Thanks for all that information, Suze. It was very informative. I know
that you have resigned your membership from CKCSC USA, but there are a lot
of old club members still on the list. How in the world is CKSCS supporting
this? Myra
>From: "Susan A. Schlenger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: The Cavalier King Charles Spaniel List
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [CKCS-L] Doris Day Animal League
>Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 15:49:44 -0400
>
>OK, Glenn,
> You asked for it. <G> This is an article "by an author in whom I
>have
>the utmost confidence".
>
>Dr. Alvin Grossman, the renown AKC all-breed judge and much published
>author, must have seen the writing on the wall. In the preface to the
>book The Hijacking of the Humane Movement1. published in 1993 he warned
>us that the "misbegotten souls of the animal rights movement" were no
>longer funny, harmless or simply irritating. He said that "we, the
>public, have been cleverly duped by mass media campaigns and the support
>of a few misguided stars of the entertainment world." The premise of the
>book is that the humane movement, begun in times of true cruelty to
>animals when animal baiting and blood sports abounded was simply based
>on kind and humane treatment and that the modern day equivalent run by
>new age "animal rightists" (many of whom are classed as domestic
>terrorists) anthropomorphize animals by insisting that they have equal
>"rights". Therefore, "freeing" an animal (only to be killed in traffic)
>is seen as an act of righteousness.
>
> The president of the Doris Day Animal League, Ms. Doris Day, and her
>advisory board, (who include such entertainment luminaries as Bob Hope
>and Martina Navratilova) are proving the truth of Dr. Grossman's words
>some eight years after they were written.
>
>The July 3, 2001 decision of the United States District Court For the
>District of Columbia written by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in the case
>of Doris Day Animal League, et al, Plaintiffs vs. Ann Veneman,
>Secretary, Department of Agriculture, et al, Defendants may come as a
>surprise to some of the U.S. purebred fanciers, but not to those of us
>who have been fearing the confusion between Animal Rightists and Animal
>Welfare Organizations for some time. Currently, word of this decision
>is racing around the internet dog breeder's lists and U.S. community of
>dog fanciers like wildfire.
> According to the Doris Day Animal League ("DDAL") the lawsuit was
>filed
>in order to "require commercial retail dealers who sell dogs and cats
>from their own premises to be licensed and meet minimum standards for
>humane care and treatment". It is DDAL's contention that "{m}any of
>these dealers, commonly called 'puppy mill breeders,' breed and raise
>these animals in deplorable conditions". So, DDAL sued the United
>States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") contending that current
>regulation by the USDA was in violation of the Animal Welfare Act. On
>the surface, this all sounds reasonable (as do many other statements by
>the Animal Rightist organizations who are extremely careful to hide
>their actual agendas from their well meaning benefactors). In fact, if
>one reads the court's opinion, the DDAL did not oppose just puppy mills
>but rather insisted that anyone who breeds cats and dogs should be
>licensed as a "dealer". It is common for the Animal Rightist
>organizations to abhor breeding of any kind; however they are careful to
>skirt actually saying that. One wonders if the true agenda in filing
>some of these lawsuits is not, in fact, to slowly eliminate classes of
>breeders in a cleverly crafted campaign? No sane animal lover could
>begrudge aid and comfort to puppymill animals, but this lawsuit does not
>discriminate between the puppymill and the reputable breeder.
>
> Prior to this new opinion by the courts, the USDA, for purposes of
>reasonableness, had regulated and licensed the obvious "dealers" such as
>commercial breeders and had concentrated efforts to regulate and license
>in the commercial environment. As it was, the USDA was barely able to
>keep up with the more egregious violators; the outright puppymills.
>Now, one wonders how the opinion of this court can be rationally
>applied?
> The court speaks to prior USDA interpretation of the Animal Welfare Act
>("AWA") and current policy in this statement:
>
>"Therefore, contrary to the AWA's plain meaning, the USDA's regulations
>place persons who sell dogs and cats from their home for use as pets
>into the first exemption, thereby relieving them from the licensing
>requirements that apply to "dealers""2.
>
>Formerly, the USDA had made an important distinction between the hobby
>breeder and the commercial kennel in order to triage inspection,
>regulation and enforcement in areas in which it was truly a real
>concern. This new decision is very narrowly drawn and depends upon
>forcing the USDA to comply with the AWA as literally written instead of
>the more common sense approach it had taken to date.
>
>
>Under this new decision, all of us who breed purebred dogs are now
>"dealers" and subject to licensing, inspection and regulation unless
>this decision is reversed on appeal. One might ask why this is such a
>bad thing; after all aren't there purebred breeders who push the
>limits? Perhaps. But the purebred hobby breeders in the U.S. are
>speculating about the changes that may take place such as the following:
>� Dogs may not be allowed to live together in home environments for
>protection against "transmission of disease" and breeders who keep dogs
>in their home may be forced to consider kennels.
>� USDA inspectors will be free to visit homes at will and inspect
>while
>possibly carrying diseases from commercial breeding establishments.
>� Specific identification of each animal by tag and tattoo/microchip
>is
>required and record keeping is burdensome beyond what reputable hobby
>breeders practice.
>� Dogs must be separately housed in a primary mathematically correct
>enclosures.
>� Vaccination protocols are no longer at all discretionary but
>mandated.
>
>Again, the regulations are wonderful strides from the cruelty of
>treatment from which some puppy mill animals suffer, but they are hardly
>a useful guide for the hobby breeder who is likely to more than exceed
>them. In fact the small breeder will be forced to conform with
>standards less acceptable for care of their animals then they already do
>provide.
>Hobby breeders and exhibitors are hoping that the decision will be
>reversed on appeal or amended by legislation because the prospect of
>compliance for the small hobby breeder is more than daunting. An eighty
>five page document can be found at the USDA's Animal and Plant Health
>Inspection Service (APHIS) that describes exactly what compliance will
>be necessary if this decision stands. If you are connected to the
>internet, you can view this document at the Aphis website.3 (Click on
>"publications" and then go to the Animal Welfare Act.)
>
>In other words, the small hobby breeder who may have one or a few
>litters per year will be treated in exactly the same manner for all
>intents and purposes as if that breeder were a commercial breeding
>establishment. For some small hobby breeders this will prove
>impossible or unbearable and may cause the extinction of the small hobby
>breeder while the large commercial breeders (including puppy mills) will
>be able to afford to continue to operate and possibly enriched and
>encouraged by an unfulfilled demand. This has been the case under
>various other legislation enacted under the guise of protecting the
>animals (or the public) here in the U.S. Profitable enterprise
>continues to flourish while the reputable (and rarely profitable)
>breeder sinks deeper into the mire. The small breeders are, in many
>cases, the breeders who breed for the advancement of the breed; for
>health, type, and to preserve the breed standard. They are the ones who
>fill dog shows with their hopeful exhibits and who are the cornerstone
>of the dog fancy.
>
>We teetered on the slippery slope back when Dr. Grossman was making his
>observations and Rod and Patti Strand wrote the highly informative The
>Hijacking of the Humane Movement. These days you can still find Patti
>Strand fighting the good fight at The National Animal Interest Alliance
>(NAIA Trust) which also has a website full of information on this
>topic. In fact, it is the only place that this recent decision is
>published in full and can be accessed.4.
>
>While I believe it is very possible for right thinking people to
>disagree on Animal Rightist views versus Animal Welfare, especially in
>isolated issues, I think that this disagreement is partly based on the
>historically disingenuous presentation of those issues by Animal
>Rightists and the highly candid opinions of those in conservation and
>Animal Welfare. I hope to convince you of that in future. Otherwise,
>if you plan to visit the U.S. sometime in the future and see a dog show
>there may not be many dogs in attendance.
>
>1. Strand, Rod and Patti, Doral Publishing, INC., Wilsonville, Oregon
>97070, 1993
>2. Doris Day Animal League v. Ann Veneman, Secretary, USDCDC, C.A. No.
>00-1057(CKK)
>3. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/
>4. (http://naiaonline.org/index.htm)
>
>
>
>As this has already been printed, permission to reprint or repost is
>granted.
>
>Suze
>
>Glenn Fulton wrote:
> >
> > Could someone enlighten me exactly what the Doris Day Animal League
>position
> > is and why the Cavalier Club is supporting it. I checked out the Doris
>Day
> > Animal League web site and it appears they are against puppy mills and,
>of
> > course, as Martha Stewart would say, "that is a good thing." But then i
>get
> > this petition in the Cavalier Bullentin: Write to USDA Secretary Ann
>Veneman
> > and encourage the agency to enact final regulations that require
>breeders who
> > sell cats and dogs to the public directly from their homes to provide
>their
> > animals with the minimum protection under the Animal Welfare Act.
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Glenn Fulton
> > Cincinnati/Mason
> > permission to forward granted
> >
> > =========================================================
> > "Magic Commands":
> > to stop receiving mail for awhile, click here and send the email:
> > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20NOMAIL
> > to start it up gain click here:
> > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20MAIL
> >
> > E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] for assistance.
> > Search the Archives... http://apple.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ckcs-l.html
> >
> > All e-mail sent through CKCS-L is Copyright 2002 by its original author.
>
>--
>Suze at Llawen Cavaliers
>"...I have seen that in any great undertaking it is not enough for a man
>to depend simply upon himself." -Isna Ia-wica
>"Thought comes before speech" Luther Standing Bear
>
>=========================================================
>"Magic Commands":
>to stop receiving mail for awhile, click here and send the email:
>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20NOMAIL
>to start it up gain click here:
>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20MAIL
>
> E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] for assistance.
>Search the Archives... http://apple.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ckcs-l.html
>
>All e-mail sent through CKCS-L is Copyright 2002 by its original author.
Myra Savant Gardengate Cavaliers
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
=========================================================
"Magic Commands":
to stop receiving mail for awhile, click here and send the email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20NOMAIL
to start it up gain click here:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20MAIL
E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] for assistance.
Search the Archives... http://apple.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ckcs-l.html
All e-mail sent through CKCS-L is Copyright 2002 by its original author.
