And are you aware that they teach their “followers/sheeple” how they can go back and change the number DOWN without any effort at all.  See Patrick Kwan’s speech last year in NY!

I have it in a Word Doc form if you haven’t seen it!

Like I said before they want to rule.

Sounds familiar to the Animal Rights propaganda show “Fatal Attractions” on Animal Planet. According to Josephine Martell of CWAPC, anyone who keeps 2 or more reptiles is now a hoarder with mental deficiencies.

The phrase, “I may not be a psychologist, but I play one on TV” comes to mind.

A standing ovation for you, David.

May we reprint?  What’s your policy?

HSUS, a master of deception——will draft any law they can sneak by with—including outlawing as “animal abuse”, the sale of animals. It was already passed in CA but finally veto’d by Arnold in Oct 09.

So if they can pass a law which makes selling, showing, displaying and transporting of an animal a crime of “animal abuse”—- then nothing is off limits. That is what people don’t understand. Plenty of them thought the bill in question re selling, was peachy keen. It was flat out illegal.

OH and ya gotta love the way they toss in “HARBORING” so that when your own family visits with their pet or you keep your kid’s animals when they go out of town, you are a criminal!  I feel for the people in Iowa, because those HSUS folks can find any excuse to make you commercial (if you EVER had a litter you are COMMERCIAL) and showing dogs is CRUEL (just nobody told most of the dogs that, they generally LOVE it!).

do you know that HSUS wrote the law or are they just praising it? Regardless, I read the law, and maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see the words “puppy mill” anywhere. Can you point to any place where HSUS says that every commercial breeder is a puppy mill? Everything I’ve seen from national groups of all kinds defines puppy mills by conditions. The numbers come into play because when there are hundreds of dogs, there are also often bad conditions. but can you point to any place HSUS or anyone says just being “commercial” makes you a puppy mill? Also, the term factory farms comes from Peter Singer’s book, “Animal Factories” which is, what, 30 or more years old? It’s not an HSUS invention. I also heard the phrase “puppy mill” back in the 70s when I worked for a shelter. Just in the interests of accuracy, which I’m sure you support. Don’t you?

It’s not HSUS, but these guys were hand in glove with HSUS on the Iowa legislation.

http://iowavca.org

Sent off a couple items to David tonight.  When you look at the Lobbyists declarations only 6 of the 24 lobbyists were ‘for’ this bill.  Of these 6, 4 were with the h$U$.  This is clear to me that this is h$U$.  I saw the same thing last year in MN.  h$U$ will come out in full force to push this agenda.  They give ‘common language’ ideas to the legislators and tell them they need to keep up with other states.

I may or may not be a ‘commercial breeder’ in IA, but from speaking with h$U$ representatives - I am.  I have intact dogs and have allowed them to reproduce.

Hello:

Would like to see a “printable version” tab so the print out is readable.  At least 12 or 14 font.

Thanks and thanks for putting the Humane Watch together.

Patricia

In addition to their “factory fundraising”, HSUS pushes “cookie-cutter legislation” all across the country.  I’ve fought this horrible legislation for years in many states.  Don’t think for a moment HSUS doesn’t write these bills.  The language of these bills is often identical from state to state, year to year.

The New York State Assembly and Senate have multiple ‘puppy mill’ legislation in the works. Due to a lame duck Governor and the fact that the bills will not cost the state anything to put into law…..........They may get passed.
Assemblywomen: Amy Paulin (Scarsdale) and Assemblywomen Glick and Rosenthal..both from New York City environs have submitted ‘dog’ bills.
I don’t live in NY City I live in a town with 4 streets in the middle of Central NYS….so I can’t do much except write letters and send emails to these ladies and ask them to stop…
Mary Verbeck omeroy

Mary LaHay was the one who helped draft the Iowa bill that Chet Culver just signed in Iowa. Mary LaHay is the Iowa legislative liason for HSUS. Mary LaHay is the one who talked to the media on several occasions to gain support for this bill. Mary LaHay is the one who dubbed it “The Puppy Mill Bill” in every public venue possible. If you called Culver’s off to ask him to veto HF2280, you were asked which bill that was. If you said the commercial breeder bill, they still didn’t know. If you said “The Puppy Mill Bill” THEN they knew which one you were talking about. In spite of receiving thousands of calls and letters in a week’s time pointing out all the legitimate reasons it should be vetoed, we were told he already promised he would sign the bill. They would never say to whom this promise was made. When it was covered by a local television station the day he signed it, the headline read Governor signs the Puppy Mill Bill. To add insult to injury to every dog breeder and owner who opposed it, he did it at the Animal Rescue League which is Iowa’s HSUS branch shelter. No, they don’t own it. They don’t own any shleters. They’ve made sure that each state now has at least one shelter (some states have more) who is run by liasons from their organization. To clarify the bill a bit more, you don’t have to breed 4 or more animals to be commercial in Iowa. You can breed only one and OWN 4 intact animals to be commercial. You can have 4 Yorkies and one who produces only one or two pups in a year, but if your other 3 adults are intact, YOU are a commercial breeder. If you show and only produce a litter once every 3 or 4 years or breed only once and own 4 intact animals, this law forever brands you a commercial breeder.

I forgot to add to my post that shortly after this bill was signed by Culver with the fanfare of closing “puppy mills”, he officially announced his bid for re-election. Coincidence? Doubtful. A bid to try to win votes by signing a feel good bill that touts it will close places that abuse dogs and puppies? Possible. Why would a Governor totally ignore valid reasons of why he should veto a bill “because he already promised to sign it”? Would you like to be under legislation that says if you can’t fix ANY citation, which includes major damage from ice storms, floods, tornados, or heavy snow (All of which have happened in Iowa for the past 3 years in a row) in 15 days you will be fined $500 per day after the 15 day limit and each day counts as a separate offense? How many of you could get a good contractor and get major repairs done in 15 days? How would you like to be in the position that if they aren’t sastisfied with the results or the time it took to do it, your animals could be seized at the discretion of animal control and they have the right to kill or sell them as they see fit? How many days will they choose to fine and charge you for these ‘separate offenses’ before confiscating your animals after bankrupting you? How many of you could afford the $500 per day for any length of time while trying to come up with enough money to pay a contractor? Queations that make you go hmmmmmmm? I hope so! I also hope they help you see just ONE of the valid reasons Culver was asked to veto it that he completely blew off. HE was “comfortable with the bill”.

I wonder how fast they will start closing down any rescues that whelp litters instead of spaying the mom and aborting the pups? They sure ‘harbor’ plenty of dogs and many are intact until ‘sold’.
Just one of those nice little repercussions the supporters probably were not considering. Would be interesting if someone tried to get the law enforced on those ‘mills’ the shelters are running…

Yep, Iowa was a big victory for the AR’s and HSUS.  Yes, HSUS had a large hand in writing this bill, under the guise of a few of the legislators.  This bill was supposedly written by the legislators and not a bill by either side.  The committee was heavily loaded with pro AR legislators. Typical HSUS ploy.
If one followed how this whole thing played out, it was done to perfection of the HSUS guidelines of threats, bullying and intimidation.
Unfortunately, kennel owners that wanted to speak up, were basically told to sit down and shut up by the very group that was supposed to be representing them and fighting on their behalf. 
A couple of people did end of writing to the senators, but it was way too late.
Even the campaign of trying to get the bill vetoed was met with consternation, well, let’s call it what it really was, hostility.
As a result, there are now a lot of people feeling betrayed and deceived.  It is strongly felt that had we not been good little sheeple and raised our voices as we had in the past, we could have defeated this thing once again.
As a legislator, if you only heard from one side, the AR’s, and NOTHING from the other side except for a couple of people representing a lobbying group, what would you think? How would you have cast your vote?
Is is not a bit odd that it was perfectly fine for the AR’s to lobby, but not the kennel owners?  Smells fishy, a whole lot of dead fishies.
When some legislators heard that our voices were stifled, they were quite unhappy and one said to be very suspect of anyone telling you not ot contact your elected official.  Makes one go hmmmmm and question real motives.
The people that did raise their voices were branded as causing needless panic, being paranoid, etc. Remind you of any HSUS tactics?
Some of us are a whole bunch smarter now and have a pretty good idea whom to be cautious of.
There’s a lot more in details.
Just remember - you have a right to have your voice heard whether your legislator wants to or not.  It’s part of the job.  Don’t like it, get out.

After Culver signed this bill, and ran off to the “shelter” for the photo op., his picture was taken by the Des Moines Register newspaper.  In the photo, you see Culver with a dog on leash ( his own?), and you can notice the dog’s collar is the type with the metal “barbs” pointing inward towards the dog (don’t know what this type of collar is called).  Does anyone out there still have that article and picture they could scan and perhaps email to David?

Sorry for posting this late in discussion.  Hoping at least a few are still checking the comments here.  I offer a suggestion for all dog breeders now effected by this law.  As most iowans involved in animal ag know, most large hog farrowing facilities have a “shower in-shower out” policy.  A shower is provided and all employees and guests are require to shower before entering the production areas, and shower out upon exiting the facilities.  On site clothing is provided.  It has done GREAT things in regards to preventing disease outbreaks.  All dog breeders should also be GREATLY concerned about the spread of parvo and other diseases.  There would be expense of course of building a shower on premises, and the purchase of underwear of various sizes and white coveralls, but I think it would be worth it not to risk parvo entering your facilities.  And, if I’m not mistaken, ALL visitors would be required to shower in-shower out…ahem..cough…including inspectors.

Sorry yet another “late” post.  I think the good people of Iowa should know about this law.  They should know that those in state government allowed this bill to be passed.  It should be announced as “outrageous”.  Then, next, tell the good people of Iowa that if their state government is capable of passing such a law requiring everyone owning more then three intact dogs, surely there next action will be to pass a law for mandatory inspections for all families with over three children. The state of Iowa surely cares more about the welfare of children then dogs, right?  Leave HSUS out of the discussion, and focus on those who allowed this bill to be passed.  Imagine the public’s outcry if they thought the next target of the state was going to be the conditions of their homes, which only a state “child inspector” could verify if those conditions were suitable for there own children!  After all, dogs have the same rights as kids, right? In the minds of the AR groups they do. Can’t believe the state of Iowa cares more about dogs then kids!  I feel that could be a valid argument.

It is a shame these posts are so late (as you said) you are not the only one who worries about “inspectors” needing to shower and scrub and have disposable clothing! at great expense to (ultimately) those with animals!  I don’t live in Iowa and I don’t have that many litters of animals even if I would be “over the limit” with unbred intact animals!  People with expensive show animals don’t need them exposed to more than they are exposed to when on show circuits!

I do think both of the posts you sent late are excellent ideas tho!

Mary - about my shower post, I kind of think you missed my point.

I don’t think I did, you are speaking of the “commercial facilty” needing a place to disinfect the Inspector and being responsible for “clean” clothes, shoes, etc, I believe <G> but I’m thinking they need to arrive with those things.  People who exhibit animals (cat shows the judge cleans hands after each animal and dog shows do not but you can catch something there too with these animals going from coast to coast and border to border every weekend sometimes but at least you are taking a chance with something you OWN, they are barging in from God knows where that may have germs and bringing them to you.  Its the same as strangers turning up at a hog farm bringing in “bugs”.  I think the STATE needs to pay for a portable unit that must be scrubbed down before the inspector being scrubbed down and having DISPOSABLE articles to put on prior to INSPECTING someone’s “kennel” or “home”.  They are more likely to bring in something than one taking one’s own animals to somewhere!

I also don’t live in iowa, but have some knowledge about this law.  I believe it did take quite some time for the HSUS to get their way.  Showering facilities would be a great idea, clothing would have to be provided by the breeder however, outside clothing would defeat the purpose.  My point was more..if the state of iowa decided they needed more government employees just for the sake of “out of state concerns”, and chose to intervene, and make difficult for breeders, fair play states that the breeders also should be “more” concerned about disease outbreaks, and also make life a little more difficult for these, in my opinion, unneeded “visitors”.