UKC Forums (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/index.php)
- UKC Coonhounds (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=4)
-- Goodbye To Hounds Part III (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/showthread.php?threadid=256324)

Goodbye To Hounds Part III

• Maryland legislation makes dog breeding law violations into criminal cases, and sets a 10-dog limit before commercial kennel regulations apply. A House hearing has been set for February 18.

• A universal spay and neuter mandate for dogs in Florida has been assigned to a House committee for study and possible hearings.

• Oregon and Tennessee dog owners face strict limits on dog ownership and most hobby breeders would be regulated as commercial kennels.

• And outdoor and ranch housing for dogs would be effectively banned in Texas.

Please read below for a detailed report for each of these states.


(continued)

Tennessee

House Bill 386, sponsored by Rep. Janis Baird Sontany (D-53), and its companion legislation, Senate Bill 258, sponsored by Sen. Doug Jackson (D-25), would place the hobby breeding of purebred dogs under criminal animal cruelty statutes and set severe limits on dog ownership. These bills were introduced Monday, Feb. 9, 2009.

While this legislation is called the “Commercial Breeder Act,” in reality it ensnares many hobbyists, trainers and handlers in their net. These bills are typical of HSUS-promoted legislation, which misrepresents its true purpose.

The legislation defines a “commercial breeder” as “any person who possesses or
maintains twenty (20) or more adult female dogs in whole or in part for the
purpose of the sale of their offspring as companion animals.” The words “in part” means that breeding even one female makes a kennel owner a commercial breeder, and the inclusion of the words “possesses or maintains” entraps many professional trainers, handlers, private rescue networks, hound pack owners, boarding kennels and hunt clubs in the definition.

Here are some of the provisions:

• Anyone who meets the definition of a commercial breeder must be licensed and inspected, and comply with complex regulations for the care and housing of dogs. License fees will be costly - $500 annually for up to 40 dogs, $1,000 annually for more.

• No one can own more than 75 dogs. This includes partnerships, companies and corporations, as well as individuals.

• A dog or cat cannot be euthanized, except by a licensed veterinarian. This provision will cause great suffering in severely injured or ill dogs when a veterinarian cannot be located.

• To be eligible for a license, state officials must investigate and pass judgment on a person’s “character,” and also on the suitability of the kennel’s location.

• Licenses can be suspended or revoked for several reasons. A hearing is provided only through the Department of Agriculture, not to the courts.

• State inspectors have unlimited access to the home, facilities and property of anyone who owns a licensed kennel, or an unlicensed kennel. Constitutional requirements for search warrants and probable cause would be trampled.

• The state would be given unlimited power to confiscate animals from noncompliant kennels, and could enter into cooperative agreements with local, statewide or national animals rights groups such as HSUS. The kennel owner would have to post a bond to cover the cost. Real estate and personal property could be required as security for the bond.

• Civil penalties of up to $1,000 each would multiply for every offense, and no limit would be placed on the total of accumulated citations and penalties for each dog or situation involved.

Please read this legislation for yourself: http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Bill/HB0386.pdf.

This legislation has been introduced, but has not yet been assigned to a committee.

However, we are urging Tennessee dog owners to contact their own legislator and senator as ask them to oppose all aspects of this dangerous legislation.
.

Texas

Senate Bill 634 was introduced February 2 by Sen. Kel Seliger (R-Amarillo). A committee assignment has not yet been made. Thus far, no cosponsors are recorded for the legislation.

The legislation says that a dog may not be kept outdoors:

• In an enclosure of less that 150 square feet for every dog older than age six months. This definition would be met by a kennel that is 10-feet wide and 15-feet long. This size of kennel would be appropriate for a great Dane, but absurd for a Chihuahua. Owners of smaller dogs, including hunting breeds such as beagles, basset hounds and working terriers, would be very unfairly penalized. Many dog owners would have to tear down and replace existing kennel structures that are well constructed and completely meet the needs of their dogs. Individual costs of compliance easily could be several thousand dollars, at a minimum. However, hot or cold weather would invalidate this kind of housing.

• If the air temperature with wind chill factored in falls below 32 degrees, or if a heat advisory has been issued. The bill fails to consider that acclimatization to weather extremes is essential for the health and safety of hunting dogs, herding dogs and other working dogs. These dogs must work in all kinds of weather. If they are not used to severe weather, their lives are endangered. It also ignores the fact that a shaded and breezy outdoor location often is the safest place to keep a dog in hot weather, and people are not required to live in air-conditioned homes. Indoor housing in such conditions is dangerous. Protection from the wind is essential in cold weather, but many kennels offer complete protection from cold weather in an outdoor situation through good housing, windbreaks and other methods.

• Or on a “restraint.” This term is not defined in the legislation, but it appears to prohibit anyone from keeping a dog on a tether or chain. Experienced dog people know that tethering provides a dog with the highest possible degree of freedom and safety if it is done correctly. It also provides dogs with the most frequent interaction with people, as contact is unobstructed by kennel fencing. In addition, the only research done on the effects of tethering shows that there are no observable changes in behavior if tethering is used (a 2002 study by Cornell University).

Traditional non-confined farm and ranch housing of herding and working dogs also would appear to be prohibited, and leaving a farm, ranch, herding or livestock protection dog outdoors unattended without restraint would not be allowed. This also would appear to apply to dogs that are used to guard livestock from predators or fenced private property from intruders.

Another apparent prohibition would be housing dogs in dog boxes mounted in or on pick-up trucks, horse trailers or dog trailers when their owner is traveling. These “on-the-road” housing methods are frequently used by many people who travel with dogs, or people who participate in hunting, field trials, dog shows and other events.

And a separate requirement for a dog to be under “immediate” control while on a leash would appear to prohibit training on a checkcord, or using retractable leashes to give a dog more freedom of movement.

Here is a link to this legislation: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodoc...c/SB00634I.doc.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance is asking Texans to contact Sen. Seliger and ask him to withdraw this dangerous legislation. His email is kel.seliger@senate.state.tx.us[/email] His capitol phone is (512) 463-0131 and his fax is (512) 475-3733. This page will give contact information for his district offices: http://www.txdirectory.com/online/p...p;office=16684.

We also are asking Texans to contact their own senator and representative to express opposition to SB 634. Here is a link for all senators: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Memb...aspx?Chamber=S. This link is for members of the House of Representatives: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Memb...aspx?Chamber=H.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.

Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org . Our email is [email]asda@csonline.net .

PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS

The American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
Please Join Us

__________________
SKY
___________________
Author of the novel "Follow Jennifer"

Outline for email to Texas Senator

Here's an outline to use for your email to Texas Senator Seliger.
This is what I sent - so go ahead and personalize/change it to the way YOU would send it.
Dear Senator Seliger,Please withdraw Senate Bill 634. This is dangerous legislation being proposed by radical "Animal Rights" groups such as Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), People for the Ethical Treatment of animals (PETA) and Texas Humane Legislatiion Network (THLN).
Texas needs "Animal welfare, not animal 'rights'
and, yes, there is a difference."

The goal of these groups is to eliminate ALL use or ownership of animals for ANY reason. They are chipping away area-by-area at those with livestock and companion animals. The stated goal of the HSUS President is to eliminate all eggs, poultry, fish and meat from American menus. Also, in SB 634 there are undercurrents of illegal search and seizure by "the powers that be" and the powers that haven't officially been named or appointed for the most part.
Under SB 634, traditional non-confined farm and ranch housing of herding and working dogs also would appear to be prohibited, and leaving a farm, ranch, herding or livestock protection dog outdoors unattended without restraint would not be allowed. This also would appear to apply to dogs that are used to guard livestock from predators or fenced private property from intruders.

Another apparent prohibition would be housing dogs in dog boxes mounted in or on pick-up trucks, horse trailers or dog trailers when their owner is traveling. These “on-the-road” housing methods are frequently used by many people who travel with dogs, or people who participate in hunting, field trials, dog shows and other events.

This is TEXAS, where farming. ranching and hunting is a way of life as well as a way of earning a living.

__________________
SKY
___________________
Author of the novel "Follow Jennifer"

Sky posted:

"The legislation defines a �commercial breeder� as �any person who possesses or
maintains twenty (20) or more adult female dogs in whole or in part for the
purpose of the sale of their offspring as companion animals.� The words �in part� means that breeding even one female makes a kennel owner a commercial breeder, and the inclusion of the words �possesses or maintains� entraps many professional trainers, handlers, private rescue networks, hound pack owners, boarding kennels and hunt clubs in the definition."

My reply:

I tried the link to the bill, but it says 'page not found.'

Can anyone explain how, if I own 3 females and breed one, or even all 3, how this could possibly be mistaken for TWENTY, as this bill proposes?

Hobby breeders do NOT own or breed 20 females a year!

Someone breeding 20 females IS surely 'commercial.'

But whatever, I still do not understand how a true Hobby Breeder (who breeds maybe a couple litters a year if even that) can fall under this bill as it is presented here.

If I am a trainer, posessing a HUNDRED dogs for training, that is NOT for the ___purpose__ of sale of their offspring.

I f I was, also then, going to breed/sell offspring from even half those 100, then again, this surely DOES fit definition of a commercial operation, as no one breeds that many dogs for pleasure. It is only going to fit the 'for profit' definition, in even the loosest of definitions.

Please help me understand! Thanks!

Wildhounds

While this legislation is called the “Commercial Breeder Act,” in reality it ensnares many hobbyists, trainers and handlers in their net. These bills are typical of HSUS-promoted legislation, which misrepresents its true purpose.

The legislation defines a “commercial breeder” as “any person who possesses or
maintains twenty (20) or more adult female dogs in whole or in part for the
purpose of the sale of their offspring as companion animals.” The words “in part” means that breeding even one female makes a kennel owner a commercial breeder, and the inclusion of the words “possesses or maintains” entraps many professional trainers, handlers, private rescue networks, hound pack owners, boarding kennels and hunt clubs in the definition.

• State inspectors have unlimited access to the home, facilities and property of anyone who owns a licensed kennel, or an unlicensed kennel. Constitutional requirements for search warrants and probable cause would be trampled.

• The state would be given unlimited power to confiscate animals from noncompliant kennels, and could enter into cooperative agreements with local, statewide or national animals rights groups such as HSUS. The kennel owner would have to post a bond to cover the cost. Real estate and personal property could be required as security for the bond.

REMEMBER - HSUS TRAINS MOST ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS (& ALSO DICTATES SHELTER PROTOCOL) NATIONWIDE

__________________
SKY
___________________
Author of the novel "Follow Jennifer"