neaa350x115.jpg



Legislation

LETTER FOR YOUR VETERINARIAN

 

Please consider sending this to your vet if you are concerned about your right to own and breed dogs.

Below you will find an example letter you may send. You can "copy and paste" this into your favorite text editing software or use one of the files here, which are the same letter but in formats you may find easier to use.

  • Letter for Your Veterinarian in .DOC format (Microsoft Word, fully editable)
  • Letter for Your Veterinarian in Fill able .PDF format (you can fill in your name, vets name and the date, then print out)

 

(Text of letter follows)

 

(Date)


Dear (your veterinarian),


As a concerned pet owner/breeder/exhibitor, I am extremely worried that in just a few short years, I will no longer be able to enjoy life with my pets. Under the guise of “animal welfare,” animal rights groups are systematically chipping away my right to own pets and enjoy the human-animal bond.

There is a huge difference between Animal Welfare and Animal Rights.

Animal Welfare is a philosophy that advocates that people who keep and utilize animals have a moral responsibility to assure their well-being, and to protect them from abuse and unnecessary suffering. Animal Rights is a philosophy that advocates animals should be viewed as legal persons, not property, and that they should not be used in any way.

Groups such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and HSUS (Humane Society of the United States, no direct affiliation with local humane societies) conduct major political lobbying at the state and federal levels and spend millions of dollars annually to promote their agenda and to elect candidates that favor their agenda. That agenda, while couched in terms of animal welfare, is, in many cases, designed to restrict and eliminate a pet owner’s right to own animals.

Eliminating the right to own pets will severely affect your veterinary practice...

Animal Rights organizations spend millions of dollars a year lobbying politicians. Breed restrictions, early spay and neuter, crop and dock bans, are all examples of legislation which limits and eliminates pet ownership, community by community, state by state. These groups feel pet ownership, livestock, food animals, hunting, medical research, zoos, circuses, rodeos, horse shows, dog shows, cat shows, bird shows, guide dogs, service dogs, police dogs, and search and rescue dogs are all “exploitation” of animals and attempt to end them. They also chip away at the rights of pet owners and their veterinarians to determine the proper veterinary treatment of their pets’ health and welfare.

Laws banning ear cropping, tail docking, debarking, declawing, or enforcing early spay and neuter protocols attempt to dictate how you practice medicine. These are surgical procedures that should be decided on a medical case by case basis in the best interest of the animal patient, between you, the veterinarian, and me, the pet owner - not a politician.

I believe that veterinary medical decisions should be made by veterinarians and pet owners, not by politicians…

Animal Rights groups encourage politicians to enact both drastic and seemingly insignificant changes to current legislation. They play to our emotional, not factual based decisions.

The “owner” vs. “guardian” issue is a perfect example. While on the surface, replacing the term “owner” with “guardian” in legislation seems to be innocuous, kind-hearted, and a gentler term to use, in reality, it takes away a pet owner’s property rights to own, breed, and even provide veterinary care for their pet. Once a pet owner is deemed a “guardian,” it opens the door for third parties to step in, on behalf of the pet, and override decisions made on behalf of the pet, including veterinary care.

Imagine having to get permission from not only the pet owner, but a third party “guardian” whenever you recommend a medical procedure. Imagine having your medical protocol questioned in the local courts when a “guardian” decides to intercede and files an injunction on behalf of the pet to prohibit your recommended course of treatment.

Continuing to allow Animal Rights groups to influence local legislation is harmful to our rights as pet owners and your rights to determine how you practice veterinary medicine.

This directly affects your ability to both practice veterinary medicine and earn a living. Without a pet population, veterinary medicine would be severely limited, if not totally destroyed.

As a veterinarian, and a respected member of our community, your involvement is crucial in the fight against anti-pet legislation.

Two great sources of information on how to battle this type of legislation are the NAIA (National Animal Interest Alliance) and the American Kennel Club.

The NAIA (www.naiaonline.org) is an association of business, agricultural, scientific, and recreational interests dedicated to promoting animal welfare, supporting responsible animal use, and strengthening the bond between humans and animals. Their members are pet owners, dog and cat clubs, obedience clubs, and rescue groups, as well as breeders, trainers, veterinarians, research scientists, farmers, fishermen, hunters, and wildlife biologists. Through the NAIA and the NAIA Trust (www.naiatrust.org) whose mission is to promote the welfare of animals, strengthen the human-animal bond and safeguard the rights of responsible animal owners, enthusiasts and professionals through education, legislation and the courts. Their web sites are filled with facts, figures, and sample talking points to help you become an expert advocate.

The American Kennel Club (AKC) Government Relations Department
(www.akc.org/canine_legislation) is dedicated to protecting the rights of all dog owners, recognizing that advocacy works best when those who are directly affected by the legislation take the lead in working with policymakers. With 125 years of experience in the study and welfare of dogs, the AKC is a leading expert on responsible dog ownership, care, well-being, and public policy issues that pertain to dog ownership. The primary role of the AKC in the area of canine public policy is educational and informational. There is a wealth of information available to you to support the fight against anti-dog legislation.
Animal Rights legislation affects all of us that love our pets. Not only does it affect the pet owner, but the pet industry as a whole, including veterinary medicine, groomers, trainers, pet stores, and breeders.

We can’t let the benefits of the human and animal bond be taken away from us. We must all work together to preserve our life with animals. As pet owners, we rely on you, our veterinarian, to be there for our pets’ medical needs, and to counsel us on their health and well-being. We are already engaged in this battle with the Animal Rights groups. We need your help!

Grass roots efforts at the local level are what win the battles against this type legislation. Get involved. Go to your city or county commission meetings. Facts and figures coming from you, the veterinarian, create far greater impact than from pet owners alone. After all, most city commissioners, county commissioners, and legislators own pets, and trust their veterinarian. You are the expert on veterinary care. They will listen to you.


Best regards,




(your name)


 

HSUS UNDER INVESTIGATION

 

http://humanewatch.org/index.php/site/post/congressmen_sniff_out_hsus_lobbying/

http://tinyurl.com/29hn79p

Jul 09 2010
Congressmen Sniffing Out HSUS Lobbying

Two Members of the U.S. Congress are hot on HSUS’s trail for what may be
excessive lobbying, and the IRS is apparently taking a hard look.

Here’s a little background: In March we spoke with attorney Frank Losey,
who is independently leading a campaign to get the IRS to investigate
whether HSUS’s wide-ranging lobbying activities violate its 501(c)(3)
charity status. As of March, his effort had generated over 4,000
grassroots letters to the IRS, and hundreds or letters to Members of
Congress.

And the effort has apparently been yielding some serious fruit.

In a letter from March 23 that's just surfacing this morning,
Congressman Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) wrote to IRS Commissioner Douglas
Shulman to convey his concerns about HSUS’s lobbying activities.
Specifically, Luetkemeyer singles out the apparent conflict of interest
in Michael Markarian’s role as head of HSUS’s lobbying arm (the Humane
Society Legislative Fund) and his positions as HSUS Vice President and
Chief Operating Officer. Luetkemeyer also notes HSUS’s own admission
that it “helped to pass…a total of 470 new state laws in the last 7
years.”...

 


 

 THE OHIO COMPROMISE

7/7/2010 7:59:00 PM
The Ohio Compromise

By ANDY VANCE
Agri Broadcasting Network

http://tinyurl.com/252kw2t

"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other
(guy) die for his." - General George S. Patton, Jr.

Many of us made the mistake of thinking we were going to war, proudly
carrying the battle standard for farm families, consumer rights, truth,
justice, and the American way. Staring back across the mud and the blood
were a group of idealists one Ohio farm leader popularly referred to as
"radical anti-meat terrorists."

The problem is we weren't really fighting terrorists; we were fighting a
sophisticated regime of well-funded mercenaries intent on destroying us
from within. We thought we were fighting for General Patton across
Western Europe, when really we were fighting the Cold War. The good guys
blinked, and last week Ohio farm leaders brokered a compromise with the
Humane Society of the United States.

General George Patton is one of my favorite historical figures. The
greatest wartime General in modern history, Patton was as famous for his
efficiency in defeating Nazis as for his inability to navigate politics.
Patton's writings are particularly applicable to the feelings of many
Ohio farmers following the "Ohio Compromise" between farm groups and
animal rights activists....

(view the entire article)


 

AKC RESPONSE TO FEDERAL PUPS BILL

 

[Thursday, July 22, 2010]

The American Kennel Club and our Washington, D.C.-based advocacy team continue to closely monitor S. 3424/H.R. 5434, the federal Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety (PUPS) Act. There has been no official action on the bill since its introduction in late May.

As previously reported, the 2010 PUPS bill seeks to expand federal regulation of dog breeders who breed and sell more than 50 puppies a year directly to consumers. This version is a significant improvement over previous versions, which focused on the number of dogs owned, regardless of what was bred or sold. This version would require the new category of breeders to abide by basic minimum standards of care and conditions and to abide by new performance-based exercise requirements.

However, the AKC also has a number of serious concerns with the bill as introduced. Some of these concerns include:

  • Definition of "breeding female" as an intact female dog aged 4 months or older. Female dogs are not sufficiently mature at 4 months of age to be bred.
  • Definition of "high volume retail breeder" that is overly broad and does not take into account co- and joint ownerships. Additionally, a reference in this definition to the number of dogs owned by a breeder is unnecessary and potentially misleading.
  • Exercise language should be clarified to ensure that the daily exercise requirements do not preclude training that involves other types of activity as well.

We will continue to monitor this legislation vigilantly and to outline our concerns regarding PUPS legislation to appropriate members of Congress and staff. Given the issues that AKC and other responsible dog owner groups have raised, and that Congress will be in session for fewer than six weeks prior to the November elections, it is not likely that there will be action on PUPS in the near term.

AKC will continue its education campaign with legislators and we will keep you up to date on any new developments.

For more information about the PUPS bill view the links below:


NEAA Legislative Liaison, Amy Peterson, elvbend1@mchsi.com
www.elvbendelkhounds.com/blog

 © NEAA 1998-2010.  All rights reserved.  
All content on this website is protected under US Copyright Law and rights 
belong to its owner.  No content, including photos, graphics, text, or other content 
or intellectual property may be reproduced without prior written permission of its owner.
Revised: July 24, 2010
  Contact NEAA for more information.

What is Copyright Protection?