Protect Your Rights - The Truth About Canine Legislation :: sponsored by RavenWyn Shelties

PETA Acknowledges That It Euthanized 95% Of Their Shelter Animals At Its Headquarters Last Year

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 2 Mar 2012 09:21:00 -0800

PETA says 'exploiters' raise euthanasia issue

by Janice Loyd, USA Today

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals acknowledged Wednesday that it did euthanize 95% of the animals at a shelter at its headquarters last year. But it defended the practice and said accusations that "PETA kills animals" are being made by a group representing "animal exploiters who kill millions of animals every year."
The Center for Consumer Freedom says PETA killed 1,965 of 2,050 animals in 2011.

A group called the Center for Consumer Freedom created a website, Petakillsanimals.com, which says PETA euthanized 1,965 of 2,050 animals in 2011. The center is supported by restaurants and food companies.

PETA, an animal rights organization based in Norfolk, Va., pitches hard-line campaigns to see that animals are not used for food, clothing, entertainment or experiments. PETA also encourages people to adopt pets from shelters, and it stormed the Westminster Dog Show last year to oppose people who own purebred dogs.

A statement on the center's website from Rick Berman, its executive director and a Washington lobbyist, says, "It appears PETA is more concerned with funding its media and advertising antics than finding suitable homes for these dogs and cats."

PETA spokeswoman Jane Dollinger said in an e-mail to USA TODAY Wednesday that the center raises the same question every year.

But the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services has noticed. The killings took place at PETA's shelter in Norfolk, Va., and were not unique to last year.

According to reports PETA filed to the state, PETA has euthanized more than 27,000 animals in the past 15 years.

At one point several years ago, the state considered changing PETA's status from a shelter to a euthanasia clinic, says Elaine Lidholm, the agency's communications director.

"We have a small division that does hands-on work with animals, and most of the animals we take in are society's rejects — aggressive, on death's door, or somehow unadoptable," Dollinger said.

Lidholm says most shelters euthanize about 50% of animals but added that "PETA will basically take anything that comes through the door, and other shelters won't do that."

Virginia shelters are required to file annual reports to the state. PETA did find adoptions last year for 24 animals — five cats and 19 dogs — and transferred 34 animals to other facilities. [READ FULL STORY]

Link to Virginia Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services

PETA 2011 Online Animal Reporting

IOWA: Do You Own Four or more Intact Dogs or Cats? Two Bills could put you in violation!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:38:00 -0800

Two bills are pending in the Iowa Senate that would impose detrimental requirements on those who are classified as "commercial breeders". In current law, a "commercial breeder" is defined as anyone who owns at least four intact dogs or cats and receives any consideration for breeding.
These bills would significantly restrict the ability of those who meet this definition to continue to own and breed dogs. Responsible dog owners who reside or participate in dog events in Iowa are urged to ask Iowa Senators to oppose both Senate File 2073 and Senate Study Bill 3159.

Background:
Iowa Code defines a "commercial breeder" as someone who sells, exchanges, or leases dogs (or even offers to do so) in return for consideration. While those who keep dogs or cats for "hunting, for practice training, for exhibition at shows or field or obedience trials" are exempted, if anyone has four or more intact dogs and receives any kind of consideration for breeding, they are considered a commercial breeder and must be licensed, inspected, and comply with commercial breeder laws. This would include offering a stud dog and receiving any compensation or "consideration" from the resulting litter. The term "consideration" is not defined. [READ MORE]

Maryland Committee to Consider Guardianship Bill on March 1

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:11:00 -0800

On March 1, a Maryland House committee will consider House Bill 912, which seeks to change the word “owner” to “guardian” in numerous places within state code. This would likely result in a dramatic restriction in the rights of owners and veterinarians to protect and care for dogs.
Responsible dog owners who reside or participate in dog events in Maryland are strongly urged to contact the members of the House Environmental Matters Committee prior to the March 1 hearing and respectfully ask the committee members to oppose House Bill 912.

Talking Points:
The AKC believes that using the term “guardian” rather than “owner” may actually reduce the legal status and value of dogs as property. As a result, no one may be legally bound to take responsibility for the dog or properly care for it. [READ MORE]

Oregonian Commentary, Barking Up The Wrong Tree?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 5 Apr 2009 11:55:00 -0700

It was amusing to see a portion of my last post included in the Oregonian's "The Stump". The article, "Breeders Howling at Oregon AKC Judge", is a corybantic and uneducated attempt to deflect the purebred dog community's disgust over AKC Judge Ted Paul's support of Oregon House Bill 2470.

The article fails to note all elements of HB 2470, as well as why the purebred dog community is outraged over Mr. Paul's support of this bill and the HSUS. The article seems another furious attempt by the ignorant who are too lazy to dig deeper into what this bill truly imposes. What ever happened to good reporting where they plunged into the guts of an issue? Guess I just expect too much from my local newspaper and those who boast about a Pulitzer in editorial writing.
Not only did the article stir up some debate, but it increased my search engine rankings. Now those looking to educate themselves on HB 2470, will be able to find my blog that much easier. Thank you Oregonian! Below are a few of the many comments that were discussed:

... "the author should do his homework"...

..."Perhaps it is more that when Mr. Paul uses those credentials it appears that he is speaking for those groups... He has every right to voice his opinion, he does NOT have the right to voice one for other dog owners. Nor does he have the right to even insinuate that he is speaking for others. And that is what he was doing. Oregon has excellent anti-cruelty laws in place. I would whole-heartedly support tougher punishments for the existing laws. We do not need new laws, we need enforcement of the current laws."...

..."These bills are the first step to the long-term goal of no animals in the home or on the farm. The dedicated animal people are trying to protect the animals from HSUS. It stuns the dog community that one of their own would turn their backs on the animals they love."...

To read more of the heated comments that were propelled by this article, be sure to visit the Oregonian website.

In closing, I find nothing more offensive than a professional who abuses a media platform to try and sway governing bodies from listening to all people. (Especially those who vote.) "If I were an Oregon legislator, I would be inclined to tell them to take a hike." Tisk, Tisk Mr. B., not very professional at all...

AKC Breeder / Judge Betrays Peers

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 1 Apr 2009 15:24:00 -0700

Even if you are following Oregon Legislation on HB 2470, I'm sure it still felt like a slap in the face when you heard about Collie Breeder / AKC Judge Ted Paul's support of this bill, as well the HSUS. Not only is it disheartening to hear that AKC Judge Ted Paul is assisting the HSUS with their anti-canine ownership dictates, but he has also bequeathed his entire estate to them. Wow! I thought it was bad enough that he was supporting the HSUS verbally, but financially as well?! What is wrong with this picture?

Ted Paul proudly throws his AKC title around, and all at the same time shaking hands with HSUS. How is this right? Hey... Mr. Paul... How can you accept money from kennel clubs for your judging assignments and retain your membership with the Collie Club of America, then turn around and support the HSUS which would love to do nothing more than place your breed into extinction? Why not bequeath your estate to Collie rescue, Collie Disease Research, or the AKC Humane Fund? I could think of many more areas that truly has your breed's best interest.

Are you angered by learning this information? Do you think AKC should revoke Ted Paul's Judging status? Do you think the Collie Club of America should disown him? I do! Why not join me in telling them ALL what you think! If you received a win from Ted Paul, why not send the ribbon back to him with a letter?

Ted Paul (as per the AKC judge directory):
Mr. Theodore Paul
4742 Liberty Rd. S , PMB 110
Salem, OR 97302-5037

AKC Correspondence:
Judging Operations: Conformation Judges
PO Box 900062
Raleigh, NC 27675-9062

Collie Club of America Correspondence (As per the CCA site):
Bob Futh, President
47 Kielwasser Road
Washington Depot, CT 06794

Read More About Ted Paul at:

Traitor!

Dog Show Judge Owes Breeder Apology

By the Way... Ted Paul is the author and publisher (Beautiful America Publishing Company) of the book "The Christmas Collie". Well, now you know where the book profits are going.... HSUS!

Oregon Imports Stray Dogs from Abroad to Fill Shelters!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:52:00 -0700

At a time when Animal Rights Activists are screaming about shelter overcrowding and pet overpopulation, doesn’t it seem wrong that Oregon animal shelters are actually importing dogs from other countries to be placed in the Portland-metro area? I think so!

Back in January 2008, the Oregonian posted an article about an Animal Shelter “The Pixie Project” importing animals from Beruit to fill the needs of Oregon Animal adoption requests. Well folks… they’ve done it again! A more recent article from March 2, 2009 can be found online titled “Abused Dogs Brought in From other Countries to find homes here“. Although heartwarming from an animal-lover’s standpoint, this is extremely disturbing! What’s even more disturbing is that The Pixie Project has now been joined by other animal shelters. Hmm… doesn’t sound like we have the overpopulation problems that the HSUS and PETA have led us to believe!

The common practice of importing dogs from other countries to fill Animal Shelter demands is not only happening in Oregon, but in states all over the U.S. This has got to stop people! Groups such as PETA and HSUS are screaming foul as far as pet overpopulation is concerned! We ask fellow purebred dog-lovers to DO YOUR HOMEWORK! Don’t believe everything you read. Look past those sad and disturbing propaganda photos and dig deep to uncover the truth about animal rights! It’s time to put your sleuth skills to test and let us know what you find!

In case you weren’t aware, the HSUS (Humane Society), PETA, and other Animal Activist groups are trying to pass laws that will ultimately cause the extinction of the adorable purebred dog breeds that you have come to love. Thats right! No more Lassies, Old Yellers, or Beethovens! You can also kiss those precious 101 Dalmations good-bye! [Read More]

Oregonians Say NO to HB 2470!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:47:00 -0700

HB 2470 is unfair to purebred dog enthusiasts and hobby breeders with its ludicrous housing restrictions, arbitrary number limitations, and extreme imprisonment penalties.

In addition, HB 2470 unreasonably enforces purebred dog breeders to guarantee dogs that they place from hereditary diseases such as Diabetes and Thyroiditis. I, for one, would be unable to guarantee that my own children will not develop such diseases in the future. Why place such illogical conditions on dog breeders? HB 2470 wrongly holds dog breeders liable for diseases that are simply not in any earthly being’s control.

HB 2470 does not hold everyone accountable. HB 2470 mandates absurd daily exercise regimes and places rediculous enclosure limitations on the average dog enthusiast, yet excludes animal shelters and pet shops from adhering to such requirements. It must be apparent to them that these fanatical dictates are impossible to abide by.

HB 2470 is a waste of our judicial system’s time and Oregonians’ hard earned tax dollars. Oregon already has strong animal cruelty laws in place, making HB 2470 unnecessary. At a time when our state has the burden of high unemployment rates with numerous Oregonians losing their homes daily, HB 2470 is tampering with our legislative branch’s current priorities. Shouldn’t our costly time be troubled with more urgent matters concerning Oregon’s financial stability?

HB 2470 is an ill-conceived plan that will ultimately violate Oregonians’ privacy without truly being advantageous to dogs or consumers.

[Read HB 2470] [Join the Fight!]