German Shepherds Forum banner

1 - 20 of 79 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,296 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Easy to use tool to contact your representative. Takes about thirty seconds, depending on your typing speed.
Written by The Humane Society of the United States, an extremist Animal Rights group, this bill has nothing to do with safety and protection for puppies, and everything to do with eliminating dog breeders.

This is Federal legislation, so, if you live in the US, it will effect you in more ways than you think.

STOP THE P.U.P.S. ACT S. 395/H.R. 847 | The Cavalry Group
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,272 Posts
@Vandal,

The HSUS is not an "extremist" group. Besides, I believe it was the USDA that initially called for closing the loophole on internet sales.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,325 Posts
I'm always for less govt intervention. I signed, I figure I'm already on the govt "watch" list for other comments I've made.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
614 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,017 Posts
@Vandal,

The HSUS is not an "extremist" group. Besides, I believe it was the USDA that initially called for closing the loophole on internet sales.
I think they are. And I think the IRS should be looking into their non-profit, not for profit status. But then, I could go on and on and on and on about HSUS.

HSUS -- they're not your local dog shelter.

Sent mine though, I have contacted them before in regards to this. Not sure how much good canned e-mails do. Maybe people should send real letters through snail mail.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,662 Posts
A friend on another forum has worked as an assistant to congress critters, she said the hand written snail mail letters do get more attention.

:thumbup:

I think they are. And I think the IRS should be looking into their non-profit, not for profit status. But then, I could go on and on and on and on about HSUS.

HSUS -- they're not your local dog shelter.

Sent mine though, I have contacted them before in regards to this. Not sure how much good canned e-mails do. Maybe people should send real letters through snail mail.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,662 Posts
On the one hand I really don't like this sort of legislation....yet on the other hand there are two sides to every story.

The sad truth is, if you look at the thread about dog auctions, those people fight really hard against legislation to put any kind of stop to puppy mills.

So in fighting this we are partnering with those who create a lot of misery for dogs/animals....on the other hand I do agree with others that this can end up punishing responsible breeders.

(btw as an aside- why do these congress people even bother putting through unfunded mandates anyway? They can't even manage/monitor/enforce the animal welfare laws currently on the books... :crazy: )




There sure are a lot of conspiracy theories out there concerning the HSUS. Most of them can be traced back to Richard Berman whose credibility is suspect at best.

About the HSUS | Stop HumaneWatch
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,190 Posts
@Vandal,

The HSUS is not an "extremist" group. Besides, I believe it was the USDA that initially called for closing the loophole on internet sales.
They most DEFINATELY are, they are PETA with suits, nothing more, nothing less.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,017 Posts
On the one hand I really don't like this sort of legislation....yet on the other hand there are two sides to every story.

The sad truth is, if you look at the thread about dog auctions, those people fight really hard against legislation to put any kind of stop to puppy mills.

So in fighting this we are partnering with those who create a lot of misery for dogs/animals....on the other hand I do agree with others that this can end up punishing responsible breeders.

(btw as an aside- why do these congress people even bother putting through unfunded mandates anyway? They can't even manage/monitor/enforce the animal welfare laws currently on the books... :crazy: )
I guess I do not want to stop puppy mills, but I would rather punish individuals who treat animals cruelly, who do not provide them with adequate space, food, veterinary care, water, shade, etc., and do so across the board, whether they are breeders, or pet owners, or rescues, or hoarders, or strangers attacking someone else's dog.

The thing that gets in my craw about legislation like this is that it starts with the people who have already taken a step in the responsible dog ownership path. It begins with people who actually license their dogs. So many people never bother -- those people will be more likely not to bother to contain their intact pets, and more likely to dump them or dump the puppies.

This legislation targets people who are already complying with the law, and will likely comply with more disgusting laws because they are law-abiding people. Law-abiding people have a sense of responsibility about them, and are less likely to cost the government a bundle. Closing the loop hole for Rally and Agility, and the whole nine yards is again targeting the section of population that works with their dogs, trains their dogs, do not let their dogs run loose to create tons of puppies. If these people do breed their dogs, they follow through and provide for them until they can find decent homes for them.

It does nothing about the many, many people who don't train, don't care about licenses, papers, health screenings, whether the dogs are purebred, have faults, are the same breed, don't bother to contain them, and on and on and on.

I would almost support a law that says that if your dog is picked up, you get a $50 fine. If it is picked up twice, the fine is $500 and the dog will be spayed or neutered before you get it back. That at least targets individuals who are not being responsible with their dogs.

I don't like punishing/crimping down on everyone because some people are bad. It is like saying that everyone must spend 3 years in prison, this will reduce the number of people who commit violent crime because then everyone will know what prison is like and avoid going there. Uhm, nobody's going to say ok to that. But why should we crunch down on everyone with an intact animal, or every breeder for that matter. I think people should be guilty of a crime before they are given penalties. And not being allowed to make your own choice about your animal's body is a penalty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,272 Posts
HSUS -- they're not your local dog shelter.
Of course they aren't. They don't claim to be either. Shelters, however, do seem to appreciate the services they provide.

See below link:
http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/about/national_federation_of_humane.pdf

Text from the letter I linked to:
Dear Mr. Berman,
May 25,2010

The National Federation of Humane Societies is the nation's first trade advocacy federation representing the animal welfare industry. We are comprised of local, state and national animal welfare organizations with a focus on animal sheltering and companion animal issues.

We understand that the Center for Consumer Freedom is an industry lobby and paid representative for the restaurant, tobacco, agricultural producers and alcoholic beverage industries with a well documented history of opposing public health and animal welfare reforms. That being said, we find your statements regarding the Humane Society of the United States to be inaccurate based on our collective experiences.

In a March article published by the Chronicle of Philanthropy the "charitable purpose" of the Center for Consumer Freedom was questioned as "the pattern of payments to one individual and company might constitute a private benefit because the charity appears to be benefiting Mr. Berman and his lobbying firm rather than the public."

While the HSUS does not provide direct community service through local sheltering of animals, its charitable purpose has never been questioned. It has a long history of supporting the local animal welfare community through programs like Animal Care Expo, the Animal Services Consultation program, publishing Animal Sheltering magazine and the many training and educational programs offered to shelter employees through Humane Society University, in addition to its puppy mill and hoarding investigations and disaster response efforts that few local sheltering organizations could possibly underwrite individually.

The HSUS mission has always included a focus on large-scale animal cruelty and eliminating animal suffering. HSUS has always been transparent about that mission. While HSUS takes on many large issues, local humane organizations generally focus on companion animal issues but many share an interest in ending animal cruelty or neglect.

For anyone to begin to take CCF seriously you will need to disclose those companies which fund your lobby activities so informed consumers can draw their own conclusions as to credibility and the agenda you promote.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,272 Posts
So in fighting this we are partnering with those who create a lot of misery for dogs/animals....on the other hand I do agree with others that this can end up punishing responsible breeders.
See, the bolded part is what I am having a hard time understanding having actually read the proposed legislation.

The primary purpose of this legislation is to amend the Animal Welfare Act so that high volume breeders who sell puppies directly to the public (vs. through a pet store) become subject to the minimum standards of care and inspections as set forth in the Animal Welfare Act. There currently is no oversight on operations that sell exclusively via the Internet. It is a huge problem that many puppy millers are exploiting.

Excerpted from H.R.847 - Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act
(B) High volume retail breeder.--The term `high
volume retail breeder' means a person who, in commerce,
for compensation or profit--

  • (i) has an ownership interest in or custody of 1 or more breeding female dogs; and
  • (ii) sells or offers for sale, via any means of conveyance (including the Internet, telephone, or newspaper), more than 50 of the offspring of such breeding female dogs for use as pets in any 1-year period.

Keyword in this definition is AND... So, by my reading, if you do not sell 50 puppies in one year for use as pets you are not subject to this regulation. You can own as many intact females as you want without applying for a license or otherwise being subject to the regulation.

And, anyone who is selling 50 puppies for pets is operating a business that should be subject to oversight. Particularly since the business involves living beings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,662 Posts
Thank you for clarifying that.

While this sort of legislation worries me, I do appreciate seeing both sides of an issue!

I guess the two big questions are:

1) if they aren't going to fund enforcement why bother
2) bad breeders will get around this the way corporations do, establish separate kennels under different names and keep on pumping out puppies.

I think the best way to tackle inhumane breeding practices is to keep pushing information out to the public, try to decrease demand as much as possible through education. Usually public awareness is what changes the tide on problems such as this. It takes time and diligence though because ultimately it's about having a savvy and consistent marketing campaign.

See, the bolded part is what I am having a hard time understanding having actually read the proposed legislation.

The primary purpose of this legislation is to amend the Animal Welfare Act so that high volume breeders who sell puppies directly to the public (vs. through a pet store) become subject to the minimum standards of care and inspections as set forth in the Animal Welfare Act. There currently is no oversight on operations that sell exclusively via the Internet. It is a huge problem that many puppy millers are exploiting.

Excerpted from H.R.847 - Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act
(B) High volume retail breeder.--The term `high
volume retail breeder' means a person who, in commerce,
for compensation or profit--

  • (i) has an ownership interest in or custody of 1 or more breeding female dogs; and
  • (ii) sells or offers for sale, via any means of conveyance (including the Internet, telephone, or newspaper), more than 50 of the offspring of such breeding female dogs for use as pets in any 1-year period.
Keyword in this definition is AND... So, by my reading, if you do not sell 50 puppies in one year for use as pets you are not subject to this regulation. You can own as many intact females as you want without applying for a license or otherwise being subject to the regulation.

And, anyone who is selling 50 puppies for pets is operating a business that should be subject to oversight. Particularly since the business involves living beings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,272 Posts
Thank you for clarifying that.

While this sort of legislation worries me, I do appreciate seeing both sides of an issue!

I guess the two big questions are:

1) if they aren't going to fund enforcement why bother
2) bad breeders will get around this the way corporations do, establish separate kennels under different names and keep on pumping out puppies.

I think the best way to tackle inhumane breeding practices is to keep pushing information out to the public, try to decrease demand as much as possible through education. Usually public awareness is what changes the tide on problems such as this. It takes time and diligence though because ultimately it's about having a savvy and consistent marketing campaign.
Re: the parts I bolded in your post -

Yes, the enforcement is lax and should be improved. But, the law still does serve a purpose.

By mandating inspections, at least there is access to observe and document conditions. Indeed, before the AWA, it was much more difficult for States to enforce their own animal cruelty laws because puppy mill operations often occur behind closed doors on private property – they could not gather any evidence.

There is a long way to go in terms of enforcement, but, a 2010 USDA Audit (see link at bottom of post)* has started to effect positive change that touches on the above point as well as on the issue of “Awareness”.

Below excerpts from document titled, APHIS’ Enhanced Animal Welfare Act Enforcement Plan(USDA - APHIS - Missing Page - Error 404

Action: “AC will develop formal procedures for referring alleged violations to State or local officials that have felony laws for animal cruelty.”

Status: Completed
Comments: Standard Operating Procedures are in place as of July 2010.”


Action: Publicize violations of the AWA. This action will provide a greater deterrent to violating the AWA.

APHIS will begin issuing monthly press releases announcing enforcement actions taken to address violations of the Animal Welfare and Horse Protection Acts.

Status: Completed
Comments: First press release issued in June 2010. Subsequent releases are issued monthly.

*If you want a hair-raising read, you should check out the USDA Audit of its puppy mill inspections
www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/33002-4-SF.pdf
WARNING: Graphic images
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,017 Posts
LifeofRiley, there is nothing you can post or say that will change my impression of HSUS. HSUS continued to send out flyers depicting starving dogs and the dog of Katrina, long after they stopped spending any money on the Katrina dogs, and they target elderly people with propaganda suggesting the money sent will go to dogs in need, when in fact the money sent goes to their salaries, and all the lawyers and lobbyists they employ, and the advertising through mass mailing and television ads.

It is scandelous, and yes their charitable mission HAS BEEN questioned. In fact there is more purpose in them allowing puppy mills to exist than to stop them. Without the horrific stories of starving dogs, no one would give them money, and a multi-million dollar venture, where literally a percentage or two actually goes to animals, will go kaput.

And that is why this legislation WILL NOT stop puppy mills or BYBs. It won't. It won't stop dogs from landing in shelters because if that happened, HSUS would go defunct and they do not want that.

When you realise that shelters are importing puppies from Puerto Rico and Mexico because we have a puppy-shortage in locations here, you will see that no one is really trying to stop the pet over-population problem here.

HSUS is a huge business that uses celebrities like Michael Vick and others to encourage people to give, give, give, give, give to them. They take that money and distribute it to themselves and various political causes, lawyers and lobbyists.

They call themselves not for profit, and get away with an awful lot, and nobody who matters is challenging that status. Why? They are huge, and they are slimey. They smell worse than the puppy millers -- at least you know who they are, you know they are trying to make a buck for themselves, like the vast majority of the population, only they make it using animals, and often times the animals suffer from it. They (the ones that cut all the corners and leave animals in horrible conditions) are scumballs, but so are the people associated with HSUS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,272 Posts
So, let me see if I understand this, the HSUS is either an “extremist animal rights” group intent on taking everyone’s dogs from them, OR money grubbing evildoers in cahoots with puppy millers to profit off of animal suffering.

Why don’t you guys huddle and get back to me with which one it is.

But, in all seriousness, if you really want to check out how HSUS spends its money, go to this link:
Humane Society of the United States - Charity Reports - Give.org

If you actually read the HSUS mission, you will find that the way the budget is allocated is in alignment with that mission. Advocacy is a huge part of any national charity. So, I really don’t understand the problem people seem to have with that. If you don’t like it, don’t give them money. Simple.

You know, everyone on this board talks about the importance of education and awareness. Yet, when organizations like the HSUS and ASPCA seek to do just that – and become targets of industry-backed smear campaigns – you buy into the conspiracy theorist pov. I don’t get it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,017 Posts
So, let me see if I understand this, the HSUS is either an “extremist animal rights” group intent on taking everyone’s dogs from them, OR money grubbing evildoers in cahoots with puppy millers to profit off of animal suffering.

Why don’t you guys huddle and get back to me with which one it is.

But, in all seriousness, if you really want to check out how HSUS spends its money, go to this link:
Humane Society of the United States - Charity Reports - Give.org

If you actually read the HSUS mission, you will find that the way the budget is allocated is in alignment with that mission. Advocacy is a huge part of any national charity. So, I really don’t understand the problem people seem to have with that. If you don’t like it, don’t give them money. Simple.

You know, everyone on this board talks about the importance of education and awareness. Yet, when organizations like the HSUS and ASPCA seek to do just that – and become targets of industry-backed smear campaigns – you buy into the conspiracy theorist pov. I don’t get it.
They are kind of both. They are a group that wants to legislate how you can own your dog. They want to drive hobbyists out of business and the higher kennels, to increase their prices so much that average people will not be able to own such a dog.

But they depend on puppy mills. If they wanted to stop puppy mills, they would write laws to stop the selling of puppies in pet stores, and to stop internet sales of puppies. If people had to visit the kennel to pick up a puppy, then the people would make complaints and not buy if the conditions are terrible. Easy.

But that is NOT what they want. They are making a living off of the suffering of dogs. Pure and simple. If the suffering stops, then they are out of business and hit the unemployment lines. Good riddance. But they are not attempting to stop puppy mills. Oh, they are adding this and that to the bills to make the puppy millers turn around a couple times and figure out ways to get around the laws.

They are not in with the millers. The millers hate them and they hate the millers, but at least the millers look like the slimeballs they are. HSUS is just as much of slimeballs but they wear suits, and they live off of the suffering of animals.

Look at it closely, the CEO makes a quarter of a million dollars each year. Not for profit. Baloney. And the program costs, incorporates paying lobbyists and lawyers. Where would the 121 million dollars come from if there were no puppy mill pictures to shower people with, and to put on the TV. They need the puppy mills, so they are not trying to get rid of them. Not really.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3848
 
1 - 20 of 79 Posts
Top