Ex-ASPCA CEO Disowns ASPCA “Puppy Mill” Campaign

August 25, 2014  Humane Watch

We announced our skepticism last week over the appointment of Ed Sayres, former CEO of the ASPCA, as head of the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC), the pet industry’s trade group. Notably, Sayres’ tenure at ASPCA and his statements about pet breeding were cause for concern. Given that the PIJAC board’s vote was 9-7 to offer him the job, there was a bit of concern among members of the industry, as well.

Sayres has issued an “open letter” stating the following, in part:

The current [pet store] retail bans generate theatrics, but not solutions, about how more people can enjoy the benefits of dog ownership. If regulations are too stringent, they will drive breeding to the unregulated underground. If they are too lax, they will allow substandard operators to stay in business. I believe my professional experience makes me well qualified to lead the discussions around these issues and find common ground. […]

In retrospect, given the nature of the ASPCA’s mission, I had a rather limited view during my tenure as the organization’s CEO, responding in the field to horrific substandard operators who represent a small minority of breeders — not the majority. My view in light of those circumstances formed the basis for the statements I made during that period and campaigns that were developed under my leadership. I know now that I was misinformed about the majority of breeders who work diligently to raise puppies humanely and to find lifetime homes through retail channels. While many in the animal welfare field still want to paint all breeders with the same low standards brush, I look forward to opening their eyes to the true nature of the breeding business.

That’s a very telling comment. Sayres says the ASPCA campaign overstated the problem. (Probably for PR and fundraising purposes, we’d wager.) No doubt, he would have the same words for HSUS’s campaign.

Meanwhile, Bob Baker, formerly an ASPCA investigator and HSUS employee, is lashing out, calling Sayres a “fake animal welfare person” who wasn’t respected in the animal rights movement. Baker was a proponent of “Prop B” in Missouri in 2010, which sought to increase restrictions on dog breeders. It’s an entirely predictable reaction from the animal rights community.

Sayres has a choice.  He’s not going to please the animal rights campaigners, who want to put the pet industry out of business and who Sayres now says operate with a skewed version of the facts.

If Sayres wants to be a good leader for the pet industry, then he has to prove himself and be proactive. If he is truly a convert then it will be obvious from his agenda, which should be shared with the industry. Goals will be a start but not enough to be convincing. Founders of both Greenpeace and MADD eventually broke with their organizations and have actively spoken out against their former organization agendas. Sayres has the same opportunity to lobby aggressively against HSUS and ASPCA and make his views known that they aren’t telling the full story. In particular, he also has to work to reverse the retail bans that have taken effect in some localities—not simply stop new bans.

Sayres has an “insider’s” perspective on animal-rights campaigns and could use it effectively, if he chooses to. We’ll be watching to see if he does. As Ronald Reagan said, “Trust, but verify.”

RELATED

What Were They Thinking?
What Were They Thinking? (Part Deux)

PETA video relied on fear-mongering tactics

Aug 17, 2014. The Mountaineer

The PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) video taken at a small Haywood County dairy farm and released last week is the latest prop being used to advance the animal rights organization’s agenda.

It is an agenda that is pretty clear and prominently displayed on the organization website: “Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way.”

While it is to be expected that promotional events and materials would illustrate points that underscore its mission, it shouldn’t be expected that misinformation would be widely circulated.

That appears to be the case with the dairy video released by the organization last week.

PETA claimed the cattle were emaciated and forced to remain in a several-inch deep pool of their own waste. However, the Haywood County Animal Control department found that cattle were pastured in a clean area next to the barn and a pasture across the road when they weren’t being milked. There was no evidence the cattle were either emaciated or in poor health, said animal control officer Jean Hazzard, a county official who has come down hard on those who abuse animals in the past.

In an email Hazzard wrote, “I have responded to the dairy and met with the owner and reviewed the alleged deplorable confinement and living conditions, which were unfounded.”

The news release also claimed that regional grocer Harris Teeter was receiving milk from the dairy — a fact the grocer denied and demanded to be retracted.

Full article at link

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

 

 

A tarnished animal rights movement

August 15, 2014 By Steve Kopperud

The animal rights movement isn’t having a good year, mainly because the 800-lb. gorillas of the movement aren’t having a good year.  Despite lots of noise and heavy spending, there have been no congressional or state victories of any note, and generally speaking, very little media attention.

A glance at the HSUS website shows press statements boasting cat and horse rescues and urging the residents of Hawaii, as two hurricanes bore down on the islands, “to prepare.”  New Jersey bans ivory and rhino horn, federally illegal for decades, and HSUS portrays the move as monumental.  PETA continues the tired old “girl-in-a-lettuce-leaf-bikini” publicity stunts, trumpeting endorsements by minor Hollywood types, but to the public and the media, such stunts are becoming so much white noise.

In March, Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt opened an investigation into HSUS fundraising in the state connected to the Moore, Oklahoma, tornado relief effort last year and issued a “consumer alert” relative to national animal charities.  Pruitt is talking to other states about conducting similar investigations, according to humanewatch.org.  Oklahoma is one of several states suing California over its egg production law – heavily supported by HSUS – and the state House approved a “right-to-farm” constitutional amendment.

FULL ARTICLE AT LINK

Judge Upholds Constitutionality of Indiana’s Right to Farm Law

Posted on July 20, 2014 by tdowell

Last week, an Indiana trial court upheld the constitutionality of the state’s right to farm statute  Amrstrong v. Maxwell Farms of Indiana Inc. [Read opinion here.]

The farm property at issue has been used continuously as a farm since the early 1900′s. Gary Foulke owns the property and the finishing barn sitting upon it.  Maxwell Farms began placing hogs in Foulke’s barn in June 2007.  Foulke then finished out the hogs, caring for them from the time they weigh approximately 50 pounds until they weigh approximately 260 pounds.  Plaintiffs Michael and Connie Armstrong moved into the area in 1985 and Larry and Jette Dugan in 1990.

In 2009, the Armstrongs and Dugans filed suit in Randolph Circuit Court against Folke and Maxwell Farms for nuisance and negligence.  The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the nuisance claim pursuant to the Indiana Right to Farm statute.  In response, the plaintiffs claimed that the statute was unconstitutional.  Defendants also sought to dismiss the negligence claim based on a lack of evidence to prove such claim.

Indiana Right to Farm Statute

Like all other states, Indiana has a right to farm statute that provides a legal defense to agricultural operators against nuisance claims.  Indiana’s statute was enacted in 1981 in order to “conserve, protect, and encourage the development and improvement of [Indiana's] agricultural land for the production of food and other agricultural products” by “limiting the circumstances under which agricultural operations may be deemed to be a nuisance.”   [Read Indiana Right to Farm statute here.]

Read full post and court opinion

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)

Legislation Briefs and Updates July 14, 2014

SAOVA Friends,
In our last message we noted a few of the top recipients of Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF) funding.  In addition to the independent expenditures of $41,799 supporting the Congressional campaign of Tony Strickland (R, CA), HSLF recently donated another $5,000.

Moving into the top tier Senate recipients are Gary Peters (D, MI) with $5,000 and Kelly Ayotte (R, NH) increased to $4,000.   In the House, contributions to Michael Fitzpatrick (R, PA) now total $6,000 and Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) and Walter Jones (R, NC) join the favored list at $5,000 each.

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

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

CONGRESSMAN STEWART (R-UT) INTRODUCES WILD HORSE, BURRO LEGISLATION
Rep. Chris Stewart Introduces Bill Giving States the Ability to Manage Wild Horses and Burros

July 10, 2014 Washington, D.C. – Today, Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) introduced legislation that would give states and Indian Tribes the option to take over the management of wild horses and burros. The Wild Horse Oversight Act of 2014 would preserve all protections under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, and simply allow states to implement horse and burro management plans that address the specific needs of their own state.

“The federal government has never been able to properly manage the horses and burros in the west,” Stewart said. “Every state faces different challenges, which is why it’s important that they have the ability to manage their own wildlife.”

In the 43 years that the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act has been in place, the ranges have been overused, pushing cattle off the ranges and leading to the destruction of important habitat for native species.  “States and tribes already successfully manage large quantities of wildlife within their borders,” Stewart said. “If horses and burros were under that same jurisdiction, I’m confident that new ideas and opportunities would be developed to manage the herds more successfully than the federal government.”  This bill would allow states to form cooperative agreements to manage herds that cross over borders, and the federal government would continue to inventory the horses and burros to ensure that the population numbers as prescribed by the 1971 Act are maintained.  “In an era of fiscal crisis, the federal government just doesn’t have the money to manage these programs.”   HR 5058 text here

NEW POLICY ON INTERPRETATION OF ESA PHRASE “SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF ITS RANGE’’
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries Service (Services) jointly announced a policy intended to clarify implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by providing a formal interpretation of the phrase "significant portion of its range" that appears in the ESA definitions of "endangered species" and "threatened species."  This policy clarifies that the Services can list a species if it is endangered or threatened in a "significant portion of its range," even if that species is not endangered or threatened throughout all of its range. Under the policy, a portion of the range of a species is defined as "significant" if the species is not currently endangered or threatened throughout all of its range, but the portion's contribution to the viability of the species is so important that, without the members in that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range. The new policy goes into effect on July 31, 2014.  Final Policy, FAQ, and Interim Guidance posted here  

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SUED OVER PRAIRIE CHICKEN LISTING
Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, claiming the lesser prairie chicken should have been listed as endangered. The lesser prairie chicken was listed as threatened in March.  The groups believe the listing is not doing enough to save the lesser prairie chicken because the less restrictive threatened designation allows oil, gas, wind power, agriculture and other industries to kill up to 1,300 prairie chickens a year in the five states where the prairie chicken roosts: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas.

Kansas, Oklahoma and several New Mexico counties joined a lawsuit by the Permian Basin Petroleum Association in Texas claiming the species designation is overreach by the federal government that will hamper the energy and agriculture industries.  As of early June, about 160 oil, gas, wind, electric and pipeline companies had enrolled about 9 million acres across the five states, committing more than $43 million for habitat conservation over the next three years, according to a news release from the Western Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA).

The service faces a November deadline to make its decision on the Gunnison sage grouse and will decide on the two other species next year.

COMMENTS REOPENED ON SNAKE BAN
Federal Register Tuesday, June 24, 2014.  Docket ID: FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announces the reopening of the comment period on the proposed rule published on March 12, 2010, which proposed to amend our regulations to add nine species of large constrictor snakes as injurious species under the Lacey Act.  Because four of the nine species were added to the regulations in 2012, this reopening notice is restricted to the five remaining species: Reticulated python, DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa constrictor. If you have previously submitted comments on the proposed rule, please do not resubmit them because we have already incorporated them in the public record and will fully consider them in our final decision on these five species. Only comments received or postmarked on or before July 24, 2014 will be considered. Any comments that are received after the closing date may not be considered in the final decision on this action.  Comments may be submitted online at the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://tinyurl.com/ouqttck

HR 1528 AMERICAN VETERINARY MOBILITY ACT (VMMA)
Sponsored by Congressmen Ted Yoho (R-FL3) and Kurt Schrader (D-OR5) the bill makes modification to the Controlled Substances Act and Drug Enforcement Administration policy that currently prohibits veterinarians from transporting controlled substances to treat patients outside of the registered location. The VMMA was passed in the Senate by unanimous consent, clearing the way for this legislation to be enacted into law.  Congressman Yoho released the following statement. “As a large animal veterinarian, my operating room wasn't always in an office. Most times, it was in the field. Expecting ranchers to transport their livestock to a veterinary clinic every time medication is needed is an example of overly burdensome policy created by bureaucrats rather than the folks who know the issue. This bill will correct that problem and allow veterinarians to practice their profession without fear of unnecessary government intrusion.”

HALFWAY THROUGH 2014, HSUS IS REELING
Humane Watch, July 10, 2014. We recently passed the halfway point of 2014. And what news so far this year regarding the Humane Society of the United States? Let’s review:

The Oklahoma Attorney General announced that his office was opening an investigation into HSUS’s fundraising, issuing a consumer alert along the way.

HSUS released its latest annual report, showing that its contributions were down $20 million in 2013.
The federal racketeering lawsuit naming HSUS and two of its employees came to an end after HSUS agreed to settle the case, paying up to $15.75 million in the process. Not only that, but we discovered (and the press later reported) that HSUS was denied insurance coverage for this litigation, something HSUS “failed to tell reporters” when announcing the settlement.

Charity Navigator, the nation’s largest charity evaluator, lowered HSUS’s rating after we exposed HSUS’s incorrect tax filings, in which HSUS had inflated its revenue. (HSUS also filed years’ worth of amended returns with the IRS.)

Then, Charity Navigator replaced its rating of HSUS entirely, issuing a “Donor Advisory” against HSUS, which indicates “extreme concern.”

HSUS tried to flex its fundraising muscle on Capitol Hill, and hardly anyone showed up. Then, Capitol Hill pub POLITICO wrote not one, but two embarrassing blurbs about HSUS in the following weeks, noting in one instance that HSUS was holding a lobby day while Congress was in recess.

Quadriga Art, one of HSUS’s top contractors—HSUS has given it over $30 million in the past few years—reached a $25 million settlement with the New York Attorney General after Quadriga was exposed for keeping most of the money it raised for a veterans charity. Sound like a familiar refrain?

We blew the lid off of HSUS’s Cayman Islands scheme—exposing the tens of millions of dollars that HSUS has socked away offshore instead of giving that money to pet shelters. (By the way, have you entered our contest?)

In statehouses, HSUS anti-farmer legislation has been stymied. Actually, it’s not just agriculture issues—we can hardly think of any HSUS bills that have passed.

All in all, it’s been a bad year so far for America’s self-described “most effective” animal rights group, and an especially trying time for HSUS CEO Wayne “I don’t love animals” Pacelle.

When your opponent has taken a blow (or nine), it’s not the time to let up. It’s the time to stay on offense. We have a few things planned for the second half of 2014. Stay tuned.