Improving the life of dogs EVERYWHERE

Advocacy Information

The Bulldog Club of America supports providing relevant Advocacy Information.

The National Animal Interest Alliance -NAIA -supports responsible pet ownership. Maintaining close contact with dogs, cats, birds, fish, and other pets provides psychological and medical benefits to people at a time in human history when few people would otherwise have the opportunity to interact with animals. Pets also provide a connection to man's broader association with animals by opening the door to understanding the depth and breadth of that relationship.

Please read our Position Statements. The Standard, Bulldog Health, Public Policy, Bulldog Care and Bulldog Ownership. If you have comments or questions, please let us know using the form below.

Legislative Reports

The following is an excerpt from an article by Patti Strand, NAIA President, “What is Animal Welfare and why is it important?- The difference between Animal Rights & Animal Welfare.”

For the complete article and to learn more about the NAIA, please go to www.naiaonline.org

Many animal welfare proponents call themselves animal rights advocates because that term seems to represent what they believe, but animal welfare and animal rights are based in entirely different beliefs and use different tactics to achieve their goals. Unlike animal welfare principles, which inherently support the humane and respon- sible use of animals, animal rights tenets oppose all use of animals no matter how humane, or how responsible. PETA’s motto articulates the animal rights position very well, and demonstrates that in this belief system, animal use and animal abuse are synonymous: “Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way.”

Animal rights campaigns use animal welfare issues to promote their agenda

Although packaged for maximum appeal, animal rights beliefs conflict with the views of at least 94% of Americans, the number who eat meat. And an additional portion, omnivores and vegetarians alike, benefit from medical advances, go to circuses and zoos, keep pets, hunt or fish, ride horses or otherwise use animals. Americans are generally unaware of the true animal rights agenda. And that makes sense: Although animal rights leaders state their positions clearly when speaking to their followers, many of them hide their true beliefs under a mantle of animal welfare rhetoric when speaking to the public, misleading their audiences about their true agenda. Animal rights campaigns frequently use strategic deceptions against animal owners and businesses. Many people who view themselves as animal rights advocates are simply people who love animals and want to do something to improve their lives. They are unaware of radical path charted by the animal rights leadership.

For the animal rights movement, the ends justify the means

It is also important to recognize that the animal rights movement is the only social movement in the US with a history of working with underground criminals, which the FBI has named single issue terror- ists. Notably, many in the animal rights leadership do not condemn violence when it is committed in the name of their cause, a hallmark of unethical and radical movements. Many animal rights groups do little more than exploit animal welfare problems for their own fun- draising purposes. Sometimes the fundraising campaign amounts to no more than raising concerns about an industry or pastime that uti- lizes animals, labeling them as cruel in order to position themselves on the high moral ground and raise money. The ASPCA and HSUS recently paid $9.3 million and $15.75 million respectively to the company that owns Ringling Bros circus to settle, among other things, a Racketeering Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) lawsuit in which they were defendants because they (or their affiliates) improperly paid someone to be a witness against the company with testimony that was not found to be credible.

Another area of disagreement between animal welfare and animal rights proponents is over the legal status of animals. Animal welfare advocates call for animal protection laws. Animal rights supporters push for legal rights for animals, something that requires a change in the legal status of animals and mandates a new class of government administrators to make decisions on behalf of animals. Fundamentally, the animal rights approach to animals is less about improving their care than it is about politics. It’s about power. Specifically it’s about who decides how animals will be treated including whether they should remain in private ownership at all, or be placed in sanctuaries created to provide animals refuge from human ownership and use. Animal rights ideology works to separate people from animals and if achieved would sever the human-animal bond.

The ethical framework that supports animal welfare principles springs from the Western ethical tradition, one that embraces tolerance for diversity and minority views and uses knowledge and education rather than coercion to advance its objectives. The willingness of the animal rights leadership to misrepresent their beliefs and motives and to work with illegal factions indicates that their views arise from different roots.

Animal Welfare - The middle ground between two extremes

Aristotle’s Golden Mean

The great philosopher Aristotle espoused an ideal he termed the “golden mean” the desirable middle between two extremes, one of excess and the other of deficiency. His ethical framework is outlined in this chart. Though sometimes difficult to achieve, these are the principles that mainstream animal welfare organizations like the National Animal Interest Alliance strive to achieve, making steady progress without compromising other important values like honesty, integrity, lawful conduct and love for our fellow man. Here is an explanatory poster which provides an Overview of Animal Related Philosophies & Organizations that may enable you to visualize the interplay between these concepts and competing values.

I want to thank Patti Strand the National Director of the National Animal Interest Alliance for letting us publish the following article. If you would like to see more articles or information regarding Pet Legislation go to www.naiaonline.org.

Animal Rights, Animal Welfare: Which is it?

By Patti Strand

Throughout the first half of the 20th Century, animal owners improved standards of care for their livestock, lab animals, and pets, tossing out harsh, ineffective, and inefficient methods and embracing a kinder, gentler stewardship of animals. Some people talked about the "rights" of animals to food, water, shelter, and care, but the emphasis was on improving the lives of animals utilized by people, not on eliminating human use altogether.

However, by the late 1960s, the term animal rights had taken on new meaning. Giving rights to animals had become a social and political cause, a moral imperative, which demanded that society adopt a new ethic for human/animal relationships. This new philosophy opposed all use of animals, no matter how humane, no matter how responsible, no matter how much benefit was lost to humanity and other animals from such avoidance.

Today, despite the public's rejection of animal rights as demonstrated by their own continued use of animals, animal rights philosophy is a dominant factor in popular culture. This disconnect is caused because many people, even people who label themselves as animal rights supporters, don't understand the true beliefs and goals of the animal rights movement.

To bring this topic into clearer focus, NAIA offers this quick tour of the differences between animal rights and animal welfare, two distinct philosophies.

Animal welfare celebrates the bond between animals and humans; animal rights wants to sever that bond.

"It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership." -Elliot Katz, President, In Defense of Animals, "In Defense of Animals," Spring 1997

Animal welfare grows and improves as we learn more and more about animals, their behavior, and their management. Animal rights remains stagnant with its dogma of "no more animal use ever."

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it." - John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), 1982), p. 15.

Animal welfare is inclusive; its belief in stewardship of species and individual animals embraces a human connection to the Earth through interaction with animals. Animal rights is divisive; by separating the destiny of man from the destiny of animals, the movement shows it cares nothing for the Earth.

"...the animal rights movement is not concerned about species extinction. An elephant is no more or less important than a cow, just as a dolphin is no more important than a tuna...In fact, many animal rights advocates would argue that it is better for the chimpanzee to become extinct than to be exploited continually in laboratories, zoos and circuses." (Barbara Biel, The Animals' Agenda, Vol 15 #3.)

Animal welfare makes room for a broad spectrum of animal relationships that include raising and using animals for food, fiber, labor, and medical and behavioral research; managing animal populations by hunting; keeping animals in zoos and other educational venues; and enjoying animal sports and animals in movies, circuses, and on stage.

Animal rights opposes all traditional relationships with animals, from eating meat and wearing leather and wool to biomedical research, pet ownership, dog and cat breeding, circuses, zoos, hunting, trapping, ranching, fishing, and learning about animals by hands-on experience.

"If the death of one rat cured all diseases, it wouldn't make any difference to me." -Chris DeRose, director, Last Chance for Animals, as quoted in Elizabeth Venant and David Treadwell, "Biting Back," Los Angeles Times, April 12, 1990, p. E12.

"My dream is that people will come to view eating an animal as cannibalism." - Henry Spira, director, Animal Rights International, as quoted in Barnaby J. Feder, "Pressuring Purdue," New York Times Magazine, November 26, 1989, p. 192.

"Founded in 1980, PETA operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." - PeTA's website, August 2000

Animal welfare requires humane treatment of animals on farms and ranches, in circuses and rodeos, and in homes, kennels, catteries, laboratories, and wherever else animals are kept. Animal welfare endorses a quick death when death is inevitable and a scientific approach to commercial use and management of wild populations.

Animal rights works for the day when we will have no interactions with animals but will view them from afar.

"I don't approve of the use of animals for any purpose that involves touching them - caging them" - Dr. Neal Barnard, Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine

"We don't want cleaner cages, we want empty cages." - Tom Regan, animal rights leader

In short, animal welfare works to enrich and celebrate human/animal interactions in an atmosphere of concern for animal well-being; animal rights yearns for the day when human life will be impoverished because we can no longer enjoy the company of non-human animals.

Protect Your Rights!

The BCA Legislative Committee encourages each BCA member club to have an AKC & BCA Legislative Liaison. Once your Club has selected your Legislative Liaison please email their contact information to wardmcafee@yahoo.com

Thanks! Ward McAfee, BCA Legislative Committee Chairman

Who are Legislative Liaisons?

Legislative Liaisons are dog club members who follow local and state level dog policy issues and provide an important communications link between their clubs and the AKC Government Relations Department.

Does our club need a Legislative Liaison?

Yes! Every AKC club benefits from having a legislative contact. Legislative Liaisons help

the AKC, dog clubs, and individual purebred fanciers work together to efficiently and effectively

address legislative issues.

How does AKC’s Government Relations Department help?

  • Free information packets, position statements, sample legislation, and brochures created and distributed by the department help keep Legislative Liaisons informed.
  • Taking Command e-newsletter and email updates keep Legislative Liaisons up-to-date on canine legislative issues occurring around the country.
  • Legislative Alerts, brochures, and other vital information are posted on AKC’s web site (www.akc.org) regularly.
  • Assistance contacting other liaisons and federations of dog clubs that will share their experiences in different areas of canine legislation.-

What do Legislative Liaisons do?

Legislative Liaisons help their clubs influence local, state, and federal legislative issues affecting purebred dogs and their owners. Their responsibilities include:

  • Monitoring their local news and staying aware of issues which may impact our sport.
  • Alerting the AKC to pending legislative issues in their communities or states.
  • Presenting the views and interests of the purebred dog fancy to lawmakers, other citizens, and

news media.

  • Receiving materials, updates, and advice from the AKC Government Relations Department

and distributing information to fellow club members.

  • Organizing and motivating club members to become active in the legislative process, and encouraging

other interested fanciers to help advance legislation that will benefit purebred dog owners and breeders.

  • Sharing their clubs’ experiences and expertise with government officials, members of the community,

and other interested fanciers.

  • Preparing their clubs for action should a legislative initiative arise that requires input from purebred

dog owners and breeders.

How can I become a Legislative Liaison?

Check to see if your club has a liaison or legislative committee. If so, volunteer to assist the involved members. If not:

  • Volunteer. Explain to your club officers what this position means, and ask that the club either elect or appoint a liaison.
  • Let the AKC know. Have a club officer send a note on club stationary with the new liaison’s name, address, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address to the address below.

Questions? Contact AKC Government Relations for more information.

 AKC Government Relations Department

8051 Arco Corporate Drive, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27617-3390

Phone (919) 816-3720 ● E-mail doglaw@akc.org

I would like to thank Dave Duquette of “Protect the Harvest” for the permission to publish this article in The Bulldogger. For more information about “Protect the Harvest” go to their website at protecttheharvest.com – Ward L. McAfee

 California AB 485- Bad News for Pet Ownership

On October 13, 2017 AB 485 was signed by the Governor of California. The bill forces pet stores to only sell dogs, cats and rabbits from rescues and shelters.  It will make it illegal for pet stores to sell animals from licensed and regulated breeders.   This is not good news.  California AB 485 essentially takes choices away from pet owners.  They will no longer have the ability to visit a pet store and select a pet for specific traits that best suits their lifestyle.

Unlike USDA licensed breeders, shelters and rescues are not regulated.  There is no animal welfare oversight.  The only requirement, should they choose to claim non-profit status, is to file a 501c3 with the IRS and submit yearly tax information via the IRS Form 990.   By restricting pet stores to only selling animals from shelters and rescues, Californians will not have the consumer retail protections and guarantees as they once had when purchasing purebred pets from pet stores.

Cookie-cutter agenda

This is a cookie-cutter agenda pushed by animal rights extremist groups (and not just in California, this is being pushed in other states too).    It is another way extremists are attacking ethical breeders, pet stores and pet owners in their quest to end animal ownership.  Their campaigns start with inflammatory and untruthful allegations about unethical breeders selling to pet stores.  They are essentially name calling and slurring everyone who owns, breeds, shows or sells a purebred pet.  Their claims are ridiculous because California pet stores have strict regulations about where they source purebred pets.   Meanwhile, shelters and rescues have no regulations or oversight.

Proponents of California AB 485 have also made unsubstantiated and incorrect claims about animal population issues.   Meanwhile, they are convincing the public that selling “rescue pets” in pet stores and making it illegal to sell pets obtained from breeders is the answer to their claims.  Stripping away the rights of consumers will not reduce the number of California pets that need homes when thousands and thousands of “rescue” dogs are imported from out of state and foreign countries.

Big business

Unfortunately, “rescuing” animals has become a big business.  It provides animal rights extremist organizations like the Humane Society of the United States with dramatic media content for their unethical fundraising campaigns.   Then there are groups that “rescue” animals and turn around and sell them to “adopters” at high prices.  There’s a name for this recent business trend, “retail rescue”, and it generates a huge income for unscrupulous groups that are in it solely for profit.  A recent study of Southern California rescues and shelters shows some alarming data:

643 rescue and shelter groups in Southern California were reviewed.

Non-reporting, non-registered, delinquent or suspended groups reduced that number to 486.

296 organizations showed annual income on their IRS 990 forms over $50,000, for a total of $251,807,644. That number is not a typo.  Keep in mind these figures apply to Southern California alone and that number is just a total from the groups that actually filed tax returns.

These big numbers bring up concerns about animal welfare since there is no oversight and there does not seem to be a plan or budget to implement a program that protects the consumer or the animals that are in the “retail rescue” pipeline.

Don’t get us wrong, we are not against helping animals in need, or supporting local shelters that are helping animals in our communities.  However, we are against stripping away the rights of pet owners and eliminating their choices.  We are also against destroying the livelihoods of ethical, law abiding breeders and pet store owners because some legislators have been sold a boat-load of untruths and propaganda.   There is no logic in making it illegal for pet stores to sell pets that come from licensed and regulated breeders and then in turn, opening up a pipeline for an unregulated industry.  What’s worse is that this is happening in order to solve a problem that doesn’t even exist in the first place.

Contact information

If you are a California resident concerned about CA AB 485, here’s a link to information to contact your state representative:  http://assembly.ca.gov/assemblymembers

If you would like to learn more:

CBSLA News Story about “pet rescues” that are not legal non-profits: http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2017/04/28/non-profit-pet-rescues-not-charities/

CBSLA News Story about a fake rescue in California:  http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2017/03/22/rehabbed-puppies-from-fake-oc-rescue-go-up-for-adoption/

Alert posted by County of Los Angeles Veterinary Public Health about Canine Influenza outbreak traced to imported dogs: http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/vet/InfluenzaCanineH3N2.htm

Article in Veterinary Information Network about the Asian strain of Canine Influenza: http://news.vin.com/vinnews.aspx?articleId=36524

Article by NPR about importing dogs: http://www.npr.org/2015/01/01/374257591/with-rescue-dogs-in-demand-more-shelters-look-far-afield-for-fido

Article in Joe for America by The Cavalry Group about dogs being imported to America: http://joeforamerica.com/2016/03/rescues-push-foreign-disease-ridden-dogs/

Link to NAIA Shelter Project for information about real shelter population numbers:  http://shelterproject.naiaonline.org/shelter_data/states/5

Link to an article about the income data: http://allcitydogs.com/index.php/devotions/item/132-california-assembly-bill-485-and-reasons-why-it-should-not-be-considered-at-this-time

Article by Nancy Halpern, DVM about CA AB 485: https://animallaw.foxrothschild.com/2017/04/03/pet-store-owners-will-be-criminals-if-californias-ab485-becomes-law/

Thank you to Mrs. Strand for allowing me to reprint this article for the Bulldogger. If you would like more information on the NAIA go to naiaonline.org

Ward

Dogs Entering Shelters at an All Time Low!

By Patti Strand

The number of dogs entering US shelters has reached an all-time low, and the number of purebred dogs found in shelters has dropped to about 5%, according to a study just released by the National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA).

NAIA President Patti Strand said the study shows "tremendous progress" in eradicating dog overpopulation and substantially reducing the number of shelter deaths which occurred in the past due to indiscriminate or accidental breeding. Strand credited animal sheltering groups and national dog organizations like the American Kennel Club (AKC) for launching ongoing campaigns encouraging pet owners to select their pets more carefully, neuter dogs not intended for breeding programs, and understand the lifelong commitment that responsible dog ownership requires. She also commended the AKC breed rescue groups that work directly with shelters to save purebred dogs suitable for adoption. "As a result of these efforts, 83 percent of household dogs are neutered, and tens of thousands carry microchips or tattoos that help shelters return lost pets to their owners," Strand said. “The NAIA study results are very encouraging,” said Sheila Goffe, Director of Government Relations for the American Kennel Club. “It is the most extensive survey on this subject to date and it shows that dogs identified as purebreds are rare in American shelters today, an outcome that responsible breeders, rescuers and AKC have worked decades to achieve. We are gratified that AKC programs were able to contribute to this result and we are committed to continuing these programs to further reduce the need for shelters and rescues – not just for purebreds, but for all dogs.” The study also identified several weaknesses in the U.S. animal protection movement, including the lack of transparency among non-profit shelters and inadequate or non-existent shelter regulation and oversight. Strand said transparency and regulatory oversight have become more important as nonprofit pet shelters have increased their share of the pet dog market. The increased demand for shelter dogs, combined with the dwindling supply from local sources, has led to unprecedented levels of dog relocation and importation. "Today's shelters include everything from traditional facilities helping local animals to new, retail-style models that meet customer demand by importing dogs from other states, offshore territories and even foreign countries," she said. "Very few people realize the scope of these rescue/shelter import programs." According to the Centers for Disease Control, 4 Northeastern states recently received more than 30 rescue dogs and cats from Egypt for adoption in the U.S., including one dog with rabies. “Importing dogs that may be infected with rabies, other zoonotic and/or infectious diseases puts American citizens and animals at risk of illness or death and should not be allowed,” Strand says. Connecticut veterinarian and NAIA Board member Dr. Arnold Goldman, counsels that “even though relocating pets may feel good in the short run, it is a false, potentially dangerous and ultimately ineffective practice that does nothing to solve the problem of surplus dogs at the source. Improving animal wellbeing and solving animal welfare problems such as homeless animals must be addressed at the place where animals first interact with people, by the development of targeted programs in their cities, counties and states of origin.” National animal rights groups, including the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), are taking notice of the looming puppy dog shortage in many parts of the country. At the same time, many animal rights groups are aggressively promoting state and local laws aimed at eliminating, rather than improving American breeders. Strand said such proposals do not distinguish between the majority of responsible dog breeders and the small fraction of substandard breeders who become the focus of animal rights fundraising campaigns. "These extreme animal rights groups have become so ideological and irrational that they would rather risk importing rabid dogs from Asia and Africa than support humane, responsible breeding in the U.S. so consumers can purchase the dog of their choice from a responsible and in many cases regulated American breeder," Strand said. If animal rights groups are successful in driving responsible dog breeders out of business, Strand fears that nonprofit shelters will turn increasingly to sources in China, India, Egypt, Iraq and Puerto Rico, all locales that have exported rabid rescue dogs into the U.S. To address these issues, the NAIA is seeking changes in federal and state laws to: Prohibit the importation of rescue dogs from foreign countries immediately. Impose the same oversight requirements on animal rescues and shelters as those imposed on other animal dealers Require animal shelters to report the source and number of the dogs they take in and the disposition of those dogs "Without these regulations, American consumers will have absolutely no way of knowing where their dogs came from, how they were bred and raised, and whether the shelter they've patronized is following responsible animal care practices. The pet dog market will be a virtual Wild West of unlicensed, unregulated shelters operating without rules, standards or accountability," Strand warned.

See more at: http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/article/naia-study-confirms-fewer-dogs-scarce-purebreds-in-us-animal-shelters#sthash.ixCQ80dQ.dpuf

By: Patti Strand  Date: 09/5/2017 Category: | Animal Legislation |

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding," Justice Louis Brandeis opined during his dissent of Olmstead v. United States, offering his opposition to government overreach and its impact on modern society.

The California State Legislature, seemingly with a well-meaning, but uninformed prejudice against legally operating business owners, are stomping on the Justice's grave as they march toward passing a bill which would ban pet stores from selling puppies bred by inspected and licensed breeders and forcing them to sell dogs with unknown backgrounds, temperament and health histories.

California State Senators will soon consider AB 485, which supporters would have you believe is "a life-saving bill to mandate adoptions of rescue and shelter dogs, cats, and rabbits offered in pet shops." However, swapping a regulated source of dogs for unregulated dogs to improve "dog welfare" makes no sense. Unregulated rescue and shelter dogs are routinely procured and trafficked from dangerous, inhumane and unregulated places, including foreign countries where veterinary care is nonexistent and zoonotic diseases are epidemic. Many of these imported rescue dogs carry contagious diseases like Korean flu, rabies, and TB as well as a host of dreaded parasites – which have already sickened California dogs, and are destined to harm their owners.

whitehouse

I am sure that some time while watching the television you have seen the commercials that depict the awful conditions that dogs, cats or farm  animals are sometimes kept in and the abuse that they are being subjected to. Sure you want to help these animals, YOU LOVE ANIMALS! Remember that everything we see on television is not true.

You need to educate yourself on the organization that says it is going to help those mistreated animals. I have helped educate some BCA members who thought by writing a check  for $19.00 a month to one  of these organizations, like the HSUS, they were helping to fight this abuse. When in reality they were fattening the retirement accounts of HSUS staff and feeding their lobbyist accounts that are fighting to take your rights away from you as an owner, breeder and exhibitor! Don’t get caught in these organizations web of deception!!

PLEASE again if you want to HELP donate to local Rescue organizations and or your local shelter. The following by the NAIA helps strengthen my statement. If you would like to learn more about the NAIA please check out their  website www.naiaonline.org

Ward  McAfee  BCA Legislative Committee

Nobody wants to see animals suffer. It doesn't matter if we are talking about pets, wildlife, livestock, working animals, animals in entertainment or animals in science -- no matter what our relationship is with the animals involved, we want them to have good lives. This is true of the hunter, the farmer, the rescuer, and the trainer. We all feel the same way.

So it is no surprise that whenever animal abuse is publicized, it causes widespread outrage. How could it not? Horrific images or "video exposés" depicting animal cruelty, a longtime staple of animal rights activists, play to this sentiment, and have proven to be excellent tools for inflaming passions, galvanizing public opinion, and raising oodles of money.

But once you have seen even a few animal rights campaigns, a disturbing pattern of sensationalism and deception emerges: Their videos show animals living in filth, and depict unspeakable cruelty as standard operating practice, rather than the sick -- and generally illegal -- aberrations they are. When campaigning to outlaw American farming or hunting practices, for instance, it’s not unusual to learn after the campaign that the images of mistreated animals shown on the film weren't even taken in the US but in developing countries; or to learn after the campaign that activists themselves participated in the on-film cruelty. Especially disturbing is how the most egregious cruelty is allowed to continue for weeks and months on end -- oftentimes encouraged by the so-called undercover activists, despite the fact that simply alerting an owner or the authorities could have stopped the cruelty immediately.

To most people, these tactics make no sense, but it is important to remember that in the minds of those who view animal use as inherently wrong, regardless of how well animals are treated, the ends justify the means. The campaigns are about advancing an extremist agenda and raising funds. If the most effective way of doing it is by misleading the public and smearing a farmer, a dog breeder or a scientist, so be it.

At NAIA we understand that animal cruelty exists, and we strongly condemn it. We also oppose the dishonest tactics used by some activists to paint some innocent people as abusers, and to change public policy by creating false perceptions

- See more at: http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/article/deception-in-the-name-of-animal-rights#sthash.74b1fLHv.dpuf

By Ward L. McAfee

Recently I was forwarded a link to an article, by a BCA member, written by Dan Needles that was featured in the “Farmers Forum”.  The article spoke to the thought that Sheep need Shepherds for their survival.  I was given permission by the editor of the “Farmers Forum”, Patrick Meagher, to use parts of that article to make the following point.

We have all heard the assertions from Animal Rights organizations like PETA and the Humane Society of the United States that breeding animals for food or pets is an abomination and that all animals should be set free to roam the planet and that it is their RIGHT to do so!

First of all if we were to turn all of these domesticated animals lose to fend for themselves what would be the end result? Well if you think about it for a minute you can imagine what a ridiculous amount of problems this type action would bring not only for the animals but for you as well…Domesticated animals, including our Bulldogs, lives are definitely better being overseen and OWNED by those that choose to take on this responsibility.

The fact is animals, Bulldogs, do not have rights! If they did they would be responsible for their actions, which is absurd. We are the ones with the rights not our Bulldogs. With our rights comes a strict set of responsibilities, the chief one being an obligation to practice stewardship of all things in our care. Stewardship is a stern and demanding calling and few understand this more clearly than Ranchers, Shepherds and yes, Bulldog Breeders.

Years ago no one had the time or energy to try and infringe on others rights they were too busy working and keeping their families fed. Today we have more spare time and some are willing to use that time to bully and badger anyone who doesn’t agree with them. To this result we have organizations that are willing to go to whatever extreme they have to, to try and take your freedoms away simply because you choose to breed Bulldogs.

Having been a Bulldogger for over a quarter of a century and owning dogs and cats most all of my life I, like most of you, would not know what to do with myself if I didn’t have these wonderful companions in my life. If for no other reason, that is reason enough to make sure that we always keep a watchful eye on those that would take those companions from us and do whatever we have to do to keep that from happening.

I would like to welcome Mrs. Melba Walker as Division VIII’s member of the Legislative Committee! Julian Prager attended and was a Speaker at the AKC Legislative Conference held in Raleigh, North Carolina in July. He gives us this report.

Ward L. McAfee

The AKC Legislative Conference

By Julian Prager

This year’s conference focused on working together with other groups to keep all of us free to keep our animals without interference by animal radicals by using political action to influence legislators and regulators.

The conference started with a screening of The Dog Lover, a docu-drama movie release sponsored by Protect the Harvest that showed the tactics, lies and harassment used in one well known case brought against a responsible dog breeder.  This is now in release in local theaters.

The Keynote speaker was Cindy Buckmaster, Director of the Center for Comparative Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and Chair of the Americans for Medical Progress.  She had a dynamic presentation on  AR attacks on animal research, the horse carriage industry in NY and how we can work together to move ahead.  Her presentation is very motivating and she would make an excellent speaker at a National Show of local club specialty (especially in her home state of Texas).

Patti Strand and Barbara Reichman of the NAIA spoke about their Shelter project.  They reviewed data from 2 shelters in each of the 9 census districts every week for a year, cataloging intake and outcomes.  The data is available online at http://shelterproject.naiaonline.org.  Among other results, they showed that pure-bred dogs make up only 5% of the shelter population, not the 25 % touted by the Animal Rights community.  In addition, they demonstrated the significant transportation of dogs among shelters and the effect it is having on euthanasia rates in receiving shelters.  They also revealed the need for more shelters to report their data so the public can understand where their animals for adoption come from.

Two presenters focused on how to write effective communications to influence policy makers.  They took samples written by conference participants and before the conference, edited them, and used them to teach how to write to get your submission read and considered by editors of op-ed columns in major papers.

The Southeastern States Director of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation talked about the strategic involvement of leaders of both parties in Congress to work for their cause and how important it was for all of us to work together to achieve our common goals.  The caucus consists of members of Congress interested in sportsmen’s issues and provides support in their legislative agenda.

Julian Prager discussed the importance of regulatory departments in achieving our goals.  Although stopping bad legislation is a primary strategy, most legislation requires regulations to enforce it.  This gives us a second chance at shaping government action.  Since the interpretation of a statute is given great weight by the courts, how the regulators write the regulations can have a profound impact on the application of the law in specific cases.

Joe Wilson, of Kelley, Drye and Warren, talked about your constitutional rights when animal control comes to your door and provided strategies to respond to situations under a number of scenarios.

This conference provides valuable insight to anyone looking to learn more about their rights and strategies to protect all of our dogs and us.  Any club members who want to attend future conferences should check out the government relations page on the AKC website.  A lot of useful information is there, including their legislative alerts, legislative tracking and toolbox for combating bad legislation. Consider donating to the AKC PAC, which had a 93% success rate in electing dog friendly candidates in the last election.

Impostor Service Dogs! Fiesty Comfort Animals! (It Only Takes a Few Bad Apples)

 

These two articles are reprinted in the Bulldogger with the permission of Patti Strand of the NAIA, for more information on the NAIA please check out their website at www.naiaonline.org

 

When somebody brings their untrained “comfort animal” to a place pets are not typically allowed and the inevitable disaster ensues, our first reaction is often a grin, because — lets’ face it — these stories can be pretty amusing. Unfortunately, tales of out-of-control comfort pets and fake  service animals also have a very real insidious effect: people start questioning the legitimacy of the service animals they come across.

This is especially troubling for the growing number of people without visible disabilities or injuries who receive assistance from service animals, or those with non-standard service animals (e.g. a Chihuahua), who are more likely to feel the “raised eyebrow” that questions their honor and legitimacy.

Service animals are quite simply amazing and the Americans with Disabilities Act recognizes and protects the essential role service animals play in our society:

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), privately owned businesses that serve the public, such as restaurants, hotels, retail stores, taxicabs, theaters, concert halls, and sports facilities, are prohibited from discriminating against individuals with disabilities. The ADA requires these businesses to allow people with disabilities to bring their service animals onto business premises in whatever areas customers are generally allowed.

We follow animal trends at NAIA, and while we can safely say there is no epidemic of out-of-control comfort animals and imposter service animals, it is definitely a growing issue that we take seriously, and one we will work to find positive solutions for!

***

In Florida on Monday, April 2, 2015  a “Fake service dog bill” advanced in the senate.

Much of this bill is just a restatement of the Americans with Disabilities act, but it adds two criminal offenses:

The bill would make interfering with the disabled and their service animals a second-degree misdemeanor, carrying penalties of up to 60 days in jail, up to $500 in fines and 30 hours of community service for an organization that serves people with disabilities or another entity, at the discretion of a judge.

Under the bill, the same crime and penalties would apply to pet owners who lie about having a disability and falsely claim that their pet is a service animal.

While NAIA has not taken an official position on the bill, we do laud its goals.

With more service animals assisting people with invisible disabilities than ever before, and a growing number of pet owners who feel entitled to bring their companions anywhere and everywhere (and with easy access to vests, harnesses, and other paraphernalia that make their pets look like service animals), it is easy to see why there have been so many recent collisions at this intersection.

But even if it is easy to understand, there is no good reason to harangue somebody with a service animal… just as there is no excuse for falsely declaring your pet a service animal. While people with fake service dogs aren’t acting out of malice, and may not think they are doing anything wrong, their actions hurt the very people who most need the calm, reliable assistance these amazing animals provide.

The Responsible Voice for Animals and the People Who Care for Them

The National Animal Interest Alliance is a national organization that strives to be our voice on Legislative issues that will affect animal ownership in general from agricultural practices to dog shows. The BCA has supported the NAIA’s efforts the past several years and we will continue to do so. We desperately need their leadership while fighting against such negative organizations as PETA and the HSUS. It is my fervent hope that one day the NAIA will be the pre-eminent organization of its kind eclipsing the dark shadow that PETA and HSUS has held over us for so long. Please support the NAIA, State Federations and Local Organizations in any way that you can!

I would like to welcome Melissa Vrooman to the Legislative Committee from Division II.

Ward McAfee

NAIA Mission Statement - Animal Welfare

The mission of NAIA is to promote the welfare of animals, to strengthen the human-animal bond, and safeguard the rights of responsible animal owners., enthusiasts and professionals through research, public information and sound public policy.
To accomplish our mission, we ...

  • Recognize that human - animal interactions take many forms;
  • Recognize that man is an integral part of any solution to an animal or environmental issue;
  • Serve as a resource for groups and individuals dedicated to responsible animal care;
  • Provide information to reporters and writers for articles, news broadcasts and books;
  • Devise and support reasonable solutions to animal welfare and environmental issues;
  • Host conferences to highlight topical issues, expose animal rights and environmental extremism and share animal welfare efforts and successes;
  • Support the victims of animal and environmental extremism;
  • Have a speakers bureau and provide experts to media, classrooms and public policy makers;
  • Counter the rhetoric of the animal rights movement;
  • Publish the NAIA Newsletter, an online publication that you can receive by signing up here;
  • Conduct campaigns and offer resolutions to help animals and animal owners;
  • Offer a library of information about various animal-related subjects;
  • Support the wise and thoughtful use of natural resources;

In addition, NAIA supports animal welfare and the rights of animal owners by

  • Helping animal control and oversight agencies write reasonable laws that target irresponsible and inhumane owners while safeguarding responsible animal ownership and use and appropriate animal husbandry practices;
  • Helping responsible animal owners defeat existing laws that unjustly restrict owners or ban breeds and species or unfairly limit the number of animals an owner can keep; and
  • Urging passage of strong laws that target vandalism, harassment, arson, bombing, and other types of domestic terrorism in the name of animal rights and environmentalism

To contact the National Animal Interest Alliance Please see the following contact information.

PO BOX 66579

Portland, OR 97290-6579

503.761.1139

www.naiaonline.org

naia@naiaonline.org

I heard through the grapevine that several BCA members questioned the intent of the Legislation Report in the last “Bulldogger”. The intention of the report was to warn Bulldoggers that misusing the “Service Dog” status to fly their dogs could result in potential stiff penalties to pay… including jail time!

We all understand that flying Bulldogs as cargo is very risky. Most Bulldoggers would never entertain the thought of flying their dogs as cargo.  Some airlines now refuse to fly Bulldogs as cargo due to the very real possibility that the dog may not survive the flight. Recently it has become somewhat common for owners to fly their Bulldogs as service dogs, which is misusing the “Service Dog” program.

In Florida misrepresenting your Pet or “Show Dog” as a “Guide or Service Animal” could result in up to 60 days in jail. The other states that I was able to find, and there could be more, with laws that make it a crime to fraudulently represent that a person has the right to be accompanied by a service animal are the afore mentioned Florida, California, Colorado, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Utah and Washington. This may simply involve the use of a harness, vest, or orange leash that typically identifies a dog as a Service Animal. Penalties can range from a $10 fine in Michigan to California where it is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding 6 months, by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.

Again this submission to the Bulldogger is meant as clarification and a warning of the potential penalties you could pay if caught fraudulently representing your dog as a Service Animal.  As Patty Strand of the NAIA said in the article printed in the June, 2015 Bulldogger, “While people with fake service dogs aren’t acting out of malice, and may not think they are doing anything wrong, their actions hurt the very people who most need the calm, reliable assistance these amazing animals provide.”

Think about it…

USDA Finalizes Sensible Regulations to Prevent the Importation of Sick and Dangerous Dogs for Resale

By Patti Strand

The new USDA rule published in today’s ( the current ) Federal Register represents a giant step forward in protecting American citizens, pets and other animals from diseases and parasites introduced by foreign dogs. The new rule ensures that dogs introduced into the US for resale are vaccinated and in good health, and requires them to be over six months of age. The rule does not apply to puppies that are imported for research, veterinary medical treatment, or for an importer’s personal retention.

On its face this rule may not seem significant or even relevant to many US dog owners, but it is vitally important. It provides crucial safeguards against the introduction of dogs carrying infectious and zoonotic diseases and parasites, which hurt consumers who buy or adopt them and can spread to other animals and people.

Globalization is a fact of modern life and in the international pet marketplace the USA has become a leading destination for the distribution of dogs from foreign countries and offshore territories The World Health Organization estimates the size of the global stray dog population at 200 million.  New US rescues spring up continually to save them and bring them to the US. There are now rescue groups dedicated to reuniting service men to dogs they bonded with in war zones (often where rabies is endemic), importing Afghani strays to cure PTSD, bringing street dogs from Sochi to the US, and even groups rounding up Puerto Rican street dogs for US Adoptions where cash prizes are awarded to the groups that gather up the most dogs.

Until the finalization of these regulations and recent clarifications on other shipping requirements, pet importation was handled under laws passed in the 1950’s that were focused on pets traveling with their owners. Lawmakers did not anticipate the globalization of the pet industry and could not have imagined the mass movement of dogs into the US for adoption and sale in the underground pet industry.

Without these new regulations, the US would become the dumping ground for the world’s stray dogs. In 2006, the CDC estimated that 297,000 were imported into the US, about 199,000 of them smuggled across the Mexican border.  Until the finalization of this regulation, and the tightening of confinement agreements there was little in place to stop dogs from entering.

In 2007 the CDC declared that canine strain rabies had been eradicated in the US but following that announcement, the agency reported on three cases of canine strain rabies in dogs adopted from locales where dog-to-dog rabies is still endemic.  Of the 55,000 annual deaths from rabies worldwide, about 98% are the result of dog bites and canine strain rabies.

NAIA is gratified that these regulations have been finalized. This landmark regulatory change took more than a decade of hard work to accomplish, from identifying and researching the issue, to educating and alerting lawmakers, agency officials and the public about the nature and scope of the problem, to adding the appropriate language to the 2008 Farm Bill, resulting in the publication of these regulations. This issue has been NAIA's continuous focus for more than 13 years. Of all the challenges NAIA has tackled, we regard this as our most important achievement. We wish to thank the American Kennel Club for their contribution to this success. Without their partnership in 2008 working on the Farm Bill, this result might not have occurred.

I want to thank Patti Strand for allowing the BCA to publish this article in “The Bulldogger”. For more information about Patti and her work with the National Animal Interest Alliance go to www.naiaonline.org

Ward L. McAfee

The following article was written by Mary Beth Duerler the Chairman of the “Responsible Pet Owners Alliance of Texas”. The RPOA is the official AKC Federation of the State of Texas. The RPOA is a non-profit organization that yearly fights the good fight for owners, breeders and exhibitors in the Capital building in Austin, Texas. To find out more and if you would like to help support the RPOA’s efforts check out their web site www.responsiblepetowners.org I would like to thank Mary Beth for her hard work and allowing us to publish this article.

“All Pets Matter”

By Mary Beth Duerler

Anytime there is an animal related incident, the first outcry is "There oughtta' be a law!"

Although laws already exist, more regulations are passed in response that exacerbate problems and result in more pets surrendered to animal shelters - not less. New laws run the gamut although seldom enforced: Mandatory pet spay/neuter, mandatory microchips, differential licensing (higher license fees for intact dogs/cats), cat licensing, pet limits, annual permits for
all species of animals, breeding bans, breed specific legislation, anti-tethering laws and more.

Animal problems vary as to regions, with Northern states experiencing a shortage of puppies for adoption/sale and Southern states with a more abundant supply. Adolescent large dogs are numerous in shelters. Statistics show that stray animal problems are predominantly in low income neighborhoods with high crime rates, gang problems, and drug use.

Bob Christiansen, author of "Save Our Strays," writes: "Targeting high problem areas within a community with helpful, people-friendly intervention programs will yield the most benefits (for people and pets) per funds spent. When government looks at ways of solving transgressions, fines and fees play an important role in modifying human behavior. This approach works well with human violations ... [but] is not effective with low-income animal owners. This failed policy unjustly targets the poor."

Animal Rights Extremists try to convince elected officials that breeders are responsible for animals relinquished to shelters - not their owners – while only 5% of shelter dogs are purebreds and less than 1% are purebred cats. The vegans say: "Don't breed, don't buy, while shelter animals die" -- which is forever. All emphasis is on "breeding" instead of pet retention and confining pets to the owner's property. It's not rocket science!   A late 90's study by the now defunct "National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy (NCPPSP)" compiled statistics from 12 selected animal shelters that remain relevant today. The study began with the premise: "This problem cannot be solved unless we truly understand the problem."

The following "Reasons for Relinquishment" were given for both dogs and cats: Moving; landlord not allowing pets; too many animals in household; pet maintenance cost; owner's personal problems; inadequate facilities; no homes available for litter mate. Additionally, regarding dogs: having no time for pet; pet illness(es). Additionally, regarding cats: allergies in family, house soiling, incompatibility with other pets.

"All the legislation in the world isn't going to make a community No Kill," says Nathan Winograd in his E-Newsletter "No Kill Solutions." Winograd suggests proactive programs, such as Shelter Accountability, Affordable Spay/Neuter, working with rescue groups to take animals, Adoption Programs (including offsite venues), Feral Cat TNR Programs, Pet Retention Programs, medical and behavior rehabilitation, foster care, public relations and development and a compassionate, hard working animal control director, who isn't content hiding behind the myth of "too many animals, not enough homes."

To be effective, animal problems must be addressed realistically instead of being "agenda" driven as they are at the present time.

This article has been in the Bulldogger before but the information in it is very important! Get involved in helping us all keep our rights!!

I would like to welcome Debbie Golding as the Division III member of the BCA Legislative Committee.

PLEASE VOTE YES FOR THE PROPOSED STANDARD CHANGE!

It is that time of year again legislatures are gearing up to do the peoples work…I thought as this time draws near that it would be timely to submit this article from a past Bulldogger to remind you that YOU can be of help! Please do your part to insure that we keep our rights as Owners, Exhibitors and Breeders!  Sincerely, Ward McAfee

As members of the BCA Legislative Committee we are committed to the following Mission statement.

To promote the best interests of purebred Bulldogs through the BCA by encouraging adoption of laws, rules, ordinances and  legislation favorable to these interests, and by discouraging adoption of all those that are not.

 To further these interests by encouraging proper humane practices as determined by the BCA, and opposing misrepresentation and malpractice by all who are associated with the breed, and to support the efforts of other organizations who share our interests and concerns.

 To further these interests by reporting on legislative matters to the BCA Council, Executive Committee, Division Officers and General Membership in a timely manner and making recommendations for action when appropriate.

 With this being said it is an obligation that we as BCA members should all share if we wish for our beloved fancy to thrive. We all can help in many ways to further the goal of maintaining legislative balance.

As Committee members one of the items that we are responsible for is encouraging members of our Division to become more involved in local Legislative issues which may impact our sport. Here are a few ways you as an individual member of BCA can help.

  • Monitoring your local news and staying aware of the legislative climate in your area and state.
  • Alerting your BCA Legislative Committee Member and the AKC to pending legislative issues in their communities or states.
  • Letting your elected officials, fellow citizens, and the news media in your area know the views and interests of the purebred dog fancy.
  • Organizing and motivating your local club members, friends and neighbors to become active in the legislative process, and encouraging others to help advance legislation that will benefit pure bred dog owners and breeders.
  • Preparing members of your club and others in your area for action should a legislative initiative arise that requires input from purebred owners and breeders.
  • Becoming a BCA Legislative Committee Local Club Representative. You would be responsible for the 5 previous items for your local club. Please contact your Divisions BCA Legislative Committee Member for more information.
  • Becoming a AKC Legislative Liaison for your Club. Contact the AKC at AKC Government Relations Department 919-816-3720 or doglaw@akc.org for info!

What is Animal Welfare and why is it important? - The difference between Animal Rights & Animal Welfare    By: Pattie Strand

Patti is National Director of the NAIA. I want to thank Patti for allowing this article to be published in “The Bulldogger”.  This article has been edited for space consideration. To see the entire article and for more information on the  NAIA please visit their website www.naiaonline.org

Some people use the terms animal welfare and animal rights interchangeably, suggesting that they represent the same concerns, principles and practices. But the differences between the two are significant and irreconcilable.

What is Animal Welfare?

In its simplest form, animal welfare refers to the relationships people have with animals and the duty they have to assure that the animals under their care are treated humanely and responsibly.

Despite its current popularity, interest in animal welfare is not a modern phenomenon. Concern for animal care and wellbeing has existed since domestication, which occurred at least 10,000 years ago in Neolithic times. Our appreciation and respect for animals led to their domestication, animal agriculture and animal husbandry, the branch of agriculture that deals with the care and breeding of animals. Many historians consider the development of agriculture to be the most important event in all of human history.

Dr. Bernard Rollin, an animal science professor at Colorado State University, argues however, that 20th century technology broke this ancient contract when it allowed us to put animals into environments and uses that didn't impair their productivity but harmed their well-being.

That defines the challenge today, the need to provide acceptable levels of animal welfare in a nation that is no longer rural and agricultural, but which in the span of 2 paradigm-shifting centuries has become urbanized and technological. In modern American society only 2% of an ever-increasing population lives on farms and only 1% practices farming as an occupation. This contrasts sharply with the mid 1800’s when 90% of Americans were farmers. If these trends continue, farming will become more concentrated in the future, a situation that makes animal welfare an even more important subject.

Animal Welfare and Animal Rights ARE NOT THE SAME

Many animal welfare proponents call themselves animal rights advocates because that term seems to represent what they believe, but animal welfare and animal rights are based in entirely different beliefs and use different tactics to achieve their goals. Unlike animal welfare principles, which inherently support the humane and responsible use of animals, animal rights tenets oppose all use of animals no matter how humane, or how responsible. PETA’s motto articulates the animal rights position very well, and demonstrates that in this belief system, animal use and animal abuse are synonymous: “Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way.”

 

Animal rights campaigns use animal welfare issues to promote their agenda

Although packaged for maximum appeal, animal rights beliefs conflict with the views of at least 94% of Americans, the number who eat meat.  And an additional portion, omnivores and vegetarians alike, benefit from medical advances, go to circuses and zoos, keep pets, hunt or fish, ride horses or otherwise use animals.  Americans are generally unaware of the true animal rights agenda.  And that makes sense: Although animal rights leaders state their positions clearly when speaking to their followers, many of them hide their true beliefs under a mantle of animal welfare rhetoric when speaking to the public, misleading their audiences about their true agenda.  Animal rights campaigns frequently use strategic deceptions against animal owners and businesses. Many people who view themselves as animal rights advocates are simply people who love animals and want to do something to improve their lives.  They are unaware of radical path charted by the animal rights leadership.

For the animal rights movement, the ends justify the means

It is also important to recognize that the animal rights movement is the only social movement in the US with a history of working with underground criminals, which the FBI has named single issue terrorists. Notably, many in the animal rights leadership do not condemn violence when it is committed in the name of their cause, a hallmark of unethical and radical movements. Many animal rights groups do little more than exploit animal welfare problems for their own fundraising purposes. Sometimes the fundraising campaign amounts to no more than raising concerns about an industry or pastime that utilizes animals, labeling them as cruel in order to position themselves on the high moral ground and raise money. The ASPCA and HSUS recently paid $9.3 million and $15.75 million respectively to the company that owns Ringling Bros circus to settle, among other things, a Racketeering Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) lawsuit in which they were defendants because they (or their affiliates) improperly paid someone to be a witness against the company with testimony that was not found to be credible.

Another area of disagreement between animal welfare and animal rights proponents is over the legal status of animals. Animal welfare advocates call for animal protection laws. Animal rights supporters push for legal rights for animals, something that requires a change in the legal status of animals and mandates a new class of government administrators to make decisions on behalf of animals. Fundamentally, the animal rights approach to animals is less about improving their care than it is about politics. It’s about power.  Specifically it’s about who decides how animals will be treated including whether they should remain in private ownership at all, or be placed in sanctuaries created to provide animals refuge from human ownership and use. Animal rights ideology works to separate people from animals and if achieved would sever the human-animal bond.

The ethical framework that supports animal welfare principles springs from the Western ethical tradition, one that embraces tolerance for diversity and minority views and uses knowledge and education rather than coercion to advance its objectives. The willingness of the animal rights leadership to misrepresent their beliefs and motives and to work with illegal factions indicates that their views arise from different roots

This article has been in the Bulldogger before but the information in it is very important! Get involved in helping us all keep our rights!!

I would like to welcome Debbie Golding as the Division III member of the BCA Legislative Committee.

PLEASE VOTE YES FOR THE PROPOSED STANDARD CHANGE!

It is that time of year again legislatures are gearing up to do the peoples work…I thought as this time draws near that it would be timely to submit this article from a past Bulldogger to remind you that YOU can be of help! Please do your part to insure that we keep our rights as Owners, Exhibitors and Breeders!  Sincerely, Ward McAfee

As members of the BCA Legislative Committee we are committed to the following Mission statement.

To promote the best interests of purebred Bulldogs through the BCA by encouraging adoption of laws, rules, ordinances and  legislation favorable to these interests, and by discouraging adoption of all those that are not.

 To further these interests by encouraging proper humane practices as determined by the BCA, and opposing misrepresentation and malpractice by all who are associated with the breed, and to support the efforts of other organizations who share our interests and concerns.

To further these interests by reporting on legislative matters to the BCA Council, Executive Committee, Division Officers and General Membership in a timely manner and making recommendations for action when appropriate.

 With this being said it is an obligation that we as BCA members should all share if we wish for our beloved fancy to thrive. We all can help in many ways to further the goal of maintaining legislative balance.

As Committee members one of the items that we are responsible for is encouraging members of our Division to become more involved in local Legislative issues which may impact our sport. Here are a few ways you as an individual member of BCA can help.

  • Monitoring your local news and staying aware of the legislative climate in your area and state.
  • Alerting your BCA Legislative Committee Member and the AKC to pending legislative issues in their communities or states.
  • Letting your elected officials, fellow citizens, and the news media in your area know the views and interests of the purebred dog fancy.
  • Organizing and motivating your local club members, friends and neighbors to become active in the legislative process, and encouraging others to help advance legislation that will benefit pure bred dog owners and breeders.
  • Preparing members of your club and others in your area for action should a legislative initiative arise that requires input from purebred owners and breeders.
  • Becoming a BCA Legislative Committee Local Club Representative. You would be responsible for the 5 previous items for your local club. Please contact your Divisions BCA Legislative Committee Member for more information.
  • Becoming a AKC Legislative Liaison for your Club. Contact the AKC at AKC Government Relations Department 919-816-3720 or doglaw@akc.org for info!

I  would like to congratulate Julian Prager, Division I Legislative Committee Member, on being named to the NAIA Board of Directors! He is also the  NAIA’s Legislative Committee Chairman. Julian is a tireless worker for  the  BCA and our rights as Dog Owners. Thank you Julian for  all of your efforts!

DO YOU REALLY WANT TO BE YOUR PET’S “GUARDIAN”?

I  would like to thank Patti Strand for allowing us to print the following article in The Bulldogger. For more information about the NAIA please go to their website: wwwnaiaonline.org

 By: Bonnie Chandler Member/Volunteer/Partner/Article Writer of the National Animal Interest Alliance

Some states and towns are enacting legislation to change the term for animal "owner" or pet "owner" to "guardian." Sponsors, which are usually animal rights groups, say this is a harmless change that will encourage pet owners to take better care of their animals. Is this a good idea? In fact, it is a very bad one, and here are ten reasons why:

1) The term "guardian" already has an established, legal meaning in court, and any new use for animals would not be free to establish its own meaning. It would be applied to animals according to the already existing meaning.

2) That existing meaning applies to non-parental guardians of children, or adults who have been classified as not responsible for themselves. Guardians are merely temporary caretakers whose ownership can be revoked at any time. Court-appointed inspectors must oversee all their decisions. Current laws require guardians to manage and control the child and its estate, using state-determined standards of care and diligence. The state can tell a guardian how to take care of the child and can also take it away from a guardian who the state decides has not performed his duties according to its wishes. Other criteria for removing guardians are: if the guardian is convicted of a felony or if the state determines (according to its own rules) that the guardian refuses to or is incapable of performing his duties, or has a conflict of interest that poses a risk that he will not faithfully perform his duties. Guardians can also be sued in court to punish them for the manner in which they have taken care of their responsibilities.

Thus, owners would

3) Not be free to take care of their animals in the manner they choose (including decisions about housing, feeding, training, breeding, euthanasia, spaying or neutering);

4) Have to accept supervision, including inspection visits (probably unannounced, thus violating the Fourth Amendment freedom from warrantless search and seizure, generally construed as privacy protection);

5) Be at risk of having their animals taken away from them without legal recourse or just compensation (violating the Fifth Amendment);

6) Face frivolous lawsuits from animal rights groups suing pet owners supposedly on behalf of their pets, thus harassing the owners and overburdening the courts with frivolous litigation. The consequences to the owners could even include prison.

7) The process for setting up care rules would most likely be controlled by animal rights groups that do not have as much knowledge about real-life animals as many animal owners do, nor do they have the best interests of animals in mind. Their sole interest is in making animal ownership as difficult as possible.

8) Also, veterinarians would not be free to advise owners using scientifically determined medical knowledge, but would be subject to outside dictation about what is allowable.

9) Animal rights groups are quite aware of these consequences to using the term guardian - that is exactly why they want such laws. They want to be able to dictate care (including veterinary care), take animals away, sue animal owners, and, in short, make animal ownership so uncertain, unpleasant, expensive, and legally dangerous that people will avoid animal ownership altogether. The "guardian" term is just another of the animal rights movement's many sneaky ploys aimed at taking animals away from us step-by-step.

10) In short, guardianship basically leaves animal owners with full responsibility for the care, financial support, and damage liability of their animals, but removes all their rights to make decisions for their animals.

The idea may sound appealing to many pet owners who already think of their pets as family members, rather than mere possessions. However, a vocabulary-dictating law would not change people’s feelings about their animals. What guardianship would actually do is allow the state to tell owners what they could and could not do with and for their animals. It would also take us in the direction of million-dollar lawsuits over pets, like the ones we now face among humans. It would lead to precipitous increases in the cost of veterinary services because of malpractice liability and insurance. In human medicine, the big cost isn't just the malpractice insurance, but all the rules about treatment and medical protocol that insurance companies set; this would make animal ownership much more expensive – eventually, too expensive for any but the very wealthy.

Next to a total breeding ban, guardianship is the worst legislative action that could befall animal owners. It has long-term legal implications that, while they may seem insignificant on the surface, represent a big step toward the animal rights goal of “no pets.”

The APHIS Rule Changes and You

By Julian Prager

The recent changes to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Rules will not affect most breeders and much of the concern about the new rules is not warranted. To understand this, you  need  to understand the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), the law upon which it is based.

The goal of the AWA was to provide regulation for animals sold for use in research, reaching, exhibition (e.g., circuses) or for use as a pet. It was geared to those who sell at wholesale, not at retail. However, many large breeders changed their sales model from wholesale to pet stores to Selling directly to consumers over the Internet to avoid regulation.  The  APHIS Rule change is intended to address this, but it is complicated and difficult to understand how it will work.

As far as dog breeders are concerned, under the AWA, without the APHIS Rules, almost all of us are dealers and required to be licensed. The  definition of Dealer, in relevant part, includes anyone who, in commerce, for compensation or profit, delivers for transportation, buys, sells or negotiates the purchase or sale of any dog for use as a pet unless it is a retail pet store. Note that selling dogs for breeding purposes in not among the factors defining a dealer.

Retail pet store is not defined in the AWA; it is only defined in the APHIS Rules. We have been exempt from licensing because APHIS defined us as Retail Pet Stores if we sell wholesale. This is being changed to remove from the pet store definition some people who sell dogs to a buyer sight unseen.

Anyone who sells a dog at retail in a face-­‐to-­‐face transaction is not a dealer– it is exempt as a Retail Pet Store. You can have as many bitches as you can handle  and  sell  as  many  dogs  as  you  want  as  pets  if  it  is  face-­‐to-­‐face. While you will be subject to State laws, you will not need to be licensed by APHIS.

So, who can sell sight unseen without becoming a dealer?

  • Anyone selling dogs for the purpose of breeding or the preservation of bloodlines can:
    • sell those dogs sight unseen;
    • sell an occasional dog that does not meet the standard for breeding sight unseen.
  • Shipping semen, or a bitch for breeding, does not require licensing.
  • If you have four or fewer breeding females and sell only their offspring born and raised on your premises for use as pets, you are exempt.
  • The buyer of an animal is the person who takes possession at the time of  sale or delivery, not necessarily the ultimate owner. The buyer must be present with the seller and the animal at the time of sale or delivery, net necessarily the ultimate owner. As long as the buyer is present, the sale is face-­‐to-­‐face.
  • Anyone selling within their own state, without crossing into another state, is not engaged in commerce under the AWA, so cannot be a dealer.

Under the revised Rules, the purpose for which the dog is sold is  controlling. If you advertise your dogs for sale as pets, APHIS may come calling to see if you need to be licensed. You need to carefully word your  ads or Internet pages to emphasize the breeding or preservation of bloodline purpose for your sale. You can sell dogs as pets if they are not good additions to a breeding program, but if you sell a large number of dogs a year as pets and keep or sell comparatively few for breeding purposes, it will raise a red flag for APHIS.

APHIS does not intend to target residential breeders for regulation. If that was their intent, they could have done so much more easily. APHIS could have defined it to include only face-­‐to-­‐face transactions.   APHIS could have required they be in areas zoned for commercial activity.

Case law gives APHIS Rules and their interpretation of the statute great weight. In DDAL v Venneman, APHIS successfully defended including hobby breeders within the definition of Retail Pet Store. What they are trying to  do is to encompass large scale breeders who sell sight unseen while leaving most hobby breeders exempt..

There are still many questions  be  resolved.  For  example,  what  is  a  “breeding female;” how are puppies back from a breeding handled; how does  this  apply  to  dogs  born  at  a  vet’s  by  C-­‐section;  what  happens  to someone who both breeds and rescues dogs? Of course, these only matter if the dog is not sold face-­‐to-­‐face.

APHIS  intends  to  resolve  issues  on  a  case-­‐by-­‐case  basis,  which  actually benefits us. Any hard and fast rule would make it more difficult for them to exempt a hobby breeder, while regulating large commercial kennels. Both the AKC and NAIA are in touch with APHIS to clarify the Rules.  We still  need to be vigilant concerning the enforcement of the Rules, but we can drop the paranoia.

I would like to thank Patti Strand for allowing us to print this article in the Bulldogger. For more information on the NAIA please go to there website www.naiaonline.org

From the Skeptic Tank: An Animal Rights Primer

The Pied Pipers of Hamlin and Fellow Travelers By: Dr. Alvin Grossman

|Alvin Grossman was one of the original founders of NAIA. He is a highly successful breeder of American Cockers and has been an AKC dog show judge since 1973, judging in fourteen countries, including the Amsterdam World Show and the Paris International. He is also a four term president of the American Spaniel Club and has been an AKC delegate.

In 1993 I wrote the following as an introduction to Patti & Rod Strand’s book The Hijacking of the Humane Movement:

“There comes a time when one must draw a line in the sand and say NO MORE!

The time has come for all people who sincerely have the welfare of animals and society at large to declare to those misbegotten souls of the animal rights movement that we have had enough.

We laughed when they began their escapades and chortled when they dressed in those funny costumes. We coughed a bit when they began to throw blood on those wearing furs. We became downright angry when they burst into research laboratories, freeing animals to a somber fate and destroying valuable research records. Our anger knew no bounds as they spray painted and firebombed their way into the public consciousness.

Then came the legislative campaigns to malign, hinder and demean breeders of purebred dogs and cats. This coupled with their attempted takeovers of Humane Societies and the well-planned mail campaigns to gather funds for their so-called legitimate activities.

We as concerned breeders/exhibitors began to feel the gorge rising as we realize we, the public, have been cleverly duped by mass media campaigns and the support of a few misguided stars of the entertainment world.”

Today, all of us whose lives are intertwined with animals bear the brunt of the legislative drumbeat instigated by the fanatics of the animal rights movement. They are known by a number of names. They are People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), and of course, their smoother-talking and better dressed counterparts, The Human Society of the United States (HSUS).

In order to understand the movement it’s helpful to understand who they are and where they come from and what their goals are and why they have had success in the legislative area.

PETA is anti-meat, anti-hunting, anti-animal research, and ultimately, anti-pet. They are regularly in the news and the FBI considers its special friends, the ALF, a terrorist organization. They are the lightning rod for many affiliated groups across the country and are the ones whose tactics smell of dishonesty and chicanery.

HSUS holds many of the same views as PETA, but has learned to deal with the public in a more palatable and reasoned manner. As a result, they have been spectacularly successful. Their name and the visuals that appear in their advertisements project the image of a hands-on, animal care organization, but they are an animal rights lobbying and legislative group at heart.

These groups polarize issues and create conflicts. Spay/neuter, anti-breeder, veganism, it’s them vs. us, black and white – we are right and anyone who does not buy in is out to destroy them.

On the legislative front they have made great inroads. Their well financed legislative campaigns appeal to politicians who see a bandwagon to ride. Unfortunately, politicians seek the limelight and often choose issues much in the news and the animal rights adherents see to it that it is much in the news. They are able to hire talented PR and marketing people whose drumbeat can be heard incessantly. Hollywood glamour people are easy converts. Publicity, publicity and even more publicity. Hitler and Goebbels proved that the great lie told over and over again begins to be believed.

OK, what do we need to do at our end? The National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA) has been exposing the dark underbelly of the animal rights movement for more than twenty years, and recently, the American Kennel Club (AKC) has created its own PAC. However, counterpunching alone will not win the battle. The NAIA Trust has successfully pushed legislation at the local and state level, and NAIA has several model ordinances on its website, components of which have been used to build successful ordinances in many parts of the United States. It’s time we get in front of these issues, to be the force for change where it is needed, to be the voice of reason that puts a stop to harmful legislation before it becomes set in stone. It’s time to leave the counterpunching to the boxers.

In this time of heavy handed pet legislation it is very important for all states to have a State Federation of Dog Clubs. If you’re state has a federation please support and help them in there efforts in protecting your rights as pet owners. If not the information below provided by the AKC will help you in forming and organizing a State Federation.

Today, dog owners and breeders are being challenged as never before by the introduction of legislation that could change our way of life. The AKC Government Relations (GR) Department is committed to fighting unreasonable canine legislation wherever it occurs, but our assistance cannot take the place of your involvement in dog issues at the local and state level. The GR Department works with its state federations of dog clubs and provides back up to fight bad dog laws and support positive measures that teach the public about responsible dog ownership and care.

As constituents, state federations and their members have a powerful voice in addressing legislation that will directly impact them. Federations are the ground soldiers in the state-level battles on topics such as unfair breeder regulations, limit laws, breed-specific legislation and mandatory spay-neuter laws. When united, the voice of responsible dog owners can be a powerful political tool.

If your state doesn’t have an AKC federation, please consider organizing one. It’s easy to do. Here are some resources to learn more.

Please go to the AKC website at http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation/organizing.cfm where you can click on the items below for more information.

Sample Constitutions and By-laws

Sample Newsletters

This is the second in our series of Articles from the BCA Legislative Committee members. This edition is from George Cromer long time Bulldogger from Southfield, Michigan.

Ward McAfee

 Bulldogger Legislative Committee Article  George Cromer

By way of introduction, I am the legislative liaison guy in Division II. We also have legislative “Watchdogs” in several of our clubs and have been known to write our share of dog law letters!

In case you’ve slept through the past few years, the purebred dog hobby is under serious attack. We have won some legislative battles and lost more than we would like to admit. The enemy is a conglomeration of extremely well financed animal rights activists, erstwhile “do-gooders” and humane societies. Their mantra, frankly, is to dissolve the purebred dog hobby as we now know it. Without knowing the facts and the ultimate agenda of dog bill authors, people naturally assume that humane societies are simply protecting animals, like good owners. But there’s more to their agenda than that.

Fortunately, we are not facing this threat alone. The UKC and more recently the AKC have recognized that their existence depends on maintaining the hobby. The task boils down to protecting our rights to own and husband purebred dogs. Unfortunately not everyone in our hobby is comfortable with AKC leadership or seeing humane societies as the opposition. As we gripe about increased dog show fees, some don’t see that the AKC needs more financial soundness while it “staffs up” to fight bad bills,

As a case in point, Stacy Mason, AKC Senior Breeder Field Representative, has been working with dog fanciers in Missouri to block HB 889 now in hearings in Jefferson City. The bill concerns spectators at dog fighting events, but attempts to legalize entering private property to confiscate dogs without due process to the owner. It’s already a MO felony to hold dog fights. Stacy orchestrated a phone and letter campaign to tell legislators that “regular dog owners” are against it. This stalled the bill and it was pulled from consideration.  HSUS sees this legislation as a way to further their more ambitious agenda and an amended bill is coming back. Stacy’s next plan is to fill the State Capital Hearing room with bill opponents. Since the revised bill has not been available for study, it’s pointless to object in advance to wording that hasn’t been seen. That will have to come later. While we have lots of problems with the lack of Missouri puppy mill regulation, this bill is not an improvement.

Our committee has serious concerns for an ongoing battle in California over a revised mandatory spay/neuter bill that you’ll probably hear more about in the next issue. (This is the 13th “bad” version of a Humane Society proposal.) We lost a round in Texas last session, but are still fighting in Oklahoma. In Ohio a bad bill was pulled to be rewritten with Humane Society help. Their lobbying dollars have given them the inside track on “fine tuning” legislation – at least that’s the way it seems to work. There is one other unfortunate aspect of such “fine tuning.” Mistakes made in Ohio can be corrected before the same bill is introduced in Michigan, Minnesota or your state. In Illinois we have won a battle. HB 198 was withdrawn and Senate Bill 53, a comprehensive breeder regulation bill which, while approved by the Committee, was subsequently “gutted” by the author! Our serious concerns about provisions of the bill were recognized after many months of negotiation and now it’s just a harmless empty “shell.”

When the time comes to kill a bad bill, there is no silver bullet that your Legislative Committee or AKC Government Relations professionals can shoot to help you. You should, however, certainly react when such a bill is introduced. Don’t just e-mail the bill to me, the AKC or Ward McAfee (our chair). We’ve already seen it as part of an active dog law network that is updated almost daily. If you really want something done, it’s a communications job for you and your club. Residents of a state that’s being attacked must react respectfully to let their elected representatives know what they think , but remember, don’t tell them that something is “bad”, tell them “It’s fundamentally flawed!” (chuckle) Your rep will listen to you! (and not necessarily to the BCA). Legislative Alerts on the AKC website can provide you with specific suggestions for action and there are links to other sites on the BCA website.

I close with a quote from the editor of the AKC News about our Illinois victory. “AKC Government Relations was pleased to work with our legislative liaisons to provide legislative alerts and updates, provide background materials and sample letters, and to contact the committee members considering these bills. AKC thanks the Illinois fanciers and responsible dog owners and breeders who spent many days contacting and working with their state representatives. Your willingness to work together and to communicate respectfully about serious concerns with these measures is a major reason they are not moving forward at this time.” Our hats go off to concerned “dog people” in Illinois (and a good number of Bulldoggers!) who earned this praise with their actions. We could not have said it better!

As most of you read this article you will be preparing for the upcoming Nationals in Southern California, we wish you luck in your participation and safe travels.

We have new members of the Legislative Committee that we would like to welcome and introduce you to, the new Committee member from Division 7 in Cindy Stansell and the new member from Division 8 is Cathy Miller. The Committee is still in need of a member from Division 3.

The following article is a very timely piece that shows the similarities of the HSUS and the ASPCA. Originally on the website The Meating Place, www.meatingplace.com, I was granted permission to publish this article in the Bulldogger by Executive Editor of The Meating Place Rita Jane Ogabbett.

Ward McAfee

ASPCA’s Tangled Web

By

Sarah Hubbart

If you are an animal lover, it can be tough to know which organizations are deserving of your support. Where will your money best be spent?

First, it should be noted that there isn’t a national umbrella group for animal shelters.

It seems like more people are realizing that the Humane Society of the United States isn’t affiliated with local humane societies, and doesn’t operate a single cat-and-dog shelter of its own.

But – did you know? – the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) isn’t connected to local SPCAs, either. Nor are its efforts national in scope, despite the "American" in its name. Despite its frequent tear-jerker commercials featuring Sarah McLaughlin, most of its budget does not go to hands-on animal care. (It does, however, operate one pet shelter in New York City.)

So where exactly is the rest of that money going? The story may sound familiar: legislation, litigation, and public relations campaigns that increasingly target common farmers and ranchers.

While the organization does not advocate for veganism outright, it is quick to use the unfair “factory farm” label and is staunchly opposed to most modern farm practices. It also advocates the use of the term “guardian” rather than “owner” so that animals can be legally recognized as more than property.

In May 2012, ASPCA donated $151,000 to the anti-modern agriculture group Farm Forward to promote pasture-based heritage breed poultry production. (Jonathan Safran Foer, who wrote the anti-meat book Eating Animals, sits on Farm Forward’s board of directors.)

Earlier this year, ASPCA donated $100,000 to Mercy for Animals, an extreme animal rights group that targets farms with so-called “undercover video” to pressure retailers to switch to alternative production styles and, ultimately, promote veganism.

ASPCA also joined HSUS, MFA, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, and Farm Sanctuary in celebrating the ban on foie gras that went into effect this month in California.

Yes, the similarities between HSUS and ASPCA are quite eerie, and this is only the tip of the iceberg. So it is no surprise that several former HSUS staffers are now in leadership roles within ASPCA.

Perhaps the most notable of these is Nancy Perry, who joined the ASPCA staff in May 2011 as Senior Vice President of Government Relations. Perry is coming off of a 16-year career as Vice President of Government Affairs at HSUS, where she led many of its ballot initiative campaigns. Prior to that, she had co-founded the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund chapter at Lewis & Clark Law School, where she earned her JD.

ASPCA, like HSUS, fundraises using emotional imagery of puppies and kittens – both groups have annual budgets of more than $100 million - but its goals appear to go far beyond the scope of pets. And not all local animal shelters are pleased with the “humane” name confusion.

A number of shelters have recently dropped the “humane society” name from their title to distance themselves from the agenda of HSUS. Last year, the State Humane Association of California filed a complaint with the Office of the Attorney General alleging that ASPCA's unfair and deceptive fundraising practices harm local humane societies and SPCAs by capitalizing on and reinforcing the widely-held mistaken belief that the ASPCA is a parent or umbrella organization to the thousands of humane societies and SPCAs across the country.

Erica Gaudet Hughes, Executive Director of the State Humane Association of California explained the problem as such:

"Ever since the ASPCA began to aggressively fundraise several years ago, humane societies and SPCAs throughout the country have suffered. Our member humane societies and SPCAs frequently report hearing from people who gave to the ASPCA believing they were giving to their local shelter. These shelters believe they are missing out on funds that were intended for them."

Valid points, indeed, and a good reminder that local animal shelters are often in the greatest need of our support.

You have arrived at this page to get a general orientation to the new advocacy information available to us on general legislative issues at hand, useful information on how you can be more involved, what you can do, encouraging you to write letters and make phone calls to support or oppose bills, ordinances or opinions that could affect our rights as dog owners…Read it! It’s good stuff!!

Sign up for direct Alerts from the National Animal Interest Alliance - NAIA Trust - on issues in your State by clicking here.

With the cooperation of the AKC and the NAIA, we have up to date legislative advocacy information at our finger tips on one easy to use website page! Each section takes you to a different area in which you can affect the decisions about laws and regulations at the local, state and federal levels of government.

Please take action to keep our right to keep and breed our dogs!

Ward L. McAfee
BCA Legislative Committee Chairman

Information Request

Read Privacy Policy Here