the animals at the facility are genetic models for psychiatric disorders such as autism and schizophrenia. Some of the mice they removed were delicate mutants and immunosuppressed nude mice, which die very quickly outside controlled environments.

Five activists entered laboratories in the university’s pharmacology department on Saturday morning. The lack of signs of a break-in suggests that the activists may have used an illegally acquired electronic card to enter the lab. Activists posted photos of themselves on their website; two of them chained themselves by the neck to the main double doors. The department plans to press charges for theft and trespassing, and to recover financial damages.

Researchers worldwide are being asked to condemn acts these acts of extremism.

JUDGE DISMISSES ALDF LAWSUIT
SANTA CRUZ -- A judge on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit filed against Santa Cruz Biotechnology Inc. alleging the company abused and neglected goats and rabbits. Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Paul Marigonda dismissed the suit filed by the national nonprofit Animal Legal Defense Fund on behalf of an organization called Stop Animal Exploitation Now after ruling that the local court was not the proper forum to address it.  Santa Cruz Biotech supplies antibodies and other research materials to laboratories around the world. Last year it was ranked as the second-largest supplier in the United State's $1.6 billion global market for research antibodies, according to the journal Nature.
Source: Santa Cruz Sentinel http://tinyurl.com/c6w3r3s

MAINE RIGHT TO HUNT AND FISH
Introduced April 2, 2013. Resolution H930 proposes to amend the Constitution of Maine to provide that the citizens of Maine have the personal right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife, subject to statutes enacted and agency rules that promote wildlife conservation and preserve the future of hunting and fishing, and to provide that public hunting and fishing are a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife.

ANIMAL ABUSER REGISTRIES
Registry bills were introduced in 16 states for 2013 with multiple bills introduced in New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. The bills do not appear to have any momentum again this year; however, HB3747 in Texas is scheduled for a hearing Monday, April 29, 2013.  Texas residents are urged to oppose this measure.

In Hawaii the Attorney General’s office and the Public Defender’s office submitted testimony in Opposition to the animal abuser registry. The Attorney General noted that only nine (9) potential covered offenders in the past fifteen years would be required to register under this proposed 2013 bill and expressed concern about the resources and funds that would be needed to set up, maintain, administer, and enforce the proposed registry for so few individuals. The Office of the Public Defender stated in their opposition that the registry proposed in this measure makes no sense.  In addition they wrote, “While there is a governmental interest in keeping track of sex offenders, especially those who prey on strangers and children, there is no such interest or similar benefit in keeping track of animal abusers. These individuals do not typically prey on stray animals or pets that belong to strangers. The cases we have seen usually involve individuals abusing their own pets or a business owner and/or employee that mistreat their animals.”  The letter continued, “The funds allocated to maintaining this registry would be better utilized by providing counseling to the offender and/or their family members.”

HSUS: Lawyers in cages

It just doesn't get any better than this!

Santorum the clear HSUS choice

The Marshall County Tribune headline reads, "Republican candidates differ on animal welfare" and contains a summary of the support and endorsements Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum has enjoyed from HSUS. The SAOVA archives list the series of "puppy mill" bills introduced by Santorum on behalf of HSUS from 2001 thru 2005. Santorum was defeated in his senate re-election campaign the year following his push for passage of the 2005 Pet Animal Welfare Statute (PAWS). Archived legislation can be viewed at this link.

Michael Markarian, Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF), blogged about the Presidential Candidates in December. Some of the candidates have since dropped out of the race. Regarding Santorum, Markarian says, "Of all the candidates who have served in Congress, Santorum was arguably the most active on animal protection issues."

On to the Tribune Commentary.

Republican candidates differ on animal welfare
Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Marshall County Tribune
By Karen Hall
Staff Writer

As Tennesseans prepare to vote in the Republican presidential primary on "Super Tuesday," many are studying the candidates' positions on issues like employment, taxes, healthcare, and foreign relations.

It's also worth considering where they stand on animal rights, as Dennis Foster, executive director of the Masters of Foxhounds Association, recently pointed out in an e-mail to members.

"Let me start by stating that the MFHA is not supporting any particular candidate," Foster wrote. "We do, however, believe we should keep you informed on those candidates that have Humane Society of the United States support and that support the animal rights agendas. This information comes right from HSUS's mouth and the candidates' voting records."

Foster goes on to say that HSUS supports President Obama, but they will back "any candidate that supports their hidden agendas."

Rick Santorum is supported by HSUS with money and endorsements. HSUS states he is the most active candidate in animal protection issues. Santorum has been a leader in introducing Pet Animal Welfare Statutes (PAWS), supposedly to eliminate so-called "Puppy Mills." In fact, according to Foster, such laws will have the effect of making it more expensive and difficult to own a dog, and almost impossible to maintain a kennel of hunting hounds.

Santorum was also one of those who voted to stop horse processing for food exports. The USA has thousands of horses let loose, neglected and suffering because nobody wants them and 140,000 horses each year are now going to Canada and Mexico for horse processing. This was brought to Tennessean's attention last month with the wreck of a trailer carrying 38 horses on I-40. Three horses were killed and traffic was at a standstill for hours. The surviving horses were picked up by another transporter and taken to Texas and sold to a Mexican meat-packing company, according to investigation by Nashville's WSMV-TV. Veterinarians refused permission for four injured horses to cross the border, and their fate remains unknown, according to the TV station.

"Santorum is HSUS's clear GOP choice," Foster concludes.
Full story at link