Big Problems Ahead with APHIS Regulation Changes    This is apparently from one of the online “call-in” sessions  re the APHIS changes proposed.  The proposed changes smack highly of HSUS, and callers from HSUS and AR-land claim the regs will clamp down on the you know who people.  Yeah, right. It will do just the opposite and provide more fodder for HSUS raids on animal breeders. We are sure there will be people that eventually read this post, and will probably get mad.  Instead of just getting mad, they should all conglomerate together to protest something if they don’t want to see such changes.

As we have long stated, the pet people, dog groups, animal related businesses should be on the same page as far as the business of owning and breeding animals goes. The fact that one does not have a commercial kennel or that one does have such a kennel makes no difference.  And in the largest arena of legal issues, the commercial kennels will likely always be legal.

But the home breeders, lining up with the propaganda train that home bred dogs are “better” than other dogs (that are not home bred) brings us to the fact that APHIS, upon nudging from HSUS, no doubt, has now decided to categorize home breeding differently. MUCH differently such that home/hobby breeders would not really have the exceptions they had before. Yes, yes we are aware of the history and the Doris Day case.     Now this link explains who they believe the  APHIS change would NOT affect. For us, we read it and think the author believes that his-her dogs or similarly situated breeders, are far superior to those described, but the superior would be regulated while the inferior would not be regulated?  We could be wrong but that’s what we got out of it. Perhaps then, hobbyists are calling for even MORE regulations, to include anyone who breeds an animal????  Think carefully about what you want…………… we already got the law that MSN in California is just dandy.  Yeah, it’s dandy all right.  That’s why we still keep killing the shelter animals . But according to the ARs,  the shelter animals need to take the place of the purposely bred animals   Good luck on that one because it will never happen.  Our prediction is the APHIS regs will change because HSUS got there first and used their time tested propaganda tweaking machine and their typical political, mass media crap.

Do we think the proposed APHIS changes are good?  Of course not. It’s just more of the same HSUS AR crap designed to promote more propaganda against breeding. If the changes were made as they stand right now (June 15) could they be challenged?  Probably. It appeared that many of the consequences which could have been planned, are fairly radical. Those would have to be balanced out against the rationale.


9 thoughts on “Big Problems Ahead with APHIS Regulation Changes

  1. People, please consider the source. Go do your own research and get the real facts and make your own decisions. Consider who backs this source and others, as well. That says a lot. I doubt that this message will be here very long, if at all.

  2. This is a free country but then we do consider the sources of everything we read. And due to having done research on who does do things and why, we call ’em as we see ’em. Considering that most attorneys know very little about what HSUS does and why, we rest our case.
    No one backs this “source” because no one is paid to do the work. Most people believe that all attorneys are wealthy. That is far from true. Most people do not like attorneys. That’s because the ones they have met likely sucked or were just after money. That is why a lot of attorneys will not look at animal law because it’s a losing proposition, clients simply cannot afford legal help. AR attorneys can afford to do the cases because they get paid.

  3. In my opinion and that of most animal welfare people who actually do hands-on work for and with animals, you call them as you are paid to see them. Also, in my opinion, based on much research about faux-animal groups like Pet Defense, Humane Watch, Center for Consumer Freedom, NAIA, MoFed, SAOVA, Dog Federation of NY, Humane Society for Shelter Pets, etc. (which use names that erroneously make people think that they are for animals and the rights of those who own them to not be taken away), the reason for the information or misinformation that is being spread by these groups, is to benefit those that support these groups (agri-business, fast food chains, alcohol and tobacco companies, those that make the bulk of their income by registering all the mill dogs, etc.) to keep up the bashing of the true welfare groups that spend every minute of their lives fighting to make the lives of animals more humane and tolerable for their short and miserable existences. Why else would someone be against Mothers Against Drunk Drivers? Against more humane treatment of farm animals, especially in CAFOs? Against warnings on cigarette packages, etc? Think about it people. That is all I am saying. People DO get paid to create doubt in the minds of those who do not have the time to do their own research. Everything said on the Internet is not true. In fact, we are passing on information as truth to others and have created a society of misinformed people. The Internet is great when used properly, but it can also be used to created and perpetuate lies and misrepresentations to confuse the public. All I’m saying is, please do your own research about these subjects and about who is making the accusations. How much work to they actually do for animals and animal owners (except agri-businesses), and who is backing them? Just check things out before believing all the bashing and hype. Make your own decisions. Please. This should be illegal, but….
    P.S. (1) Who said anything about being an elitist? I don’t even know to what that comment is referring. And (2) who said anything about attorneys? I guess one will use anything that might sound plausible to the general public to make themselves sound important or credible. Go for it. I just hope that most Americans are smart enough to see through the smoke and self-serving motives. Okay, I’m done. Let’s see how long this one stays in the comment section.

  4. The APHIS regs affects breeders, even rescues…..
    did you notice that? We can be called “faux” if you like. Each to his own. But most welfarists do not understand exactly how HSUS operates nor do they actually understand why HSUS does it. while we are sure you are correct on bashing legit causes, this is the USA not a communist country. When extremists want their LIFESTYLE belief to be everyone’s lifestyle belief, that is not the law, that is indoctrination.
    Actual welfarists are not ASPCA or HSUS related groups. We have done rescue of animals for years, but after finding out how the ARs were working “rescue” we had to eventually stop.
    But we give fair time to anyone that is reasonable, if AR–not usually, because we are not here to advance their lifestyle. comment any time, thanks.

  5. You are correct that we are not a communist country, a dictatorship, fascist state, or even a democracy. However, being a republic with a system of representatives, those representatives are supposed to make decisions as indicated by the majority of their constituents, not by who pays them the most money or how the vote will affect his/her own party (self-serving reasons, both). I do read the laws and know how they work. Lobbying is an incredibly frustrating way to see how things really happen in the government. It is beyond logic in most cases and everything is about partisanship. Shame on us all for allowing these actions by our (supposed) representatives. Use your vote. Hopefully it will be noted at some point, but who knows? Vote out those who refuse to listen to their constituents. Will it take another revolution to get back our voice(s)?

  6. amazingly, much of the country believes that voting will not bring results
    because—of the corruption in government.
    The USA is going to be headed downward if it keeps the current trend. Banks
    that control the $$ get away with extreme greed. There is no middle class
    and hasn’t been for many years.
    Business is thwarted on all sides and HSUS
    laws cause loss of business. Protesting animal this and that causes loss of
    economic viability. HSUS is not about change, it’s about indoctrination to
    the lifestyle belief that animals are not property. Your property is protected
    only so far as the government is restrained.
    When restraint is changed, as
    HSUS has changed it for example, by claiming you forfeit ALL your animals if
    even ONE had one tiny thing wrong—this is abhorrent. HSUS got this from the
    fed government which uses forfeiture in contraband.

    Did you know that in Louisiana, they have a law which allows confiscation of
    all pitbull dogs, upon information and belief (using search warrant affiant stmts)
    and if the statement claims there is probable cause to believe the animals are
    sold for fighting, or used for transport/sale in commerce,
    DOGS CONTRABAND UNDER THE LAW. Now we know they cannot prove the dogs are used
    for that purpose unless there is evidence of fighting or other indicia of
    proven facts giving rise to the accusation.
    Well— in Louisiana, apparently Katrina made HSUS millionaires many times
    , and it made pitbulls game for being exterminated.
    Many pitbull kennels have
    simply been wiped out by HSUS, the puppies killed, everything killed.

    HSUS has infiltrated the government and has many sources in Congress
    and APHIS. Even the HSUS website when
    checked on Quantcast shows that there is a huge percent of government
    going to the HSUS SITE. HSUS has pushed PUPS to the point that it is a
    standard Congress topic. Invasive species as well.
    PIJAC sees this on
    a daily basis but when lobbying CA, PIJAC did not oppose SB917, our
    favorite pet peeve now, for being the worst animal law devised. When HSUS drafts
    laws which say selling animals is illegal [and is animal abuse]– but it’s not animal abuse if a NON profit does it.
    HSUS swings both ways: a non profit animal group can SELL animals and NOT be committing animal “abuse” because HSUS is alleging that non profits are NOT commerce.
    The APHIS proposed regs do not appear to exempt rescues from the law. Could it be because rescues selling dogs nationwide involve commerce? [We think rescues involve commerce, so if pet stores were to be only run by rescues, we believe under the law it is still commerce.] Or is it just an oversight and rescues would never come under the AWA? Doubtful. If they sell animals as pets it would seem to apply but truthfully, we have not researched the entire law, and would stand corrected if someone tells us otherwise.
    Many rescued dogs are flown in from other countries, transferred from state A to state B
    and transported out of shelters to fosters, some of which are 700 miles
    away. Even if APHIS was to “exempt” rescues, why would they need to do that?
    There should be no exemption. A 501(c)(3) is what HSUS has yet HSUS acts as IF
    it IS the government. We are being realistic.

    What many people don’t understand is that HSUS does not want animals sold,
    bought, owned or treated as property. Animals are qualified property
    under the law and ownersof animals have property rights as to those animals,
    including the right to
    maintain, sell, or even kill if necessary. But by HSUS taking the most expensive
    advertising agency, using fluff and puff, propaganda and indoctrination to
    the dumbded down public, people tend to believe what they see, like on TV???
    Thus HSUS just capitalizes on using movie stars and emotional props, the crying
    owner with 3 legged dog, one eyed cat, blah blah blah.
    Let’s not forget Michael Vick, the killing nationwide of pitbulls type dogs, the
    gall of HSUS to raid older people’s kennels, even if nothing was amiss, seizing
    their animals and coercing them into silence. This is not a story, it’s true.
    Mr. Pang in Hawaii– his now deceased wife had an animal sanctuary, but when she
    died he (foolishly) called Humane Society (or the equivalent) in the area. That
    group called HSUS on the mainland and they subsequently made a video which portrayed
    Mr. Pang as a hoarder, that he allowed filth and overcrowding, blah blah blah, when
    in fact, that was completely untrue.
    Do we really think that a group which would stoop that LOW to portray animals as innocent
    and humans as completely guilty— should be making OUR LAWS against OUR owners/animals?

    HSUS et al is simply AR and ARs will
    do anything they can to DISTORT the truth, malign owners, and turn animals into children.
    When PETA files for whales having constitutional rights—- that has to be the most
    stupid theory in the history of AR land. Yet you see it happening. That makes HSUS
    look smarter, right? But many HSUS people evolved from Peta…
    HSUS does not fool us, but they do fool many people into “worrying” about anything
    that is done with animals in general. HSUS will tell a shelter to kill every single
    animal due to cat respiratory illness. Go read Nathan Winograd’s blog. He knows exactly
    what HSUS does, what ASPCA does, all of them. We met with Nathan several years ago.
    He is not argumentative, although a former prosecutor and Stanford grad. He will stand
    his ground for no kill no matter who says what, and HSUS is against no kill, HSUS
    was even against rescuing animals, claiming it would “stress” them.

    Let’s be serious. When business methods conflict with what HSUS claims is “abuse” then
    you can now understand why there are laws that call the following “animal abuse”:

    Selling a dog, advertising or using a handout to sell a dog, selling an animal in
    any public place, not having animal microchipped, not having animal on leash, not
    having a fenced yard, not having the correct dog food, not having a kennel that
    circulates the air more than X times per minute, etc.
    Or, if you go on vacation, you
    must notify animal control or you are in violation of the law–Louisville ordinance.

    The above is NOT animal welfare. The above is not reasonable nor is it compelling such
    that the government needs such a law. It is not rational in our opinion. We suppose we could
    also make laws that were rational for ANY reason, even if they were pretty stupid. For
    example, giving constitutional rights to whales.

  7. Wow! Really? You have been well trained and coached. I am done with this. To explain or discredit just about everything you have said (except for the first paragraph), would obviously be a waste of time. You will believe what you have been lead to believe and will believe those who you feel are “experts” on the issues. We shall never agree on who and what HSUS is and does, and I have way too much to actually be doing for the animals, physically, to spend any more time trying to discuss reality with those who, in my opinion and based on facts and research, are completely misrepresenting and misinterpreting law and reality. I need to spend my time actually making a positive difference (instead of just TALKING and complaining about that which everyone else if DOING) for those who have no voice, but they do have emotions, feel fear and pain, have familial lifestyles and have been made to be totally dependent upon the human species. I am amazed at the “facts” and information which you have cited in this last comment. If you truly believe what you have written and are not just being a mouthpiece for those who have a vested interest in seeing that animals are not treated better because it cuts into their bottom line, then I am very sad for you. And you are quoting Nathan Winograd as someone who is an expert? Wow! People really need to be doing their research. It boggles the mind that so many otherwise intelligent people are being so far lead astray. It makes me wonder how much time has been spent “in the field” dealing daily with animal population, cruelty and neglect issues. It is just so sad for me to hear all the dissent between the AW people. It demeans us all and our ability to make logical, workable and humane laws. Too bad so many are fueled by greed, ego and/or plain lack of caring. IF the “faux-organizations” as I call them, are truly working for the animals, why can they not work with the rest of the groups? We will all never agree on every single thing, but the end-all needs to be what is best for the animals. THAT is, and should be, the bottom line with anyone who claims to be trying to make life better for the animals. There is no room for the other nonsense that makes most humans function. Sad state of affairs, indeed. I am done and will not be replying to any of these comments anymore on this site. Let me just end with this message to the people who are trying to help animals – Do your own research and check the sources from which their “facts” come. Look for the ulterior motives by which many work before believing their information. Ask for physical verification, if necessary. I guess that is the best that can be expected from any of us. Just know that all is not as it appears. Work for the animals and spend less time bashing others who are doing the vast majority of the real work. Talk is cheap, and I have no more time to waste on this dialog. We shall never agree. Who has the correct information must be determined by the readers.

  8. Not coached. You probably do not have the evidence to discredit. But if you ever get it, then bring it.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s