SB 6 – Animal Fighting Contests. Assigned to Corrections & Criminal Law Committee – no action so far.
SB 230 – Wild Animal Permits. Assigned to Agricultural and Natural Resources Committee – no action so far.
SB 295 – Commercial Dog Breeder Regulation – this is the bill that would regulate Rescue Organizations. Assigned to Agricultural and Natural Resources Committee – no action so far.
SB 361 – Dog Training and Game Breeder Enclosures. Assigned to Agricultural and Natural Resources Committee – no action so far.
SB 421 – Professional Licensing Matters – passed by Commerce Committee – waiting for full Senate to vote.
HB 1013 – Release of Animal Veterinary Records. Passed House and referred to Senate on 1/27.
HB 1090 – Wild Animal Permits – no action so far.
HB 1199 – Release of Feral Cats. Linda Lawson was added as co-author. Passed Committee on 1/27.
HB 1257 – Animal Neglect and Abandonment – Linda Lawson’s bill – no action so far.
HB 1400 – Companion Animal Sterilization Program – Linda Lawson’s bill for Medicaid recipients – no action so far.
Thanks to the efforts of numerous responsible dog owners, the Porter County Commission has agreed to not move forward with a 40-page proposal that would have imposed harsh requirements on hobbyists, including requiring anyone who breeds a litter or owns 5 intact “domestic pets” in a single year to comply with the standards and requirements established by the USDA for commercial breeding regulations, including periodic inspections.
Instead, the commission and other public officials will re-examine these issues and develop a new proposal. The AKC, local clubs, and the AKC’s state federation for Indiana continue to closely monitor this issue and work with Porter County officials to develop an effective, reasonable law that addresses their concerns without punishing responsible hobbyists and dog owners.
AKC Government Relations (AKC GR) will provide more details as they become available. For questions or more information, contact AKC GR at (919) 816-3720 or doglaw@akc.org.
DOCKET NO. APHIS-2011-003 PROPOSED RULE
We are more than halfway through the public comment period on Docket APHIS-2011-0003 — comments will close on July 16th. Your clear and specific comments about the effect of the proposed new rule are the first defense against that rule going into effect. The more you comment the better chance we have for this rule to not take effect. As of now there are only about 1,800 comments and about half of them are from the ARs praising the new rule.
This new rule would require you to keep four or fewer breeding females and sell only their offspring which are raised only on your premises. Co-ownerships would count for both, so if you and a friend co-own two bitches then he/she can only have two others and you can only have two others. And this is NOT per species: Two intact female cats on your premises would max you out, even though your dogs are usually living with your friend.
You would have the choice of selling all dogs ONLY from your premises. No meeting halfway, no shipping. EVERY buyer would have to come to where the dogs are maintained. Although it isn’t now in the rule and APHIS indicates that meeting buyers in your living room would be enough, the ARs are already screaming that buyers should have the right to demand a complete tour of all parts of your home where you keep dogs because the whole purpose of this is to see that you are inspected by your buyers.
You would have to build an Animal Welfare Act compliant kennel and keep all of your breeding stock and puppies there. This would require you to accept no-notice inspections during normal working hours and it would be a discrepancy if you are not on hand when an inspector shows up. Do it again and fines are imposed — just as you would get for other repeated discrepancies.
Figure $50,000-up for a small kennel if you can get zoning approval and your neighbors don’t mind, and you are willing to have your locality and state consider you a business. Don’t forget that once you are USDA licensed there must always be someone on hand (during normal working hours) who is qualified to let an inspector in, explain your records, your veterinarian relationship, methods of identifying your dogs and keeping them separate in the various situations where the regulations require.
PLEASE SEND COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED RULE
It is IMPERATIVE that dog, cat, and small animal breeders submit comments on this over-zealous proposed rule. Hobbies and livelihoods are at stake. APHIS needs to hear from breeders and rescuers on how this impacts your hobby. APHIS needs to hear how this proposed change impacts breeding programs if you cannot ship dogs/puppies/cats between friends and fellow breeders.
POST A COMMENT ONLINE via Federal eRulemaking Portal. GO TO THE PORTAL.
Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act
· PUPS targets “anyone owning or co-owning one intact 4 month or older female breeding of dogs”, “High volume Retail Breeder” and “sells or offers for sale, via any means of conveyance (including the internet, telephone or newspaper) more than 50 of the offspring of such breeding female dogs for use as pets in any 1 year period.” It makes criminals out of the vast majority of breeders who are responsible, law-abiding and caring individuals or establishments, deeply dedicated to the welfare of dogs.
· PUPS imposes higher standards for dog breeding than any other animal. Substandard and inhumane conditions, whether they be commercial operations or hobby kennels are subject to the strict enforcement of each State, County or Township’s animal welfare statutes.
· PUPS fails to improve upon existing animal welfare statutes. It does nothing to improve the current animal cruelty laws.
· PUPS is fiscally irresponsible, burdensome and unnecessary.
· PUPS restrictions would eliminate many competent, ethical hobby breeders dedicated to raising quality dogs by barring them from raising puppies in their homes.
Please contact your U.S. Congressman by using this URL:
Please contact your U.S. Senator by using this URL: http://www.senate.gov/
Hobart, IN: Ordinance committee will discuss possible BSL, July 18
Posted: 21 Jun 2012 08:04 AM PDT
A Hobart, IN, resident has asked city council for a “pit bull” ban. The city’s council moved the issue to the July 18 ordinance committee meeting, which will be devoted entirely to public dialogue on the issue.
Residents and locals, please attend the meeting and respectfully participate in the community dialogue. BSL has been suggested multiple times in Hobart in the past; most recently last November, when a different resident and a councilwoman both suggested BSL. Please take this opportunity to propose breed-neutral, effective solutions to the community’s irresponsible dog owner problem. The current animal ordinances can be viewed here.
Hobart City Hall, 414 Main Street, Hobart, Indiana 46342
Phone: 219-942-6112
Mayor Brian K. Snedecor, mayorsnedecor@city.hobart.in.us
City Clerk, clerk-treasurer@city.hobart.in.us
We are closing in on the final touches of the Spay/Neuter the HSUS effort; this time (see below) it involves adding your information and signature to a one-page letter (attached) that you can print out and mail in less than five minutes.
Below is Frank’s Summary on what has been happening, and what needs to be done in the next phase: PLEASE PLEASE take a moment to print out and send your letter, forward to your club members, breed lists, and any friends and family members that will do the same. I have printed out separate letters to be signed by my own family members, and will mail them in separate envelopes. Yes, the letters will all be the same – don’t worry about that. NUMBERS MATTER:
Frank Losey’s latest:
THE “HOME STRETCH” OF THE SPAY AND NEUTER CAMPAIGN
Earlier this year the IRS received over 6,000 letters from concerned citizens in all 50 States who asked that the IRS audit the excessive lobbying activities of the HSUS. Those letters were not in vain as they laid the foundation for “FOLLOW-UPS” by me. One of the “FOLLOW-UPS” was to the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury (IG Office). Most significantly, that Office has assigned a case file number to my first submission to that Office that was dated April 15, 2010. That means that the IG OFFICE is aware of the more than 1,200 pages of incriminating, “smoking gun” documents that were provided to the IRS in 12 sequential submissions. These documents establish that the HSUS has EXCEEDED the IRS “TOO MUCH LOBBYING” prohibition for all tax-exempt, public charities.
Hundreds of lobbying activities of the HSUS are well documented in the above referenced 1,200+ pages. However, I believe that the following seven issues will be jaw-dropping “showstoppers” for the IG Office.
1. 6000+ letters to the IRS.
2. At least nine Members of Congress from seven different States have asked the IRS, on behalf of their constituents, to address their concerns about the excessive lobbying activities of the HSUS.
3. One of those Members of Congress has sent at least two letters to the IRS, and in his last letter he described activities of the HSUS to be “a clear and direct violation of section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code.”
4. HSUS claims that it was responsible for the enactment of more than 525 Federal and State Statutes and the passage of more than 25 State Ballot Initiatives.
5. Federal Election Commission documents that reference over 2,300 pages of lobbying activities of an HSUS affiliate that is managed by the two most senior HSUS Officers.
6. Missouri Ethics Commission documents that show that the HSUS has contributed over $700,000, to date, in support of a Ballot Initiative. These documents also raise an issue as to whether the HSUS has “laundered” other financial support of lobbying activities through surrogate organizations to conceal the magnitude of its lobbying activities.
7. Documentation that supports the assertion that in the last four years the HSUS has generated over 1.6 Billion “Take Action” lobbying-related E-Mails. If these “Take Action” lobbying-related E-Mails were stacked on top of one another, the stack would be over 100 MILES HIGH!
WHAT MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE?:
1. Take the time to download the attached letter; add your name and address, and mail it to the Office of the Inspector General (See Address at the top of the attached letter.)
2. Mail it by regular mail. No need to send it by Certified Mail.
3. Encourage your friends, relatives and acquaintances to do the same. Have copies printed to hand to them!
NUMBERS DO MATTER: If the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury receives thousands of letters that reference the above seven issues, IT WILL INCREASE THE PRESSURE ON THE IRS TO EXPEDITE, A THOROUGH, “WALL-TO-WALL” AUDIT OF THE LOBBYING ACTIVITIES OF THE HSUS. The “Clock” is ticking towards midnight for the HSUS! PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS NOW.
October 16, 2009 Bloomington, IN–Please read the proposed ordinance for Bloomington…they are attempting to prohibit “commercial” breeders within the city limits prior to HB 1468 taking effect–remember, municipalities have until the end of the year to enact stricter language! It restricts ownership of a combination of dogs/cats to 19 or less, and if you currently have over 19, you cannot replace any animals until you are in compliance with the numbers…no grandfathering!!
This ordinance re-inserts much of the restrictive language from HB 1468 with regard to breeding ages, permits, etc.
Read the ordinance here: http://bloomington.in.gov/media/media/application/pdf/5809.pdf
Bloomington Council:
Please review https://inpurebreddogalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/26cfr1.183-2.pdf
Example 3 in this document describes a hobby breeder and explains that certain dog activities are considered hobbies because they are determined not to be engaged in a for profit activity. IRS Publication 535, Chapter 1, page 5, Activity Not For Profit, and IRS Publication 525, page 30, has information dealing with Hobby Income. These publications can be viewed or downloaded from the IRS website. The 2008 U.S. Master Tax Guide, page 55, Checklist for Items of Income, lists Hobby Income as includible in income.
IDOR (Indiana Department of Revenue)
Three IPDA members met recently with the Tax Policy Division of the Indiana Department of Revenue. They specifically asked about the taxability of dogs and puppies sold by hobby breeders. According to Shane Corbin of the IDOR, all sales of dogs and puppies are subject to Indiana Sales Tax. Please review Shane’s letter attached to this message. IDOR follows Federal guidelines to determine if dog breeders are engaged in a business or hobby for income tax purposes, however, hobby breeders are to serve as the collection agent for the State of Indiana for sales tax purposes. Additionally, Shane’s letter describes the mechanism for hobby breeders to register, report and pay sales tax.
August 22, 2009–We have been made aware of the confiscation of some 47 Labrador Retrievers from a hobby breeder in Martinsville, Indiana. The report indicates that the breeder had fallen on hard times and was not able to give the dogs the proper care that he had provided them in the past. The report also indicated that the local authorities took the dogs to the Humane Society in Martinsville and that many of the dogs are in foster care. There was no report of HSUS involvement.
AVMA report to congress disputes Pew Commission study
By Drovers news source (8/17/2009)
The nation’s largest veterinary association released to Congress a
scientific response that disputes several of the findings and
recommendations made in a report released last year by the Pew Commission on
Industrial Farm Animal Production.
In a letter sent with the AVMA’s response to members of the U.S. House of
Representatives and the U.S. Senate, Dr. Ron DeHaven, CEO of the American
Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), expressed concerns about the Pew
Commission’s report and urged members to vote against H.R. 1549 and S. 619,
the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA) as they
are written. The Pew Commission’s findings and recommendations are being
used to advocate for PAMTA.
According to the letter to Congress, “The AVMA is the recognized national
voice for the veterinary profession. Our more than 78,000 members represent
approximately 86% of U.S. veterinarians, all of whom are involved in a
myriad of areas of veterinary medical practice including private, corporate,
academic, industrial, governmental, military, and public health services. It
is with this authority that we question the methods and outcomes of the Pew
Commission’s report on Industrial Farm Animal Production.”
The AVMA’s response raises issue with the scientific validity of several
critical areas of the Pew Commission’s report. Key findings from the AVMA’s
response include:
. The Pew Commission’s process for gaining technical expertise in the
Pew technical reports was biased and did not incorporate the findings and
suggestions of a significant number of participating academicians.
. Points in the Pew report that address antimicrobial resistance, the
environment and animal welfare were determined to be the most pertinent to
veterinary medicine. In these areas, the AVMA asserts that many of the Pew
Commission’s sub-points have significant shortfalls and lack information as
to how the Commission would execute a new plan or program.
. The Pew Commission’s recommendations for highly restrictive bans on
antibiotic use, which are also being used to advocate for PAMTA, have not
been proven beneficial to public health. When Denmark and the Netherlands
made an attempt to implement less restrictive bans on antibiotics than those
recommended by Pew, they found that even a small decrease in antibiotic use
severely diminished animal health and welfare without significantly
improving human health.
———————
http://www.drovers.com/news_editorial.asp?pgID=675&ed_id=5959
HSUS blasts AVMA’s stance on Pew report
Bovine Veterinarian magazine (8/21/2009)
In an August 19th blog on the HSUS website, CEO Wayne Pacelle calls into
question AVMA’s commitment to the Veterinarian’s Oath (read the full blog
here). Excerpts include: “The HSUS doesn’t shrink from its responsibility to
take on industries that cause or defend animal abuse.but it’s startling when
we have to call out groups that should stand in the forefront of animal
protection but are part of the problem when it comes to the mistreatment of
animals.
“That is, sadly, the case with the American Veterinary Medical Association
(AVMA).. it’s been our experience that AVMA policies are out of step with a
large share of veterinarians and the organization typically takes unfriendly
positions on many of the major animal welfare questions of the day.
“This week, the AVMA issued a report attacking the prestigious Pew
Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, which had expressed support
for a variety of important reforms in the realm of industrial agriculture,
including federal legislation to end the widespread, routine use of
sub-therapeutic antibiotics on factory farms. The Pew Commission endorsed
legislation to phase out the use of antibiotics for non-therapeutic purposes on factory
farms.dozens of other major public health groups support the legislation
because they fear the consequences of agribusiness’s misuse of antibiotics
to keep animals in overcrowded, inhumane, and often unsanitary conditions.
But the AVMA is staunchly opposed to the bill.”
Editor’s comments
I contacted the AVMA and asked if they would like to reply to this HSUS
blog, and their quick response to me was not only appreciated, but right on
target.
Ron DeHaven, DVM, AVMA’S CEO said: “Once again, Mr. Pacelle has resorted to
misleading statements. His attempt to paint the AVMA and veterinarians in a
negative light is little more than an attempt to raise more money for his
organization. Veterinarians choose their careers because they care about
animals. At the same time, veterinarians understand that, when it comes to
animal welfare, a knee-jerk response based solely on emotion, not science,
might not be in the best interest of animals.
“For example, the AVMA’s stance against a ban on horse processing in the
United States was not taken because we are ‘pro-slaughter,’ but because we
know there is a large population of unwanted horses in this country, and
feared what would happen if those horses couldn’t be humanely euthanized in
a regulated environment. Unfortunately, our fears have come true and have
been made worse by the current economic climate. Large numbers of horses are
being abandoned and left to starve across the country. Mr. Pacelle’s stance
has only increased the suffering of horses in the United States.
“Mr. Pacelle is ignoring the legitimate concerns of animal welfare
scientists and veterinarians, and misleading the American public to further
his organization’s agenda,” continued DeHaven. “If he truly cared about the
welfare of animals, he would not be so quick to criticize and minimize the
input of veterinary experts.” Well said!
Obviously, HSUS is frustrated that they are not controlling AVMA, so
therefore they are slinging as much mud as they can, and using this
opportunity to bolster their Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association
and other groups.
Pacelle finished his blog with, “We’d like some day to stand shoulder to
shoulder with the AVMA on matters relating to the defense of animals. But
too often, we stand on opposite sides of the major policy debates for animal
welfare in America.” So in other words, if AVMA toes the line with HSUS’s
“vast” food-animal welfare knowledge, they’ll stand shoulder-to-shoulder
with them, but until then, HSUS will try to drag AVMA – and any other food
animal veterinary organizations — down by any means possible. Let’s make
sure that doesn’t happen.
Geni Wren, Editor
Bovine Veterinarian
————————-
PLEASE CROSS POST WIDELY.
Susan Wolf
Sportsmen’s and Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance – http://saova.org
Issue lobbying and working to identify and elect supportive legislators
|
1st District Councilman
Dave Osborne [D] 1102 McPherson St. Elkhart, IN 46514 Home: 574-266-5609 Cell: 574-320-6227 Email Council Member |
2nd District Councilman
Brian A. Thomas [R] 914 Strong Ave. Elkhart, IN 46514 Home: 574-293-1862 Cell: 574-596-7411
|
3rd District Councilman
David E. Henke [R] 1752 Crabtree Ln. Elkhart, IN 46514
Home: 574-264-3586 Cell: 574-596-6413 Email Council Member |
|
4th District Councilman
Ron Troyer [D] 1105 Princeton Blvd. Elkhart, IN 46516 Home: 574-295-7787 Cell: 574-370-8647 Email Council Member |
5th District Councilman
Brent Curry [D] 2312 Hawthorne Dr. Elkhart, IN 46516 Home: 574-294-5605 Fax: 574-389-1734 Email Council Member |
6th District Councilman
Tonda Hines [D] 710 S. Ninth St. Elkhart, IN 46516 Cell: 574-596-5524 Email Council Member |
|
At-Large Councilwoman
Mary M. Olson [R] 1632 Brookstone Ct. Elkhart, IN 46514
Home: 574-262-3222 Email Council Member |
At-Large Councilman
Ralph Bean [D] 1135 Kenmore Ave.
Elkhart, IN 46514 Home: 574-264-6517 Cell: 574-903-6163
Email Council Member |
At-Large Councilman
Rod Roberson [D] 146 Los Angeles Ave. Elkhart, IN 46516 Home: 574-295-6420 Cell: 574-612-2279 Email Council Member |
July 22, 2009 Indianapolis, IN—Attorneys retained in the Harrison County tax jeopardy case filed a “Brief In Support Of Their Objection To Proceedings Supplemental And Motion To Correct Errors” on behalf of Virginia Garwood and Kristin Garwood. The brief cites that the Garwoods were denied due process, in that they were denied a hearing by the State, and that the amount of sales tax due to the State of Indiana was incorrectly calculated. The Garwoods filed a Petition with the Indiana Tax Court asking that it review the assessment of taxes, and requesting that the Tax Court prevent the State from collecting monies from the Garwoods to satisfy the alleged tax due.
If the individual is unable or unwilling to make immediate payment, the Department may at once file a jeopardy tax warrant with the court. Once the warrant is filed, final judgement has been rendered, and the Department can seize the taxpayer’s inventory and bank accounts. The Department can sell the inventory and apply the sales proceeds against the tax judgment. In the Harrison County case, the dogs were purchased by the HSUS for $300. This is well under market value, and the Attorney General’s office points out that this is no different than any other state sanctioned tax sale where merchandise is sold for pennies on the dollar. According to the Attorney General’s staff, first consideration was given to HSUS to purchase the inventory because they supplied support staff and equipment during the seizure of the animals.
City Clerk Sue Beadle (574)522-5272
Bradley Bookout 522-5272
Bradley Bookout bradleybookout@comcast.net