Gibson Family Pit Bulls
American Pit Bull Terriers
Legislation Alerts
This is a blog for any animal legislative alerts. These alerts can come from anywhere in the United States. I wll also add how you can help defeat the bills, along with letters, and articles with any information regarding the legislation...
ALERT SB 250! YOU NEED TO DO SOMETHING NOW!
|
|
comments (0)
|
ALERT - URGENT - SB 250....MOVES TO THE ASSEMBLY FLOOR
From: CFODC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CFODC@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 11:49 AM
Subject: [CalFedDogClubs] SB 250....MOVES TO THE ASSEMBLY FLOOR SB 250 passed the Appropriations Committee and will go to a full vote on the assembly floor.
This is without a doubt the most destructive law ever for dog owners. Any dog at a show without a license on his collar, or off leash is in violation.
The fact that obedience doesn't allow tags in the ring, the fact that show dogs don't wear tags in the ring, means NOTHING. You only get one chance. Once you've been cited, your dog is spayed or neutered and SO ARE ANY OTHER DOGS YOU OWN. You think they won't come after you at a show? Just check around and see what they're already doing.
The Burbank shows are September 26 and 27. SB 250 could be on the books by then. Maybe it's not likely, but what if? What if AC decides to make an example of us at that show? You could lose your entire breeding stock. If not Burbank, how about Riverside, San Gabriel, any show, anywhere in California? Every time you enter, you'll be putting your dogs at risk, all of them.
And if you're one of those who flies under the radar and doesn't license - and you get caught - you won't need to commit a leash violation or anything else. You'll be cited, dogs sterilized and you won't be allowed to own an intact dog ever again.
If you don't show but you compete in obedience or agility,20chances are you already spay/neuter your dogs and think none of this applies to you.. Dogs get old, they retire, time for a new puppy. Where will you get that puppy? From a breeder? Yeah, right.
We have eleven days to make the biggest stink Sacramento has ever seen.
Remind them that this bill will cost the state a fortune. Call, write, fax, email. Then do it again. Tell everyone you know to do the same. Every Democrat in the Assembly needs to hear from you.
Here is their contact info.
Except for the room number, all addresses are the same:
State Capitol,
Sacramento, CA 95814
Tom Ammiano (San Francisco)
916-319-2013
Room 2175
Fax 916-319-2113
Juan Arambula (Fresno)
916-319-2031
Room 2141
Fax 916-319-2131
Karen Bass (speaker) (Los Angeles)
916-319-2047
Room 219
Fax 916-319-2147
Jim Beall, Jr. (San Jose)
916-319-2024
Room 5016
Fax 916-319-2124
Marty Block (Lemon Grove)
916-319-2078
Room 3132
Fax 916-319-2178
Bob Blumenfield (Van Nuys)
916-319-2049
Fax 916-319-2140
Julia Brownley (Woodland Hills)
916-319-2041
Room 2163
Fax 916-319-2141
Joan Buchanan (San Ramon)
916-319-2015
Room 4167
Fax 916-319-2115
Anna M. Caballero (Salinas)
916-319-2028
Room 5119
Fax 916-319-2128
Charles M. Calderon (City of Industry)
916-319-2058
Fax 916-319-2158
Wilmer Amin a Carter (Rialto)
916-319-2062
Room 2136
Fax 916-319-2162
Wesley Chesbro (Santa Rosa)
916-319-2001
Room 2176
Fax 916-319-2101
Joe Coto (San Jose)
916-319- 2023
Room 2013
Fax 916-319-2123
Mike Davis (Los Angeles)
916-319-2048
Room 2160
Fax 916-319-2148
Hector de la Torre (South Gate)
916-319-2050
Room 4016
Fax 16-319-2150
Kevin de Leon (Los Angeles)
916-319-2045
Room 2114
Fax 916-319-2145
Mike Eng (El Monte)
916-319-2049
Room 4140
Fax 916-319-2149
Noreen Evans (Napa)
916-319-2007
Room 6026
916-319-2107
Mike Feuer (West Hollywood)
916-319-2042
Room 3146
Fax 916-319-2142
Paul Fong (Mountain View)
916-319-2022
Room 5135
Fax 916-319-2122
Felipe Fuentes (Arleta)
916-319-2039
Fax 916-319-2139
Warren T. Furutani (Long Beach)
916-319-2055
Room 3126
Fax 916-319-2155
Cathleen Galgiani (Merced)
916-319-2017
Room 5155
Fax 916-319-2117
Martin Garrick (Carlsbad)
916-319-2074
Room 2158
Fax 916-319-2174
Isadore Hall III (Compton)
916-319-2052
Fax 916-319-2152
Mary Hayashi (Hayward)
916-319-2018
Room 3013
Fax 916-319-2118
Edward P. Hernandez (West Covina)
916-319-2057
Room 4112
Fax 916-319-2157
Jerry Hill (San Mateo)
916-319-2019
Room 4146
Fax 916-319-2119
Alyson Huber (Lodi)
916-319-2010
Room 5175
Fax 916-319-2110
Jared Huffman (Petaluma)
916-319-2006
Room 3120
Fax 916-329-2106
Dave Jones (Sacramento)
916-319-2009
Room 6005
Fax 916-319-2109
Paul Krekorian (Burbank)
916-319-2043
Room 4005
Fax 916-319-2143
Ted W. Lieu (El Segundo)
916-319-2053
Room 3173
Fax 916-319-2153
Bonnie Lowenthal (Long Beach)
916-319-2054
Room 5158
Fax 916-319-2154
Fiona Ma (San Francisco)
916-319-2012
Room 3091
Fax 916-319-2112
Tony Mendoza (Norwalk)
916-319-2056
Room 2188
Fax 916-319-2156
William W. Monning (Santa Cruz)
916-319-2027
Room 5150
Fax 916-319-2127
Pedro Nava (Santa Barbara)
916-319-2035
Room 2148
Fax 916-319-2135
John A. Perez (Los Angeles)
916-319-2046
Room 3160
Fax 916-319-2146
V. Manuel Perez (Indio)
916-319-2080
Room 4162
Fax 916-319-2180
Anthony Portantino (Pasadena)
916-319-2044
Room 2003
Fax 916-319-2144
Ira Ruskin (Los Altos)
916-319-2021
Room 3123
Fax 916-319-2121
Mary Salas (Chula Vista)
916-319-2079
Room 2137
Fax 916-319-2179
Lori Saldana (San Diego)
916-319-2076
Room 3152
Fax 916-319-2176
Nancy Skinner (Oakland)
916-319-2014
Fax 916-319-2114
Jose Solorio (Anaheim)
916-319-2069
Fax 916-319-2169
Sandre R. Swanson (Oakland)
916-319 -2016
Room 6012
Fax 916-319-2116
Tom Torlakson (Antioch)
916-319-2011
Fax 916-319-2111
Norma J. Torres (Ontario)
916-319-2061
Room 4164
Fax 916-319-2161
Alberto Torrico (Fremont)
916-319-2020
Room 319
Fax 916-319-2120
Mariko Yamada (Vacaville)
916-319-2008
Room 5144
Fax 916-319-2108
**** A message from the California Federation of Dog Clubs***
***Please forward***
ALERT FOR CA SB250
|
|
comments (0)
|
ALERT CA - SB250 scheduled to be heard Aug 27
The Assembly Appropriations Committee; all bills currently in suspense (about 100 of 'em) will be heard next Thursday.
Here's the link to the California Department of Finance bill analysis for SB250:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/legislative_analyses/LIS_PDF/09/SB-250-20090714021846PM-SB00250.pdf
Assembly Appropriations Committee
http://asm.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=43
Maddie's Fund recently said its' research shows there is no pet overpopulation problem in California because even if ALL of the ~350,000 dogs & cats now killed in shelters found new homes instead, Californians would still get 1.7 million million more pets from other sources. If no one breeds them in the state, they'll come from other states or out of the country.
ALERT FOR HIGHLAND PARK, IL!
|
|
comments (0)
|
ALERT IL - Highland Park - new ordinance will have a negative impact on dog owners - Aug 24th
Proposed new ordinance will have a negative impact on dog owners
Some provisions of the new ordinance:
Mandate spay/neuter of any intact dog that is impounded, even on a 1st offense.
Defines as a �public nuisance,� a dog that engages in frequent of habitual barking. The terminology in this section is not defined, making this it entirely subjective and easily misused.
Allows any dog deemed a �public nuisance� to be impounded. (Meaning the dog would have to be spayed/neutered before being returned to the owner.)
Define as a �public nuisance� any enclosure that is offensive to persons residing in the vicinity because of debris or odors. Again, this is subjective and poorly defined, making it easily misused by a neighbor who does not like dogs.
Create a �Problem Pet Owner� designation
Anyone who commits 3 violations of this chapter in a 36 month period. (This could mean three violations under the aforementioned poorly-written barking dog section would require an owner to surrender their dogs!)
�Problem Pet Owners� are prohibited from owning ANY animals for 24 months, and all existing animals must be surrendered to the Animal Warden of Chief of Police.
Require that a female dog in heat be confined inside the owner�s home, a veterinary hospital or kennel at all times. This would prohibit the owner from taking the dog for a walk, or even allowing it in their own yard.
Require an annual rabies vaccination, effectively prohibiting owners and veterinarians from using the existing 3-year rabies vaccine.
Require that microchips provide readable information, including the animal�s name and contact information for the owner. As you know, when a microchip is scanned it only provides a serial number which can be looked up in a national database to provide the owner�s contact information. There are no microchips on the market capable of doing what this ordinance mandates. It would be impossible for residents to comply with the ordinance.
Require that owners provide information about the reproductive status of the animal when it is licensed, likely to create a differential licensing system where owners of intact animals pay a higher fee.
Include a series of restrictions on tethering:
Requires any tethered animals be sterilized.
Animals tethered for more than 1 hour must be supervised.
Prohibits tethering between 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Highland Park City Council Meeting
Monday August 24th, 2:30 pm
City Hall
1707 St. Johns Avenue
Highland Park, IL 60035
U.S. DOGS NOW SEIZED FROM BREEDERS FOR SALES TAX!
|
|
comments (0)
|
EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE! Indiana has set a precedent with its "as yet
unproven" evasion of taxes case against the Garwoods of Mauckport,
Indiana, that is now being followed by other states. TN has a case
pending similar to what just occurred in Indiana...seizing dogs for
alleged "unpaid sales tax." The CA Franchise Tax Board is now sending
out letters to dog owners who have been identified as possibly "selling
dogs."
Permission to cross post everywhere!
Permission to cross post granted.
In California a friend got a letter from the "Tax Board" dated
6-10-2009. Seems that "someone" went on the AKC web site and must have
used a link to the our national breed club to find names of potential
puppy sellers.
Here's part of her message regarding the letter from the California
State Board of Equalization:
/ /Just this morning I received a letter from the Ca State Board of
Equalization saying that they had gotten information from the American
Kennel Club Web site that I might be selling animals and I needed a
seller's permit. I just phoned the American Kennel Club to inquire as to whether or
not they provide information and if there is a list on their web site of
breeders. AKC says that their web site information is not provided to
agencies like that. There is a link on the web site to our National
club's web site and breeders list...I am sure that is where California
got my name and address. Now I have to respond within 30 days...Oh yes...and...the letter says that if we purchase a dog from someone out of the state of
California, we are required to pay a "use" tax. -end-
After reading this and the actual letter, I asked if anyone knew of
others that had gotten letters such as my friend rec'd. I asked on a
list with people in multiple breeds in multiple states. And got a reply
with the following:
I'm guessing this is HSUS/PeTA lead after the "sting" in
Indiana where they seized a commercial kennel (took the dogs) for sales
taxes owed. It worked there, I'm guessing they are now scanning
throughout the country. The Indiana governor "thanked" HSUS for bringing
the lapse to their attention. It worked once, likely to work again. -end-
So it seems H$U$/PeTA was behind a TAX issue in another state. I wonder
if H$US and/or PeTA are doing this in CA. Because in my opinion, now
they are going after the good guys.. Going after people that don't sell
puppies such as my friend in CA. Going after people that don't sell
puppies is something I find to be an absolute waste of time, energy and
money ..in other words typical waste of generously donated
dollars people give to the H$U$ and/or PeTA.. -As far as I can tell the
H$U$ is an AR group that operates ZERO shelters. And PeTA, also an AR
group has a single "shelter". A shelter with a kill rate well over 90%.
I also feel this is also a waste of a State employee's time. Someone had
to write the letter, print it, mail it, file the copy, open a file in my
friends name to be tracked. And some state employee is going to have to
read what ever is sent back and update the file. Then will argue even
though she sold no puppies she owes for something. I figure this
single letter costs our state quite a few actual dollars: the
employee's time (to research and write the letter, paid to a person),
paper and envelope, fuel (to deliver), the postage (paid to the USPS),
electricity (to print, fold and stamp, paid to PG&E), and that is just
to produce the letter. There is also all the processing and file
updating, mailroom, delivery to the right person... phone calls "if you
have any questions you may call me".
I have no legal background. But feel that if the Tax Board thinks you
owe them money in sales tax, that its up to them to prove you do and how
much, -BUT- that's only IF you do NOT already have a sellers permit.
Because if you have a resale license you may have signed off on allowing
them the burden of proof by applying for one. My friend does have a
kennel permit (for her personal dogs), so that may have been used as
well. I do know you give up many of your rights when you apply for a
kennel permit. -where I live, you grant unannounced inspections just for
applying for a permit.
How do you prove you are not selling puppies? I can see how you can
show proof that you have.. but how do you prove somethibg that does not
exist?
So be warned.. Cities and States are hard up for money. They are going
after every penny they can get. And they are using anything they can,
to do so. I, myself paid dearly on a technicality, several months ago.
I had to pay fines that were basically DOUBLE the lic fee to my city.
I had a small retail space I rented in another city where I sold my
books and crafts. Turned out I needed a business license in my city
simply because I had a sellers permit with the State of CA. It should
be noted, I owed zero sales tax because I have faithfully paid my sales
taxes each and every year.
So, be warned BIG BROTHER is out there.
NC HB 733! HSUS TO SET STANDARDS FOR BREEDERS IN NC!
|
|
comments (0)
|
SESSION 2009
H D
HOUSE DRH30168-RF-10 (02/22)
Short Title: Regulate Comm. Breeding/Dogs.
(Public)
Sponsors:
Representatives McElraft, Dickson, Sager, and Allen (Primary Sponsors).
Referred to:
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT to regulate commercial dog breeding.
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
SECTION 1. G.S. 19A‑21 reads as rewritten:
"§ 19A‑21. Purposes.
The purposes of this Article are (i) to protect the owners of dogs and cats from the theft of such pets; (ii) to prevent the sale or use of stolen pets; (iii) to insure that animals, as items of commerce, are provided humane care and treatment by regulating the transportation, commercial breeding, sale, purchase, housing, care, handling and treatment of such animals by persons or organizations engaged in transporting, breeding, buying, or selling them for such use; (iv) to insure that animals confined in commercial breeding operations, pet shops, kennels, animal shelters and auction markets are provided humane care and treatment; (v) to prohibit the sale, trade or adoption of those animals which show physical signs of infection, communicable disease, or congenital abnormalities, unless veterinary care is assured subsequent to sale, trade or adoption."
SECTION 2. G.S. 19A‑23 reads as rewritten:
"§ 19A‑23. Definitions.
For the purposes of this Article, the following terms, when used in the Article or the rules or orders made pursuant thereto, shall be construed respectively to mean:
…
(5b) "Commercial breeder" means any person who, during any 12‑month period, maintains 15 or more adult female dogs for the primary purpose of the sale of their offspring as companion animals.
(5c) "Commercial breeding operation" means the physical location or facility at which a commercial breeder breeds or maintains adult female dogs and their offspring. For purposes of this Article, commercial breeding operations shall not include those kennels or establishments operated primarily for the purpose of boarding or training hunting, sporting, herding, or guide dogs.
SECTION 3. G.S. 19A‑24(a) reads as rewritten:
"(a) The Board of Agriculture shall:
(1) Establish standards for the care of animals at animal shelters, boarding kennels, pet shops, and public auctions. A boarding kennel that offers dog day care services and has a ratio of dogs to employees or supervisors, or both employees and supervisors, of not more than 10 to one, shall not as to such services be subject to any regulations that restrict the number of dogs that are permitted within any primary enclosure.
(1a) Establish standards for the care of animals at commercial breeding operations. The standards adopted shall include provisions for adequate daily exercise, adequate veterinary care, appropriate housing for adult females, females with litters, and weaned puppies, and record keeping.
(2) Prescribe the manner in which animals may be transported to and from registered or licensed premises.
(3) Require licensees and holders of certificates to keep records of the purchase and sale of animals and to identify animals at their establishments.
(4) Adopt rules to implement this Article, including federal regulations promulgated under Title 7, Chapter 54, of the United States Code.
(5) Adopt rules on the euthanasia of animals in the possession or custody of any person required to obtain a certificate of registration under this Article. An animal shall only be put to death by a method and delivery of method approved by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Humane Society of the United States, or the American Humane Association. The Department shall establish rules for the euthanasia process using any one or combination of methods and standards prescribed by the three aforementioned organizations. The rules shall address the equipment, the process, and the separation of animals, in addition to the animals' age and condition. If the gas method of euthanasia is approved, rules shall require (i) that only commercially compressed carbon monoxide gas is approved for use, and (ii) that the gas must be delivered in a commercially manufactured chamber that allows for the individual separation of animals. Rules shall also mandate training for any person who participates in the euthanasia process."
SECTION 4. G.S. 19A‑30 reads as rewritten:
"§ 19A‑30. Refusal, suspension or revocation of certificate or license.
The Director may refuse to issue or renew or may suspend or revoke a certificate of registration for any animal shelter or a license for any commercial breeder, public auction, kennel, pet shop, or dealer, if after an impartial investigation as provided in this Article he determines that any one or more of the following grounds apply:
(1) Material misstatement in the application for the original certificate of registration or license or in the application for any renewal under this Article;
(2) Willful disregard or violation of this Article or any rules issued pursuant thereto;
(3) Failure to provide adequate housing facilities and/or primary enclosures for the purposes of this Article, or if the feeding, watering, sanitizing and housing practices at the animal shelter, public auction, pet shop, or kennel are not consistent with the intent of this Article or the rules adopted under this Article;
(3a) Failure to comply with the statutes and rules governing commercial breeding operations.
(4) Allowing one's license under this Article to be used by an unlicensed person;
(5) Conviction of any crime an essential element of which is misstatement, fraud, or dishonesty, or conviction of any felony;
(6) Making substantial misrepresentations or false promises of a character likely to influence, persuade, or induce in connection with the business of a public auction, commercial kennel, commercial breeding operation, pet shop, or dealer;
(7) Pursuing a continued course of misrepresentation of or making false promises through advertising, salesmen, agents, or otherwise in connection with the business to be licensed;
(8) Failure to possess the necessary qualifications or to meet the requirements of this Article for the issuance or holding of a certificate of registration or license.
The Director shall, before refusing to issue or renew and before suspension or revocation of a certificate of registration or a license, give to the applicant or holder thereof a written notice containing a statement indicating in what respects the applicant or holder has failed to satisfy the requirements for the holding of a certificate of registration or a license. If a certificate of registration or a license is suspended or revoked under the provisions hereof, the holder shall have five days from such suspension or revocation to surrender all certificates of registration or licenses issued thereunder to the Director or his authorized representative.
A person to whom a certificate of registration or a license is denied, suspended, or revoked by the Director may contest the action by filing a petition under G.S. 150B‑23 within five days after the denial, suspension, or revocation.
Any licensee whose license is revoked under the provisions of this Article shall not be eligible to apply for a new license hereunder until one year has elapsed from the date of the order revoking said license or if an appeal is taken from said order of revocation, one year from the date of the order or final judgment sustaining said revocation. Any person who has been an officer, agent, or employee of a licensee whose license has been revoked or suspended and who is responsible for or participated in the violation upon which the order of suspension or revocation was based, shall not be licensed within the period during which the order of suspension or revocation is in effect."
SECTION 5. Article 1A of Chapter 19A of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read:
"§ 19A‑29.1. License required for commercial breeder; penalty.
(a) No commercial breeder shall operate in the State without first obtaining a commercial breeder's license. Application for a license shall be in the manner provided by the Director. The license period shall be the fiscal year and the license fee shall be fifty dollars ($50.00) for each license period or part thereof, beginning with the first day of the fiscal year.
(b) Failure of a commercial breeder to obtain a license as set forth in subsection (a) of this section shall constitute a Class 2 misdemeanor. Continued illegal operation after conviction shall constitute a separate offense. Animals found in the possession or custody of an unlicensed commercial breeder shall be subject to immediate seizure and impoundment and upon conviction of the unlicensed commercial breeder, shall become subject to sale or euthanasia in the discretion of the Director."
SECTION 6. Article 1A of Chapter 19A of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read:
"§ 19A‑29.2. Additional standards of care for commercial breeders; inspections.
(a) Commercial breeders shall not own or have custody or control of more than 20 female dogs over the age of four months at any time.
(b) Commercial breeders shall not breed female dogs less than 18 months or more than 8 years of age and shall provide adequate veterinary care to the female adult dogs and their offspring. An adult female dog shall not be bred without an annual certification from a licensed veterinarian that the dog is in suitable health for breeding.
(c) Commercial breeding operations shall be subject to inspection by duly appointed employees of the Department or by local animal control officers. In conducting such inspections, the Department employee or local animal control officer may inspect the records of the commercial breeder, the premises where animals are bred and maintained, and any animal used in the breeding program or their offspring. Denial of access to the commercial breeding operation shall be grounds for revocation of the commercial breeder's license."
SECTION 7. Article 1A of Chapter 19A of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read:
"§ 19A‑29.3. Penalties for commercial breeder failing to provide adequate care for animals; disposition of animals.
The failure of a commercial breeder to adequately house, exercise, feed, water, provide adequate veterinary care, or otherwise meet the standards of care for the animals in the commercial breeder's custody or possession shall constitute a Class 3 misdemeanor, and the commercial breeder shall be subject to a fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50.00) per animal or more than a total of one thousand dollars ($1,000). The animals in the possession or custody of the commercial breeder shall be subject to seizure and impoundment and upon conviction may be sold or euthanized at the discretion of the Director, and the failure shall also constitute grounds for revocation of the commercial breeder's license."
SECTION 8. This act becomes effective December 1, 2009, and applies to the commercial breeding of dogs on or after that date.
TEXAS HAS 2 MSN BILLS ON THE FLOOR!
|
|
comments (0)
|
*
Texas Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bills Introduced*
* Print This Article
<javascript:PopIt('/news/blocks/print_article.cfm?article_id=3769', 800,
600)> *
/ [Monday, March 16, 2009] /
Two mandatory spay/neuter bills have been filed in the Texas
Legislature. House Bill 4277, sponsored by Representative Jose Menendez
of San Antonio, and Senate Bill 1845, sponsored by Senator Leticia Van
de Putte also of San Antonio, will require that all dogs over six months
of age be sterilized. The American Kennel Club (AKC) and its Texas
federation of owners, the Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (RPOA),
believe that* any attempt at restricting the rights and liberties of
responsible breeders–especially via mandatory spay/neuter laws–must be
defeated.* If adopted, these bills will have a profound negative impact
not only on responsible dog breeders in Texas, but also on all current
and prospective dog owners. Therefore, it is vital that all responsible
dog breeders and all concerned dog owners in Texas, as well as anyone
worried about such radical policy, contact their elected state
legislatives as well as the bills’ sponsors and respectfully let them
know that these draconian measures are unreasonable, unenforceable, and
unacceptable.
The American Kennel Club opposes the concepts of breeding permits,
breeding bans, or the mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead,
AKC supports reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare
and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders
and owners who take their responsibilities seriously. Additionally, we
strongly support and actively promote a wide range of programs to
educate the public about responsible breeding practices and the
responsibilities of dog ownership.
As currently written, HB 4277 and SB 1845 would:
* Require every person who owns a dog or cat at least six months of
age to have the animal spayed or neutered.
* Provide few exceptions, including one for owners of a dog or cat
who purchase an intact animal permit at a cost of $300 per intact
animal.
* Make each violation of this law a class C misdemeanor, liable for
fines up to $500 per violation.
*_WHAT YOU CAN DO: _*
All concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in Texas, as well as
all other concerned Texas residents, are strongly encouraged to write
their elected state legislators as well as the bills’ sponsors. Let them
know that mandatory spay/neuter bills are radical and unacceptable and
will have a profound negative impact upon the state of Texas.
To find out who represents you in the Texas House of Representatives,
click here <http://www.house.state.tx.us/resources/faq.htm#who_rep>. For
a customizable sample letter to send to your representative, click here
<http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation/TX_Resident_Sample_Letter_State_Rep_2009.doc>.
To find out who represents you in the Texas State Senate, click here
<http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/Senate/Members.htm#FYI>. For a
customizable sample letter to send to your senator, click here
<http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation/TX_Resident_Sample_Letter_State_Senator_2009.doc>.
/House Bill 4277 Sponsor Representative Jose Menendez/
/Capitol Office: EXT E2.204/
/Capitol Address:/
/P.O. Box 2910/
/Capitol Station/
/Austin, TX 78768/
/PHONE: (512) 463-0634/
/FAX: (512) 463-7668/
/To write Representative Menendez via e-mail, click here
<http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/email.php?dist=124&rep=jose.menendez>
for an e-mail form. /
/District Address:/
/7121 US Hwy. 90 West, Suite 240/
/San Antonio, TX 78227/
/PHONE: (210) 673-3579/
/FAX: (210) 673-3816/
/Senate Bill 1845 Sponsor Leticia Van De Putte /
/Capitol Office: EXT E1.704/
/Capitol Address:/
/P.O. Box 12068/
/Capitol Station/
/Austin, TX 78711/
/PHONE: (512) 463-0126/
/TOLL FREE: 1 (888) 279-0648/
/FAX: (512) 463-2114/
/To write Senator Van De Putte via e-mail, click here
<http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/members/dist26/dist26.htm> for
an e-mail form. /
/District Address:/
/700 N. St. Mary’s Street, Suite 1725/
/San Antonio, TX 78205/
/PHONE: (210) 733-6604/
/FAX: (210) 733-6605/
For a copy of the AKC’s /Disagree Diplomatically/ brochure, please click
here <http://www.akc.org/pdfs/GILEG2.pdf>.
The AKC Government Relations Department will continue to monitor the
consideration of HB 4277 and SB 1845 and will notify the purebred dog
community when these bills are assigned to a committee. Contact
information for committee members will be provided and purebred dog
owners should express their strong opposition to these bills to their
respective committee members at that time.
For more information, please contact AKC’s Government Relations
Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org
<mailto:doglaw@akc.org>; or contact the Responsible Pet Owners Alliance
at (210) 822-6763, at www.responsiblepetowners.org
<http://www.responsiblepetowners.org/>, or at rpoa@texas.net
<mailto:rpoa@texas.net>.
Nevada SB241! REALLY BAD BREEDER BILL!
|
|
comments (0)
|
"Senate Bill 241 would require all breeders, regardless of how many dogs owned, to pay a $500 annual fee in order to breed and sell puppies"
Nevada Bill to Terribly Impact Responsible Dog Breeders
[Tuesday, March 17, 2009]
A bill has been introduced in the Nevada Senate to regulate anyone who wants to breed and sell dogs, regardless of the number. Senate Bill 241 would require all breeders, regardless of how many dogs owned, to pay a $500 annual fee in order to breed and sell puppies. It would also impose numerous other regulations and subject anyone who breeds and sells dogs to random inspections. It is very important for all responsible dog breeders and owners in Nevada to contact the Nevada Senate and express your opposition to this infringement on your rights!
As written, SB 241 would:
Define "Breeder" as "a person who breeds cats or dogs for sale".
Require an annual application and $500 license fee for anyone who breeds cats or dogs for sale.
Require an inspection of "the premises upon which the breeder proposes to operate" prior to a license being granted and authorize the Nevada Department of Agriculture or any authorized representatives to conduct a records inspection at "all reasonable times."
The bill is unclear as to whether these inspections could include private homes.
Prohibit breeding a single cat or dog beyond two litters during its lifetime.
Mandate microchipping of all dogs prior to sale.
Prohibit anyone who is not in compliance with a court order for child support from obtaining a breeder's license.
Include ambiguous exemptions for those who are housing domestic dogs or cats as pets or caring for another person's dog or cat in a home environment and those participating in the exhibition of dogs.
The American Kennel Club's mission includes working to protect the rights of all dog owners and promoting responsible dog ownership. The AKC strongly supports the humane treatment of dogs, including providing an adequate and nutritious diet, clean living conditions, regular veterinary care, kind and responsive human companionship and training in appropriate behavior. We believe, however, that onerous regulations do not address the underlying issues of responsible ownership and proper dog care. The AKC supports reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of dogs without restricting the rights of owners or breeders who take their responsibilities seriously.
How You Can Help:
Contact the bill sponsors and politely, yet strongly express your opposition to Senate Bill 241.
Their contact information is as follows:
Senator Shirley Breeden
c/o Nevada Senate
401 S. Carson St., Room 2131
Carson City, NV 89703
Phone: (775) 684-1457
E-mail: sbreeden@sen.state.nv.us
Senator Maggie Carlton
c/o Nevada Senate
401 S. Carson St., Room 2125
Carson City, NV 89703
Phone: (775) 684-1431
E-mail: mcarlton@sen.state.nv.us
Senator Valerie Wiener
c/o Nevada Senate
401 S. Carson St., Room 2132
Carson City, NV 89703
Phone: (775) 684-1422
E-mail: vwiener@sen.state.nv.us
Senator Randolph Townsend
c/o Nevada Senate
401 S. Carson St., Room 2107
Carson City, NV 89703
Phone: (775) 684-1450
E-mail: rtownsend@sen.state.nv.us
Senator Steven Horsford
c/o Nevada Senate
401 S. Carson St., Room 1222
Carson City, NV 89703
Phone: (775) 684-1429
E-mail: shorsford@sen.state.nv.us
Senator John Lee
c/o Nevada Senate
401 S. Carson St., Room 2131
Carson City, NV 89703
Phone: (775) 684-1457
E-mail: jlee@sen.state.nv.us
Senator David Parks
c/o Nevada Senate
401 S. Carson St., Room 2121
Carson City, NV 89703
Phone: (775) 684-6504
E-mail: dparks@sen.state.nv.us
Senator Joyce Woodhouse
c/o Nevada Senate
401 S. Carson St., Room 2127
Carson City, NV 89703
Phone: (775) 684-1481
E-mail: jwoodhouse@sen.state.nv.us
Contact your State Senator and express your opposition to the bill. Click here to find your Senator and obtain contact information.
HB 626! Do you have a cabled or tethered dog? If so pay attention!
|
|
comments (0)
|
Do you have a dog that is tethered, cabled, or chained? If so pay attention... HSUS has a new version of a NO TETHERING bill. This was put on the floor today.
Restraining of Dogs HB 626
www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2009/Bills/House/HTML/H626v0.html
*SESSION 2009*
*H D* *HOUSE DRH30138-LL-68A (2/5)* * * * * * *
Short Title: Restraining of Dogs.
(Public) Sponsors: Representative Yongue.
Referred to: A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT
to amend the criminal law concerning restraining of dogs.
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
*SECTION 1.* G.S. 14‑362.3 reads as rewritten: "§ 14‑362.3.
Restraining dogs in a cruel manner.
_(a)_ A person who maliciously _knowingly_ restrains a dog using a chain or wire grossly in excess of the size _or weight_ necessary to restrain the dog safely _or other type of tethering device in violation of this section_ is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. For purposes of this section, "maliciously" means the person imposed the restraint intentionally and with malice or bad motive.
_(b)_ _No person shall tether, fasten, chain, tie, or restrain a dog, or cause such restraining of a dog, to a tree, fence, post, dog house, or other stationary object for more than nine hours in a 24‑hour period. During periods of tethering that are not unlawful under this subsection, any tethering device used shall be at least 15 feet in length and attached in such manner as to prevent strangulation or other injury to the dog and entanglement with objects other than the stationary objects to which the device is attached.
_ _(c)_ _No person shall attach a chain or wire or other tethering device to, or cause such attachment to, a choke‑type or pronged collar on a dog.
_ _(d)_ _No person shall attach a chain or wire or other tethering device to a dog in such manner that does not allow the dog access to water and adequate shelter.
_ _(e)_ _Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (b) of this section, a person may, subject to the provisions of subsections (c) and (d) of this section:
_ _(1)_ _Tether and restrain a dog while actively engaged in:_ _a._ _Use of the dog in shepherding or herding livestock, or_ _b._ _Use of the dog in the business of cultivating agricultural products, if the restraining is reasonably necessary for the safety of the dog, or_ _c._ _Use of the dog in lawful hunting activities if the restraint is reasonably necessary for the safety of the dog.
_ _(2)_ _After taking possession of a dog that appears to be a stray dog and after having advised animal control authorities of the capture of the dog, tether and restrain the dog during such time as the person having taken possession of the dog is seeking the identity of the owner of the dog.
_ _(3)_ _Walk a dog with a handheld leash._ _(f)_ _Restraining a dog in a manner prohibited by this section constitutes cruelty as defined in G.S. 19A‑1(2)._ _(g)_ _A county, city, or town may by ordinance reduce the time of permissible tethering provided in subsection (b) of this section, including a prohibition on tethering._"
*SECTION 2.* This act becomes effective December 1, 2009, and applies to acts committed on or after that date.
DOG PRESS ARTICLE! HSUS AGAINST BREEDERS IN 34 STATES!
|
|
comments (0)
|
03|03|09 The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has launched a 34-state offensive against dog breeders, setting up state offices and recruiting workers to gain support for laws against people who raise dogs. Illegal search and seizure, violation of your right to privacy, and in some states, no right of appeal or redress.
“HSUS strategy is to attack everywhere at once, and use its army of highly paid employees and lobbyists to push through legislation quickly. It has the money, personnel and organization to wage this blitz attack, but dog owners simply lack the resources to effectively combat it. We have been placed totally on the defensive.” said John Yates, American Sporting Dog Assoc. Go to the ASDA website to see what’s facing you in your state.
Oklahoma – HB 1332 Passed, now in House. Law gives any animal control or police officer, or animal cruelty investigator unrestricted access to kennel owner’s home, facilities, animals, records and property, denies citizens Constitutional right of protection from unreasonable searches and seizures because there are no warrants required. Read the Bill.
Illinois - HB 198 Breeders showed up, vote postponed but if you own more than three intact females and sell puppies, you will be classified as a commercial breeder, meaning high license fees, inspections, loss of Constitutional rights, mandatory fingerprinting, criminal background checks by state police and FBI, no right to redress in court, and the forcible invasion of personal and financial records.
Indiana - HB 1468 snuck in as an unannounced amendment to an animal cruelty bill relating to convicted felons! Rescue exempt, breeders not; sell five dogs and you are a pet dealer, subject to impossible record-keeping to be available to law enforcement and potential buyers. Ten or more litters and you are a commercial breeder. Outdoor housing is banned and your home may not qualify either!
These actions are just the tip of the torch aimed at you. If you have read this far, it’s because you are finally getting worried. More than likely, it is too late.
You might as well try to sell your dogs, realizing that the only people buying breeding stock are the puppy mills so you better hope there’s a good pet home willing to take an adult instead of a cute puppy. You may keep a spayed or neutered dog but it will be extraordinarily expensive keep intact show dogs. And what good is an altered show dog? Oh, you hadn’t thought about that?
If AKC wants to keep the revenues coming in from televised dog shows, it should initiate “Neuter Classes” because that’s all we’ll be able to show. Unless of course, you are a HVB (high volume breeder) or one of the Hunte satellite puppy mills that have hired top handlers to show dogs. Thanks to TheDogPress, HVB-Hunte is no longer a secret. In fact, you can be a big-time puppy mill and still be “respected” in the AKC show world, abusing your breeding stock while handling for AKC-connected clients as in the Big Bad Wolf.
If this sounds like preemptive pushing of the panic button, you are living in some other world, one where there are no bad dreams, no Nightmares, and soon to be no quality purebreds.
Barbara (BJ) Andrews, Editor"
HSUS 2009 SLAUGHTER OF 147 DOGS IN NC!
|
|
comments (0)
|
All this came after a warrantless, illegal, "puppy mill" raid, was conducted by HSUS on Wildside Kennels. Wilside was a show kennel as well as working kennel. Animal Control Officers that were called to the scene as well as law enforment said there were "NO grounds" to remove the animals as they were all in good health and the property was clean. Yet HSUS bullied Wildside Kennel owners to turn over their dogs. No charges have been filed to this day and the case has now been closed after all the dogs were slaughtered by HSUS.
WACTH THE VIDEO, AND SEE THE DOGS FOR YOURSELF!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDSyIBxat7c
HSUS murdered these dogs for nothing more then a hate for breeders and pets. When are people going to wake up and get it? These AR groups (HSUS/PETA) are liars, theifs, and killers. Every year they push through state legislation. They know if they went national they would have to back their so called "facts". Write you legislators today and let them know HSUS, PETA, and groups like them are not welcome in your state. Do it before it is too late...
MULTI STATE LEGISLATION ALERTS!
|
|
comments (0)
|
(Otherwise known as 'Virginia HB 538 for most of the other states.')
This edition adds TX HB 3180/SB 1910, Adds AR SB 864 and ME LD 1053/HP
0728, and updates status of WA HB 5651.
If you're having trouble finding the terrible ME bill listed below use
those links. They'll take you to a page offering you a choice of web
page, MS-word document, or pdf; you probably want to click 'web page.'
I count 19 of these bills paralleling Virginia's HB 538 in play right
now, three beaten, two passed. Wayne Pacelle has promised us 34 this
year.
For the bills that are most important to you, you should check sources
yourself -- state pet-law email lists, and (better yet) links given or
the state's web site.
There's an overview of the process of fighting bad bills at:
http://www.pet-law.com/whattodo.html
When discussing these bills, don't forget to ask whether the job
losses these will cause are likely to be popular, considering the
state of the economy. After all, the purpose and effect of these bills
is to end commercial breeding of dogs in the state; won't that mean
that the breeder and her employees will be out of work?
Also don't forget to point out that the sheer number coming all at
once, together with Wayne's crowing that there will be 34, ties this
deluge to HSUS.
As usual, please help fill in the remaining blanks and please send
updates as the various bills progress! And as usual, note that there
are other really bad bills out there -- for example, CA and FL both
have statewide MSN bills in play right now.
Walt Hutchens
Timbreblue Whippets
==========================
AR -- License if 12 or more dogs + cats. Authorities may inspect for
violations without warrant.
SB 864
http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2009/R/Bills/SB864.pdf
CA =- Limit of 50 dogs+CATS that are intact, euthanasia must be by vet.
AB 241
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0201-0250/ab_241_bi...
http://tinyurl.com/aldzvn
Assigned to Local Government committee.
CO - 25 limit
SB 1127
Defeated in first Committee hearing.
FL - 50 limit
S 2002
http://tinyurl.com/czjp5d
Filed 2/23/09
IL - License required if 3 or more females for sale of offspring, limit
of 20 unaltered dogs.
HB 0198
http://tinyurl.com/apmphl
Hearing Business/occupational licenses comm. on Feb 19th
IN - Pet dealer if you sell over 5 puppies/year. Registration as
commercial breeder reqd. if you breed 10 or more litters/12 month
period. Limit of 30 intact animals, standards for confinement,
breeding, selling, etc.
HB 1468
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2009/HCRF/CR146801.001.html
Passed out of committee on 2/11;
passed by House on 2/19.
3/5 Appears to be on hold in Senate, pending possible revisions.
LA- Limit of 50
Passed 2008
MD - Limit of 50 dogs for breeding purposes, if over 10 then enclosure
size reqts, at least 2 exercise periods of 2 hrs daily.
HB 495/SB 318
http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/bills/hb/hb0495f.pdf
Hearing on HB 495 scheduled Feb 12th, SB 318 Feb 18th
SB 318 reported dead on 3/6
ME -- Limit of 10 dogs or cats for breeding. Intact animal fee
$150/each for dogs & cats; if any dogs or cats are sold, then
$500/year/intact dog/cat.
LD 1053
HP 0728
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/externalsiteframe.asp?ID...
http://tinyurl.com/bqau8l
MN - 50 total dog limit, SF 5. SF 7/HF 273 - Commercial breeder is 6
bedabble females/50 dog total limit. females in estrus must not be
housed with unneutered males, except for breeding purposes; Criminal
background checks, licensing, It is a misdemeanor for an unlicensed
breeder to advertise animals for sale.,more rules after law passes
SF201-Senator / vet who tried to write more reasonable law...probably
won't go anywhere. SF 500 HF 573 Minnesota Puppy and Kitten Mill
Cruelty Prevention Act, Commercial breeder limit of 40 animals one has
an 'interest' in....includes co ownerships. Gaining co authors.
MT - State Department of Livestock to make regulations for sellers of
dogs, including inspection, various facility and other standards.
HB 548
Killed 2/20/2009 in House Ag Committee
NC - Commercial dog breeder if 15 or more females in 12 mos. for
purpose of selling offspring. Board of Ag to establish standards for
care, housing, exercise, record keeping. Females not to be bred if
younger than 18 mos or over 8 years, must have vet exam.
SB 460
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Sess...
http://tinyurl.com/acsk6m [status]
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2009/Bills/Senate/PDF/S460v0.pdf
[bill]
Filed 3/5
NE - Limit of 75 for commercial breeders, engineering standards
for kennels. Adds ventilation, fire suppression, other reqts.
LB 677
http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Intro/LB67...
2/20/09 Indefinitely postponed -- usually means 'dead.'
LB 241 Has limit of 250.
NH - Must have 60 day license if selling over 1 dog/cat/year, limit
2/year, state already has licensing for commercial breeders.
HB0337
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HB0337.html
Bill killed in Agriculture Committee on 2/11/09
NY - Limit of 75 dogs if breeder wants to sell or transfer any.
S 518
http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=S00518&sh=t
A05507-change the definition of a "pet dealer" to mean
any person who engages in the sale of more than five animals (rather
than nine) per year directly to the consumer.....The definition
of "pet dealer" is also amended such that a breeder is considered a
pet dealer if he or she sells directly to the consumer more than ten
animals per year (rather than twenty five) that are raised on the
breeders residence."
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A05507
OK - Limit of 25 transferred/given away/sold without license, out of
state dealer also requires lic.
HB 1332
http://www.okvma.org/associations/2557/files/2PQA2009HB1332.pdf
Out of committee on 2/10 for full house vote
OR - If over 10 must follow stds. for commercial breeder, limit
25. If raise over 3 litters or sell over 20 dogs you are a 'pet
dealer'; many reqts.
HB 2470
http://landru.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measures/hb2400.dir/hb2470.intr....
TN - License required over 20 female dogs, limit of 75, euthanasia must
be done by vet.
SB 258
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Bill/SB0258.pdf
TX - Comm. breeder license required over 10 intact female dogs.
Inspections, standards. If required to collect sales tax, 'dealer'
status with puppy lemon requirements.
HB 3180
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HB03180I.htm
SB 1910
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/SB01910I.htm
VA - License required if 30/year owned for breeding, limit of 50 for
breeding. Sets rules, requires inspections. Local option for higher limit.
HB 538
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+ful+CHAP0852
Passed, effective from 1/1/9
WA - Limit of 25 intact dogs, enclosure rules, 1 hour daily exercise
period, ventilation, fire suppression, temperature, and other reqts.
SB5651
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/Senate%...
HB1936
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House%2...
3/12/9 SB 5651 has passed Senate, now in house.
WI - Bill in rough draft being sent to legislators for support.
Regulations for those who sell more than 100 dogs in a year. Rules to
be made after the law passes.
WV - Commercial breeder if over 20 dogs over 1 year, limit of 40, MANY
requirements.
HB 2843
http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=hb2...
http://tinyurl.com/b9faey
NC LEGISLATORS EMAIL ADDRESSES!
|
|
comments (0)
|
This is a list of the NC Senator's email addresses... Below is the House list... Just copy and paste... Also below is the Speaker of the house and the President Pro Tempro of the Senate.
Charles.Albertson@ncleg.net
Austin.Allran@ncleg.net
Tom.Apodaca@ncleg.net
Bob.Atwater@ncleg.net
Phil.berger@ncleg.net
Stan.Bingham@ncleg.net
Harris.Blake@ncleg.net
Julia.Boseman@ncleg.net
Andrew.Brock@ncleg.net
Harry.Brown@ncleg.net
Peter.Brunstetter@ncleg.net
ebbie.Clary@ncleg.net">Debbie.Clary@ncleg.net
aniel.Clodfelter@ncleg.net">Daniel.Clodfelter@ncleg.net
Charlie.Dannelly@ncleg.net
Katie.Dorsett@ncleg.net
on.East@ncleg.net">Don.East@ncleg.net
Tony.Foriest@ncleg.net
James.Forrester@ncleg.net
Linda.Garrou@ncleg.net
Edward.Goodall@ncleg.net
Steve.Goss@ncleg.net
Malcolm.Graham@ncleg.net
Fletcher.Hartsell@ncleg.net
avid.Hoyle@ncleg.net">David.Hoyle@ncleg.net
Neal.Hunt@ncleg.net
Jim.Jacumin@ncleg.net
Clark.Jenkins@ncleg.net
Ed.Jones@ncleg.net
Eleanor.Kinnaird@ncleg.net
Vernon.Malone@ncleg.net
Floyd.McKissick@ncleg.net
Martin.Nesbitt@ncleg.net
Jean.Preston@ncleg.net
William.Prucell@ncleg.net
Joe.Queen@ncleg.net
Tony.Rand@ncleg.net
avid.Rouzer@ncleg.net">David.Rouzer@ncleg.net
Bob.Rucho@ncleg.net
Larry.Shaw@ncleg.net
John.Snow@ncleg.net
RC.Soles@ncleg.net
Josh.Stein@ncleg.net
Richard.Stevens@ncleg.net
AB.Swindell@ncleg.net
Jerry.Tillman@ncleg.net
avid.Weinstein@ncleg.net">David.Weinstein@ncleg.net
The list of House Representatives
Alma.Adams@ncleg.net
Kelly.Alexander@ncleg.net
Martha.Alexander@ncleg.net
Lucy.Allen@ncleg.net
Cary.Allred@ncleg.net
Marilyn.Avila@ncleg.net
Jeff.Barnhart@ncleg.net
Larry.Bell@ncleg.net
Hugh.Blackwell@ncleg.net
Curtis.Blackwood@ncleg.net
an.Blue@ncleg.net">Dan.Blue@ncleg.net
John.blust@ncleg.net
James.Boles@ncleg.net
Alice.Bordsen@ncleg.net
Van.Braxton@ncleg.net
William.brisson@ncleg.net
Larry.Brown@ncleg.net
Harold.Brubaker@ncleg.net
Angela.bryant@ncleg.net
Justin.Burr@ncleg.net
Pearl.Burris-Floyd@ncleg.net
Becky.Carney@ncleg.net
George.Cleveland@ncleg.net
Lorene.Coates@ncleg.net
Nelson.Cole@ncleg.net
Tricia.Cotham@ncleg.net
William.Current@ncleg.net
Leo.Daughtry@ncleg.net
Jerry.Dockham@ncleg.net
Nelson.Dollar@ncleg.net
Beverly.Earle@ncleg.net
Bob.England@ncleg.net
Bill.Faison@ncleg.net
Jean.Farmer-Butterfield@ncleg.net
Susan.Fisher@ncleg.net
Elmer.Floyd@ncleg.net
ale.Folwell@ncleg.net">Dale.Folwell@ncleg.net
Phillip.Frye@ncleg.net
Pryor.Gibson@ncleg.net
Mitch.Gillespie@nc.leg.net
Rick.Glazier@ncleg.net
Bruce.Goforth@ncleg.net
Melanie.Goodwin@ncleg.net
Robert.Grady@ncleg.net
avid.Guice@ncleg.net">David.Guice@ncleg.net
Jim.Gulley@ncleg.net
Phillip.Haire@ncleg.net
Larry.Hall@ncleg.net
Ty.Harrell@ncleg.net
Pricey.Harrison@ncleg.net
ewey.Hill@ncleg.net">Dewey.Hill@ncleg.net
Mark.Hilton@ncleg.net
Hugh.Holliman@ncleg.net
Bryan.Holloway@ncleg.net
Julia.Howard@ncleg.net
Sandra.Hughes@ncleg.net
Pat.Hurley@ncleg.net
Verla.Insko@ncleg.net
arren.jackson@ncleg.net">Darren.jackson@ncleg.net
Linda.Johnson@ncleg.net
Earl.Jones@ncleg.net
Carolyn.Justice@ncleg.net
Carolyn.Justus@ncleg.net
Ric.Killian@ncleg.net
James.Langdon@ncleg.net
avid.Lewis@ncleg.net">David.Lewis@ncleg.net
Jimmy.Love@ncleg.net
Marvin.Lucas@ncleg.net
Paul.Luebke@ncleg.net
Nick.Mackey@ncleg.net
Grier.Martin@ncleg.net
aniel.McComas@ncleg.net">Daniel.McComas@ncleg.net
arrell.McCormick@ncleg.net">Darrell.McCormick@ncleg.net
Pat.McElraft@ncleg.net
William.McGee@ncleg.net
Marian.McLawhorn@ncleg.net
Henry.Michaux@ncleg.net
Grey.Mills@ncleg.net
Annie.Mobley@ncleg.net
Tim.Moore@ncleg.net
Wil.Neumann@ncleg.net
Bill.Owens@ncleg.net
Earline.Parmon@ncleg.net
Garland.Pierce@ncleg.net
Shirley.Randleman@ncleg.net
Ray.Rapp@ncleg.net
Johnathan.Rhyne@ncleg.net
eborah.Ross@ncleg.net">Deborah.Ross@ncleg.net
Efton.Sager@ncleg.net
Ruth.Samuelson@ncleg.net
Mitchell.Setzer@ncleg.net
Timothy.Spear@ncleg.net
Paul.Stam@ncleg.net
Edgar.Starnes@ncleg.net
Fred.Steen@ncleg.net
Sarah.Stevens@ncleg.net
Randy.Stewart@ncleg.net
Bonner.Stiller@ncleg.net
Ronnie.Sutton@ncleg.net
Cullie.Tarleton@ncleg.net
Thom.Tillis@ncleg.net
Joe.Tolson@ncleg.net
Russell.Tucker@ncleg.net
Alice.Underhill@ncleg.net
William.Wainwright@ncleg.net
Edith.Warren@ncleg.net
Ray.Warren@ncleg.net
Jennifer.Weiss@ncleg.net
Roger.West@ncleg.net
Jane.Whilden@ncleg.net
Laura.Wiley@ncleg.net
Winkie.Wilkins@ncleg.net
Arthur.Williams@ncleg.net
Larry.Womble@ncleg.net
ouglas.Yongue@ncleg.net">Douglas.Yongue@ncleg.net
SPEAKER:
North Carolina House of Representatives
Speaker of the House Joe Hackley
NC House of Representatives
16 W. Jones Street, Room 2304
Raleigh, NC 27601-1096
Telephone: 919-733-3451
Email: Joe.Hackney@ncleg.net
PRESIDENT PRO TEMPRO OF THE SENATE
North Carolina Senate
President Pro Tempore of the Senate Marc Basnight
NC Senate
16 W. Jones Street, Room 2007
Raleigh, NC 27601-2808
Telephone: (919) 733-6854
Email: Marc.Basnight@ncleg.net
The main ones pushing the bills
Representative Maggie Jeffus
NC House of Representatives
16 W. Jones Street, Room 2204
Raleigh, NC 27601-1096
(919) 733-5191
Maggie.Jeffus@ncleg.net
Representative Margaret Highsmith Dickson
NC House of Representatives
16 W. Jones Street, Room 2217
Raleigh, NC 27601-1096
(919) 733-5776
Margaret.Dickson@ncleg..net
Senator Don Davis
NC Senate
300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 526
Raleigh, NC 27603-5925
(919) 733-5621
on.Davis@ncleg.net">Don.Davis@ncleg.net
Senator Don Vaughan
NC Senate
300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 411
Raleigh, NC 27603-5925
(919) 733-5856
on.Vaughan@ncleg.net">Don.Vaughan@ncleg.net
LETTER TO SENATE & HOUSE ON HB460 & SB460!
|
|
comments (0)
|
It can be the same letter sent to every one of them. Just simply copy and paste all the email addresses into the "To" section of your email.
Sample letter to all of them
From:
(Your Name)
(Street Address)
(City, ST, Zip+4)
Home Phone: (Your number)
Cell Phone: (Your number)
Fax: (Your Fax #)
Email: (your email address)
To:
North Carolina Senate
North Carolina General Assembly
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1096
And…
North Carolina House of Representatives
North Carolina General Assembly
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1096
(DATE SENT)
North Carolina Senators & North Carolina Representatives,
I oppose H460 & S460 and I am writing to urge you to oppose H460 and S460 as well. H460 and S460 alarms everyone in the canine community here in North Carolina. These bills will be harmful and are not needed for many different reason, but I will try to make this short as I know your time is limited and very valuable.
There are already laws on the books (The North Carolina Animal Welfare Act, Article 3 of Chapter 19A of the North Carolina General Statutes) to handle such cases of neglect, abuse, and overall mistreatment of animals. These laws as outlined in the Statutes do need to be enforced, but putting more unnecessary laws on the books will do nothing but create hardships for North Carolina. Hobby breeders, show homes, and hunters that cannot afford to or that cannot meet the unreasonable standards that these bills would put forth would be forced to give up their dogs. Through it all, the only out come would be that responsible canine homes such as hobby breeders/kennels/clubs would be effected. Meanwhile the real animal abusers would go unfazed as they usually do not seek vet care, tag, or even report their dogs.
In these bills it states that a “Commercial Breeder or Commercial Breeding Operation/CBO” would be defined as anyone owning, within a 12 month period, 15 adult female dogs for the primary purpose of the sale of their offspring as companion animals. The term “Adult” is not defined and nor is the term “Companion Animals” in these bills. The definitions are vague at best. The number of dogs would adversely effect many hunting or working dog kennels as well as show breeders and even hobby breeders whom can sometimes have just one litter of puppies a year if at all, and yet have 15 adult female dogs throughout the year. Breeding ages as outlined in these bills (18 months to 8 years of age) does not take into account the health of the animal, or other forms of reproduction (semen collection for artificial insemination) for dogs that do not fall into the age range.
H460 and S460 would also require kennels that fall under the above definition to be licensed by the state, at a cost of $50 a year. The North Carolina Board of Agriculture would then be forced to develop standards of care for the kennels or hobby breeders labeled as a “Commercial Breeding Operation/CBO“. If the North Carolina Board of Agriculture, follows the current USDA standards, it would call for very costly shelters. Something some hobby breeders, like myself, simply cannot afford to do. It would also prevent us from raising our puppies in a home environment, which is currently regarded as the highest standard by experts. All the while animal shelters, boarding kennels, and pet shops would not be held to the same high standards as hobby breeders or kennels that have been classified as commercial breeding facilities.
The licensed breeder would also be subjected to searches of their homes and property with the absence of a warrant. In a case where access is denied to the licensee’s home and property, the breeders license could be revoked and the dogs seized, regardless of the condition of the property or the animals. North Carolina residents, dog owners, breeders, clubs, and kennels do not want their rights, (as outline in the United States Constitution 4th & 5th Amendments), as a United States Citizen to be brushed aside or abolished completely, which is exactly what these bills will do if passed. So now I ask you not only as resident of North Carolina, but as a dog owner, a kennel owner, club member, a voter, and above all a United States Citizen to oppose these bills, and rather call for the enforcement of what is already law… Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
(Your Name)
NC LEGISLATORS
|
|
comments (0)
|
The house directory is here
http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/members/memberList.pl?sChamber=House
Senate is here
http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/members/memberList.pl?sChamber=Senate
Once again, just click on the name of the appropriate legislator and all contact information is there.
AKC's POSITION ON HB460 & SB460
|
|
comments (0)
|
North Carolina House Bill 460, sponsored by Representative Maggie Jeffus of Greensboro and Representative Margaret Highsmith Dickson of Fayetteville, and its companion bill, Senate Bill 460, sponsored by Senators Don Davis of Snow Hill and Senator Don Vaughan of Greensboro, have been filed.
The bills seek to regulate the commercial breeding of dogs in North Carolina. The American Kennel Club—with its operations center located in Raleigh—and its North Carolina federation, the North Carolina Federation of Dog Clubs, oppose this legislation. While these bills are not carbon copies of the breeder regulatory bills introduced throughout the nation since the start of the new year that signify a radical national agenda aimed at severely limiting the ownership of dogs, these bills are unnecessary, as current North Carolina law is effective in dealing with animal abuse and mistreatment.
The American Kennel Club strongly supports humane treatment of dogs, including an adequate and nutritious diet, clean water, clean living conditions, regular veterinary care, kind and responsive human companionship, and training in appropriate behavior. The AKC supports reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously.
HB 460/SB 460:
Define "commercial breeder" as "any person who, during any 12-month period, maintains 15 or more adult female dogs for the primary purpose of the sale of their offspring as companion animals. However, neither terms "adult" nor "companion animals" are defined in the bill or statutorily, which makes this definition, as currently worded, vague. Additionally, the numerical threshold contained in the definition could reasonably affect many hunting and performance kennels in the Tarheel State.
Require commercial breeders to be licensed by the state, at a cost of $50 annually.
Call for the NC Board of Agriculture to develop standards of care, including exercise, veterinary care, housing, and record-keeping, at commercial breeding operations. These standards will be different than standards created for animal shelters, boarding kennels, and pet shops.
Limit those classified and licensed as commercial breeders to breeding dogs only between 18 months and eight years of age, without regard to alternative means of reproduction or the health of female dogs not falling into the prescribed age range.
Subject commercial breeding operations to unannounced inspections, including potential warrantless searches of licensees’ homes. Denial of inspections/searches is ground for license revocation and seizure of dogs, regardless of care being given to dogs.
The North Carolina Animal Welfare Act, as provided in Article 3 of Chapter 19A of the North Carolina General Statutes, already effectively deals with animal abuse or mistreatment, making the substance of HB 460/SB 460 unnecessary.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in North Carolina are encouraged to contact the bills’ sponsors and respectfully urge them amend the bills appropriately.
Representative Maggie Jeffus
NC House of Representatives
16 W. Jones Street, Room 2204
Raleigh, NC 27601-1096
(919) 733-5191
Maggie.Jeffus@ncleg.net
Representative Margaret Highsmith Dickson
NC House of Representatives
16 W. Jones Street, Room 2217
Raleigh, NC 27601-1096
(919) 733-5776
Margaret.Dickson@ncleg..net
Senator Don Davis
NC Senate
300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 526
Raleigh, NC 27603-5925
(919) 733-5621
Don.Davis@ncleg.net
Senator Don Vaughan
NC Senate
300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 411
Raleigh, NC 27603-5925
(919) 733-5856
Don.Vaughan@ncleg.net
RESOURCES:
For tips on how to effectively communicate with legislators, please click here.
For a copy of our Disagree Diplomatically brochure, please click here.
For more information, contact AKC's Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.
HB460 & SB460 or H460 & S460! HSUS PUSHES BREEDER BILL IN NC!
|
|
comments (0)
|
paragraph; "****Permission is also granted to disseminate this message to
all breeders and kennel club members in NC. Please do this today. ***"
Please email your state representative and senator today objecting to
their support of legislation to license dog breeders in NC. This is
extremely important as it will help kill these bills. Attached to this
message is a table with a list of the sponsors of these breeder
licensing laws by county along with contact information. Please email
all representatives and senators in your county who are sponsoring this
legislation.
* Permission is also granted to disseminate this message to
all breeders and kennel club members in NC*. Please do this today. Thanks.
Steve Wallis - President
NC Federation of Dog Clubs
"Include in your email subject line: H460/S460 Commercial Dog Breeders
State your opposition to the sponsor's support for these bills and give
your reasons. I have included a summary of the most important reasons
below. A pdf copy of the bill is also attached. (Both bills are exactly
the same language).
Two bills - H460 filed in the House of Representatives and S460 filed in
the Senate propose licensing of dog breeders. This law intended to
regulate "puppy mills" will effect many show/hobby breeders who breed as
little as one litter a year and will define them as "Commercial Breeding
Operations"(..CMOs).
There is no need for new law to license breeders. NC's General Statutes
already contain adequate laws to deal with animal abuse and neglect.
Most all commercial breeders are defined as "Dealers" under the state
Animal Welfare Act where they are currently required to be licensed,
meet standards of care and are subject to civil penalties for non
compliance. The few commercial breeders who do not meet the definition
as "Dealers" are still subject to criminal laws against Cruelty to
Animals. These existing laws work, they are being used by authorities
to bring abuse cases and have resulted in conviction of those who are
guilty of abuse. Current law affords those charged with abuse and
neglect their right to due process of law, something the provisions in
these two bills do not.
Licensing requirements in these bills are extremely onerous for the
show/hobby breeder to comply with and provisions authorizing warrantless
search of a breeder's premises violate our rights as citizens. Existing
Animal Welfare Act licensees like pet dealers, pet shops, auctions, and
animal shelters are not subject to a warrantless search. In addition,
both bills authorize immediate seizure of a breeder's dogs without the
need of a preliminary injunction issued by the courts. This is
warrantless search and seizure of property without the need for any
charges to be brought against a breeder in a court of law.
HSUS conducted two well publicized raids of commercial breeders within
the past month. Both raids resulted in no charges being filed against
the breeders. In addition, both breeders were forced by HSUS to turn
over ownership of their dogs to HSUS which then transported the dogs out
of state. Claims of abuse in the first raid are antidotal and can now
never be verified. In the raid in Kinston, authorities with Lenoir
county Animal Control said they "found no evidence of abuse or neglect
during their inspection of the breeder's dogs and premises", yet the
breeder was subjected to a warrantless search of his premises and forced
to give up his property by HSUS. Similar terrorist tactics are being
used by HSUS against law abiding citizens in dozens of states all across
the country to promote media coverage of legislation like H460/S460
HSUS is not interested in animal welfare and they are not affiliated
with local animal shelters. They provide no significant support to these
institutions but spend tens of millions of dollars on animal rights (not
animal welfare) legislation. HSUS's interest is in a radical animal
rights agenda that promotes ending all ownership of pets, ending all
poultry and swine production, and substitutes the radical alternative
of non use of animals including a total vegan diet. Position papers and
articles in support of HSUS's agenda are available on their web site.
From DKC Member:
Steve Wallis"
