Wake UP and Smell the BULLSHIT!!!

Do I have your attention?!? I sure hope so!!
Read the truth about what’s really going on!!! Enough money has gone to these Animal Rights Extremists groups to allow them to ‘take over the world’. And while I always laughed when I heard the statement on ‘Pinky and the Brain’…In real life -far from funny. Read the following and learn the TRUTH!!! Very few Animal Advocates are truly behind these bills, once they realize the truth, that Animal Rights doctrine is destroying ALL Animal Culture.

Should the breeding of any group of animals be stopped and forbidden?!?…NO…Or, it is only a matter of time that your worse nightmare come true…no more animals to love and cherish.
Tonight I read letters from two lawmakers that were sent in reply and found it difficult to believe what I was reading -Our lawmakers believe this BULLSHIT!!! Well how about exposing the truth from where they get their information!!! They have been drinking the ‘KILL-Aid’

Please read the following then follow the link to the capwiz and send your message -ACTION ALERT!!!

http://www.saova.org/ARPACS.html

Sportsman and Animal Owners Voting Alliance

Anti-Hunter/Animal Rightist Political Action Committees (PACs)

One of the most effective methods the anti’s have to promote their legislative initiatives against hunting, breeding, entertainment, meat eating, or any other use of animals is through their political action committees (PACs), of which the largest and most visible at the federal level is Humane USA Political Action Committee. Its members include The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), The Fund for Animals (FFA), Farm Sanctuary, ASPCA, Doris Day Animal League (DDAL), Animal Welfare Institute, The Ark Trust, Animal Rights Foundation of Florida, and others. DDAL and FFA recently merged with HSUS, making the latter not only the wealthiest and best organized of the animal rights advocacy groups, but Humane USA’s chief client. A HSUS employee has always directed Humane USA.

In addition, a host of smaller state PACs also network, lobby legislation, endorse and fund candidates. The oldest of the state-level PACs is the extremely active California Political Action Committee for Animals (PAWPAC), which is ten years older than Humane USA. Other increasingly active anti-sportsmen and animal owner PACs include: Humanitarians for Environmental and Animal Laws (Michigan), Pro-Animal PAC of Colorado, Humane/Oregon PAC, Animal Advocacy Connecticut, Animal Protection of New Mexico/Animal Protection Voters, Louisiana League of Humane Voters, League of Humane Voters of New York City, League of Humane Voters of Ohio, League of Humane Voters of Central Pennsylvania, Animal Defenders of Westchester, Humane Voters Council (Washington), Animal Protection PAC (New Jersey), Colorado Humane Voters League, Virginia Voters for Animal Welfare, Iowa Voters for Companion Animals, Minnesota Voters for Animal Protection, Nevada Voters for Animal Welfare, Animal Legislative Action Network (California), and Farm Sanctuary (New York and California).

These groups continue to press their corporate and personal agendas to end sport hunting, limit fishing, federally license all pet breeding, radically change livestock farming and end animal medical research, circuses, rodeos, and zoos. Local PACs lobby and attempt to pass ballot initiatives against hunting and trapping and have had enormous influence on such draconian anti-pet-breeding laws as southern California’s punitive intact-animal licensing ordinance and Albuquerque’s omnibus HEART statute, restricting or outlawing all aspects of pet ownership. It would be difficult to exaggerate how much damage Humane USA and its local affiliates and allies can do to hunting and animal ownership interests, using political donations to pave the way.

To explain briefly how a PAC works, Political Action Committee “(PAC)” is a popular term for an IRS recognized group organized for the specific purpose of raising and spending money to elect (pass) and defeat candidates or ballot initiatives. Incumbent politicians’ reelections are seldom in doubt, due largely to heavy PAC donations. Such support ensures continued access to politicians, an important lobbying commodity. There are over 4,500 PACs registered with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and more operating locally in all 50 states. PACs represent business, labor, or ideological interests, and they affect nearly every aspect of American life. Candidates and political parties maintain registered campaign committees. Interest PACs may currently give $5,000 to a federal candidate’s committee per election (primary, general, or special).

In principle, ideological interest PACs are simple. They solicit non-tax deductible contributions from individuals who agree with their point of view (POV), screen candidates, donate to those politicians supporting that POV, and pay sizable operating expenses. Every dollar handled by a PAC or a campaign committee must be accounted for quarterly. Large PACs, receiving numerous individual contributions, may file 500 pages per month with the FEC, detailing that name, address and amount data. Services such as Open Secrets summarize federal PAC receipts and disbursements. While federal PACs also report donations to state legislators, they normally aren’t summarized online. That raw data may be reviewed at the FEC site. All the state campaign finance disclosure offices may be found here.

Operating a PAC, with its high donation solicitation expenses, is very expensive. Out of the 2005-2006 cycle $215,000 receipts through June 30, 2006, Humane USA has contributed $75,000.00 to federal candidates, half to Republicans, half to Democrats. Its largest donations were to Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) and to Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), the sponsor of the anti-hunting and anti-breeding PAWS bill. Third quarter PAC reports occasionally contain surprises, such as heavy direct expenditures designed to defeat a targeted candidate. In the 2007-2008 cycle Humane USA spent $354,669 with contributions of $211,855 going directly to federal candidates (77% to Democrats, 22% to Republicans). The top 2008 Humane USA political contributions of $8,000 went to Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Representative Elton Gallegly (R-CA). 2010 contributions were considerably less with only $123,500 going to federal candidates; however Humane Society Legislative Fund added $55,500 in political contributions and The HSUS spent another $750,826 on various campaigns supporting or opposing candidates. Legislators receiving anti’s donations are identified on this website as Animal Rightist Endorsed and Funded.

With HSUS absorbing other leading anti and animal rightist organizations, Humane USA may no longer be needed as an independent PAC. HSUS has created Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF), as the successor to Humane USA. HSUS can better control its own internal PAC, especially with respect to hiring more lobbyists at both state and federal levels, generating more legislative initiatives, and building HSUS’ ranks of trained political activist volunteers.

Is your Washington representative endorsed or funded by HSUS-dominated Humane Society Legislative Fund? Is your state senate or house member listed? Who’s contributing to these anti-hunter, animal rightists PACs? Where is the gun owner, hunter, and conservation PAC money going? There over 69 million pet-owning households in the U.S., but there isn’t a pet owner PAC. Farm animal owners have several good ones. PACs are serious, expensive, and essential components of interest advocacy.

As resources permit, SAOVA will update the antis’ additional pre-election endorsements and post-election PAC filings.

OpenSecrets  http://www.opensecrets.org/index.php

Help financially support SAOVA’s successful pro-active advocacy! See Support SAOVA for options

ACTION ALERT!!! FOLLOW THE LINK  BELOW AND SEND YOUR MESSAGE!!!

The National Animal Interest Alliance – Promoting Animal Welfare Worldwide http://capwiz.com/naiatrust/issues/alert/?alertid=61101506&queueid=%5Bcapwiz%3Aqueue_id%5D

Identical versions of the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act, (PUPS) were introduced in the US Senate and House of Representatives in early 2011. The purpose of PUPS is to close a loophole in the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) which allows breeders who sell more than 50 dogs a year and sell over the Internet,to do so without USDA regulation and oversight. The House version, H.R. 835, has been referred to the House Sub Committee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry ; the Senate version, S. 707, was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. Neither bill has been scheduled for a hearing. Read the text of the billhere.

NAIA supports amending the AWA to keep up with changes in the way dogs are delivered to the marketplace and consumer; but only if it is done in a way that stays within the original scope and purpose of the Act. The category of breeders regulated needs to be defined carefully so that it does not expand federal oversight to breeders who sell directly to the public from their homes, or breed and sell 50 dogs or fewer per year. Unfortunately, the PUPS bill does not stay within these parameters and it contains several other notable flaws.

Dog breeding was first regulated under the AWA at a time when most large scale commercial breeders sold their dogs through middlemen to pet stores. The regulations are designed to protect the welfare of dogs, and to provide consumer protection to purchasers of pet store puppies who are unable to see and judge the conditions under which their puppy was produced. The growing number of large scale commercial breeders who sell their dogs over the Internet meet the historical criteria for regulation because, like the pet store purchasers, their customers are generally unable to see the environment in which their puppy was bred. Instead of buying their puppy at the seller’s home or kennel, their puppy is generally shipped to them after an online sale is made.

It is this group that warrants modification of the AWA’s current definitions. Casting the net beyond this group as the PUPS bill does, would cause many small scale hobbyists, sporting dog enthusiasts and working dog breeders to throw in the towel. It would also stretch the resources of USDA beyond its budgetary and operating capacity, reducing coverage in the areas with the greatest risk, and unnecessarily duplicating efforts by state and local agencies, as well as dog registries like the AKC that conduct significant inspection programs.

As much as the Internet has changed the marketplace for dogs, it’s also important to keep in mind that most dog breeders today, whether small scale hobbyists, hunting dog enthusiasts or casual breeders who sell directly to the public from their homes, use the Internet to advertise their puppies. As a result, advertising dogs on the Internet – as important as it is – cannot be used as the sole criterion for determining who should be regulated under an updated version of the AWA. Instead several criteria need to be considered, combined and utilized to establish a profile of who should be regulated.

Hobbyists, casual breeders and some commercial breeders who sell directly to the public have never been considered appropriate targets for federal regulation. The reasons for excluding them from regulation as retail pet stores are sound, and were reaffirmed as recently as 2003 in the Doris Day Animal League vs. Veneman (USDA) decision, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. .

Further, NAIA maintains that USDA has the subject matter knowledge, the history and statutory authority to regulate this group of breeders , and can do so by amending the Act so that large scale breeders who use indirect means such as the Internet to sell and distribute their puppies will no longer be exempt. NAIA would welcome a rulemaking proposal designed to make such a modification. The lack of updated regulations hurts dogs, consumers and prevents good breeders from being able to distinguish themselves from those who wish to fly under the radar.

Please write your Senators and Representatives and ask them to reject PUPS as currently drafted. Let them know you support its goals, but don’t believe it will achieve its objectives and could cause more problems than it solves.

Use the Take Action link in the upper right hand of this page to write your message. It will take you to a page with talking points which you can click on to use. PLEASE CHOOSE THE ONES YOU LIKE BEST AND THEN MODIFY THEM TO YOUR OWN WORDS. If you don’t modify our talking points, your note will look like a form letter. Finally, add something personal to your message. Let your lawmakers know about your dogs; how much they mean to you; how long you’ve been breeding; that you do agility, or do rescue or therapy work. Tell them what’s important to you.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Please take action NOW!!!  Best  -B

~ by topcatsroar on March 23, 2012.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: