Indiana Council for Animal Welfare

I was reading last week that H$U$ filed a complaint with the FTC against Rose Acre Farms (our great egg producer here in Indiana). It seems that H$U$ thinks that Rose Acre Farms is giving misleading claims about conditions at some of their farms. Rose Acres  K.Y. Hendrix says

“They’re claiming we falsely advertise on our website, but it boils down to this — we take care of our animals and our animals are performing to standards,” Hendrix said. “If we weren’t taking care of our chickens, our chickens wouldn’t be taking care of us.”

Of all the folks in the world who should not be talking about misleading statements is the worlds largest Animals Rights group. We often see references to how little the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) spends on shelters – less than 1/2 of 1% (.45% to be exact) of their annual budget.

HSUS finance records show that after you’ve made that [$19] monthly donation for a year, a grand total of $1.03 will reach a pet shelter.

Since math is not my strong suit, I got out my calculator:

$19/month X 12 months = $228

.45% of $228 = $1.03

How different the HSUS commercials would appear if they said “With your gift of just $19 a month, we’ll make sure almost 9 cents of that donation reaches a shelter somewhere every month…” It does seem to me that H$U$ makes many misleading statements in their advertising. Aprroximately 71% of the United States populace believes that H$U$ is an umbrella organization for our local shelters. Nothing could be farther from the truth,

If you really want to help Stop Cruelty to Animals in Indiana donate to your local Dog Adoption Shelter or a reputable Indiana Dog Rescue. Maybe if we all started to do that we wouldn't have to worry about being mislead anymore by the crazies at H$U$.

Oh, and before I forget "Where do we go to complain about Wayne and the H$U$ and their misleading statements?" Because in this particular case Wayne does need to get a little "egg" on his face.

Animals Rights Activists groups, the Humane Society of the United States and the Indianapolis Humane Society have been pursuing the elimination of Indiana Dog Breeders for quite sometime. In the last couple of years they have urged a few Indiana legislators to introduce bills making it difficult to breed dogs for profit and have conducted raids on several properties within the State of Indiana. Up until now, the Indianapolis Humane Society along with the Humane Society of the United States has succeeded in closing down several Indiana Dog Breeders.

After the failure to end all Commercial Dog Breeders in 2009 by, among other things, trying to impose ridiculous cage restrictions that even a college professor couldn’t decipher, they are now using a different tactic by attacking the Indiana Pet Stores to eliminate buyers for puppies. How much longer is this behavior going to continue?

If the Humane Societies believe Indiana Dog Breeders don’t care about their dogs and the quality of life for their animals, they are making a huge mistake. Commercial Dog Breeders could have put up privacy fences and left things as they were. Or, they could have sent some of their breeding stock to friends and other family members thus reducing the quantity of dogs at each kennel. They could have forfeited their licenses and sold their puppies to other states that have recently fallen victim to their new regulations and are now screaming for puppies.

But, the Indiana Commercial Dog Breeders didn’t play games or try to pull any sneaky tricks. The breeders willing paid the USDA license fee and/or the Indiana Board of Animal Health fee. They joined the Indiana Council for Animal Welfare (ICAW). The Indiana Dog Breeders, Indiana Puppy Breeders, Commercial Dog Breeders and anything else you want to call those who raise puppies are spending thousands of dollars to upgrade their kennels. Some are building brand new facilities while others are remodeling their existing kennels with materials recommended in the bill signed into law by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels and in effect as of Jan. 1st, 2010.

Raids have been conducted on kennels and private citizens for several years now. Lonely, elderly people have been a prime target. Scared and helpless, these people had to stand by under the watchful eye of law enforcement officers and while their beloved animals were carted off under false pretences. They never get their animals back. The animals were sent to shelters and put up for adoption. According to media reports, the animals were “rescued” because they were “so sick and so abused” and had to be relocated. Relocated means sent to shelters and adopted by the public, sometimes within as little as three days.

If the animals were so sick and so abused, why are the shelters adopting out these sick and abused dogs? Some animals were transported to shelters in other states. How are these animals getting across state lines without health certificates? If they had health certificates, they weren’t really sick were they? It seems to me there is a little more work to be done by the Senate and House of Representatives of Indiana concerning animal welfare.  

It has come to our attention that the USDA is no longer going to put up with the bad actors. 1st, that is great news. When the Indiana legislature passed HB1468 in 2009 we applauded them for sticking to their guns and accepting the federal standards of the USDA. 2nd the Indiana Council for Animal Welfare applauds the USDA for recognizing that some Indiana Dog Breeders and some Indiana Puppy Breeders do not follow the rules.

From day one ICAW has always stated that if you can not raise dogs correctly and legally we would not support you. Our Animals Rights opponents seem to not believe us. We have come to understand that these folks have just become the minions of HSUS. These Animals Rights folks have become brainwashed by the blather from the biggest factory fundraisers in the country HSUS.

We at ICAW are looking forward to the USDA's changes in the next few weeks. So, yes, you heard it here, we applaud what the USDA is doing to rid the industry of the bad actors. Please take the time to read the above article and you will see why we are truly happy about the changes.

For those of you in Indiana that have not heeded our words, whether you are Indiana Puppy Breeders or Indiana Dog Breeders "Get It Right or Get It Gone". ICAW really and truly wants to Stop Cruelty to Animals whether it is in Indiana Pet Stores or any of the Commercial Dog Breeders who don't want to listen. We have sent the message many times, now it will really be sent by no less than the federal government.

When is a dog not a dog?  by Elsie Evans

 How long before the Indiana Dog Breeders, the Indiana Pet Stores and the good citizens of Indiana start asking questions? Recently I was made aware of two alleged veterinarians offering an alternative to dog kennels under roof. Their program is call "FREE RANGE DOGS". Wayne Pacelle, president of HSUS, has been pushing for "FREE RANGE CHICKENS" in California. Is this just a coincidence? I doubt it.

On this program a fenced area of an acre with a community shelter would support 25 dogs. These veterinarians would teach the breeder how to socialize dogs so they would all get along. The dog breeder targeted for this program was at a loss of what to do. I believe I know what to do. Start asking questions.  

1.First thing you ask is how are they connected with HSUS. Also ask if this program has been approved by the USDA and/or IBOAH.

2.Ask if this is another crazy program to bankrupt breeders and if their intentions are to put them out of business.  Don’t be afraid of offending them. Get a description of their vehicle and get the license plate number. Remember, they most likely will be wearing small cameras and microphones.
   
3.Ask for ID and write down the ID number.

4.Ask what kind of dogs they raise and do they have their kennels set up this way. They will have to acknowledge if  they have put this in practice themselves or are they speculating. They probably don't have their own kennel.

5.Ask for names, addresses or phone numbers so you can Find Dog Breeders already on program that you can contact.

6.Ask how you keep your dogs from being stolen when you are away from home or at night when you are asleep since you don't have to be a 20 year old athlete to climb a fence.

7.Does the community shelter have access to the outside of the kennel in order for the owner to enter and check inside the shelter for removal of a sick or injured dog.

8.Ask what to do about hawks and owls if you have small breeds.

9.Ask how you know which male bred which female.

10.Ask how you determine a whelp date.

11.Ask how you discover a weak/sick dog before its too late. A sick dog could appear it is just napping.

12.Ask how you keep one chow hound from getting all the food.

13.Ask about feces removal and how you keep the kennel and the shelter clean, plus where do you put the dogs in order to clean the kennel.

14.Ask how you keep dogs from digging under the fence or finding a hole they can squeeze through and escape.

15.Ask how you keep a dog from eating the feces of another.

16.Ask how you deal with ALPHA dogs.

17.Ask for a list of what breeds you cannot put together.

18.Ask what you do about dogs not sharing the shelter.

19.Ask just how they go about socializing the dogs.

20.Ask about dimensions of shelter and height of kennel fence plus estimated cost.

21.Ask about materials used for fencing and ground cover.

22.Ask what you need to use for flea & tick control since the dogs will be exposed to the elements.

I have experience using a community kennel. Except for the yard dog, my dogs are 4 to 6 pounds and are turned loose together in a 16 x 16 chain link kennel everyday, weather permitting. I have two dog houses because they will not share just one. The male gets to be with the females for no more than a few minutes because they fight. Sometimes two will gang up on one for no reaon that I can see. They crowd the gate when I enter and sometimes one escapes. They ride the fence, they dig holes, they walk in feces, they share a water dish but will not share food. You can't pick feces out of grass or gravel but you can rake the feces into a pile for removal if there is only dirt. The grass is gone so when it rains they are standing in mud. I can't rake the dry ground when the dogs are there because they either attack the rake or want to play with it. Weeds grow into the fence and can't be sprayed or mowed without moving the entire fence. My toy breed dogs look like lunch to hawks and owls, so my kennel is located under my one and only huge tree. None of my dogs know they can dig under the fence but they do know they can squeeze out through the space at the gate. I had to fasten a piece of 2 x 4 to the post to close the gap.

A few things concern me about this "FREE RANGE" idea. The egg producers couldn't make it work. The large commercial egg producer had 10,000 eggs a day while the "FREE RANGE" producer had 900 eggs a day. After a few days the dogs are going to have open wounds, damaged eyes and ears from fighting, filthy from being in mud and some will be losing weight due to lack of getting their turn at the food. This is a perfect set up for the Animals Rights activists to claim abuse and neglect. Socializing dogs may work well when getting a puppy ready to go to a new home but it doesn't work on adult dogs. I have had vet bills as much as $300 to prove it. So, when is a dog not a dog? NEVER.  
 

Tomorrow is May 4th, 2010 the Primary voting day in Indiana. Please, whatever you do "Go and Vote". It has been a long year these past 12 months. A hard battle to get reasonable canine legislation and good animal cruelty laws in HB1468. It was touch and go all the way to April 29th, 2009. In the 2010 Session we had to battle to defeat HB1258. Both of these bills were absolutely the result of the Animals Rights activism from the factory fund raisers at HSUS.

ICAW was founded after the defeat of HB1468 a group of dedicated animal owners who want to retain their human rights as well. It simply amazes us how pervasive the Animals Rights folks are in Indiana. One would think that with Indiana being such a large agricultural state that most folks would be aware of the Animals Rights folks. Little did we know how much so many people did not know about their activities.

The Commercial Dog Breeders found out, the Indiana Pet Stores found out, the Indiana Dog Breeders found out and probably the most important people who found out were the farmers of Indiana. We are grateful for the support of all of these people over the last 15 months.

So tonight we encourage all of you to go out tomorrow and execute your constitutional right to vote. Please remember to let Linda Lawson (D) District 1 and John Barnes (D) District 89 know that you won't forget their involvement with the above bills. We think they both need to take a rest (at home that is).

Now the Animals Rights folks at HSUS are taking cues from their old friends at PETA.

The animal advocates groups’ queries could resonate with the increased scrutiny of food manufacturing processes.

 

But some question whether the activist groups’ tactics throw their credibility into question.

 

PETA's extreme practices are well-documented. They garnered extra press last August for distributing "Unhappy Meals" to children outside of a dozen or so McDonald's restaurants. The blood-stained meals included a sharp-toothed, knife-wielding version of Ronald McDonald and pictures of cut up chickens, among other things.

 

And there's a questionable continuum between PETA and HSUS. Matthew Prescott was head of corporate affairs at PETA before he joined HSUS as corporate outreach director for its Factory Farming Campaign in April 2009.

Prescott helped spearhead shareholder meeting interventions at PETA, and is now trying to gain more traction with the tactic under The Humane Society's less volatile reputation.

ICAW has repeatedly warned the good citizens of Indiana about the REAL agenda of HSUS "Animal Agriculture" and "Factory Farming". Now we wonder will Luca Pizza or Bazbeaux Pizza or Union Jacks be on the list for the local HSUS Directors. Please stop believing this all can not be true. This is the true reality of the Animals Rights movement.

As we always tell you keep in touch with your Indiana Legislators and let them know how you feel about all of this. As for us we are going to keep right on eating that great pizza from around our state.

On April 13th and 14th in Fort Wayne Indiana the Indiana Milk Professionals held their annual Indiana Milk Quality Conference. Mike Baumgarner from Ohio Farm Bureau was a featured speaker. We would like to quote Mike from his talk.

"Agriculture makes up less than 2 percent of the population," Mike Bumgarner, a vice president with Ohio Farm Bureau, told conference attendees. "You've got people who don't really understand production agriculture."

But the good news?

"Most consumers trust farmers," he said.

Bumgarner said people are influenced in their attitudes toward animals rights by several factors, which include culture, economics, religious and philosophical beliefs, scientific knowledge and aesthetics.

In addition, he said that dollar figures trump animals rights. For example, there is a cost associated with an animal being able to spread its wings or limbs and not be confined for life.

Many of the attitudes prevalent in the animals rights movement, Bumgarner said, are rooted in the ways Americans treat their pets.

"We love our pets!" he said, but there can be trouble when Americans equate pets with farm animals.

People think that "A dog is a cow and a cat is a pig," he said."

"As producers, we have taken care of animals for generations," he said. "But we don't get this word out."

Bumgarner urged farmers to go home and watch "Food, Inc.," a movie that portrays what its producers see as problems with modern agriculture. Many farmers feel vilified by the movie.

"Farming is being blamed for every problem known to mankind," he said.

Bumgarner concluded his presentation by claiming that the Humane Society of the United States, a prominent animals rights group, uses the tactic of dividing and conquering to influence policy. Hence, he told agriculture that it has to present a united front against such groups. He credits unity as a key factor in Ohio not giving in to HSUS.

We also would like to quote Wes Jamison, a public relations consultant and professor at Palm Beach Atlantic University. Wes spoke at the Indiana Milk Quality Conference as well.
Please pay careful attention to what he had to say.

"You produce for a consuming society that cannot and will not understand what you say," he told farmers. "People don't care about the farmers' story."

Jamison said that HSUS "chooses language that consumers will resonate with," and that it utilizes a strategy of "moral coalition building."

"It has nothing to do with science and economics," said Jamison. "The idea is to moralize the issues."

Jamison said that HSUS has a theologian on its staff, and it uses the appeal of religion to get its word out.

"It urges pastors to preach against animal agriculture," he said.

He even showed a videoclip of Houston megachurch pastor and televangelist Joel Osteen urging his parishioners and viewers not to eat pork, as it is "unclean."

Jamison outlined the core messages that HSUS uses, which include the individual worth of the animal, animal suffering, compassion, guilt and responsibility.

He told his audience that in actuality, animals are a source of protein. In other countries, people eat dog, and the reason why this is not done in the United States is due to cultural norms.

"There are different rules for pets and livestock," Jamison said. "Hypocrisy is approved."

Wes is a great guy but please know that he is facing lawsuits brought by HSUS the factory fundraisers of the Animals Rights groups.

You will notice an almost, I repeat almost defeated attitude by Wes. HSUS will not give up.

We want to quote Gary Haynes from the Indiana Board of Animal Health as well. Gary said:

"Indiana lawmakers have addressed the animal rights issue in recent years.

The Indiana General Assembly passed House Bill 1468 in 2009, which addresses cruelty of domestic animals. In 2010, the General Assembly passed House Bill 1099, which adopted rules for taking care of livestock and poultry."

Haynes warned that HSUS may try to circumvent such state laws, and appeal their case at the federal level with the knowledge that federal laws will trump state laws.

Be proud of what your Indiana Legislators have done the last two years but be very aware and very vigilant about the fact that this battle for our very existence is not over. Please stay in contact with all of YOUR legislators and let them know where YOU stand on these issues. If you don't, you and all of the members of the Indiana Council for Animal Welfare may not be able to eat those great Pork Tenderloins and Rib Eyes that we all so dearly love. No eggs, no milk or cheese, no fried chicken from your favorite Indiana restaurant.

We don't know about you but we would miss that very much.
 

 

 

ICAW wondered how long it would take to start seeing the fingerprints of Cass Sunstein on regulations or documents from any of the agencies under the OIRA! Please remember Mr. Sunstein is a huge Animals Rights fellow. Cass Sunstein… is an ‘animals rights’ attorney who acts on behalf of animals. “Are you an animal with a ‘beef’ against humans? You have the right to sue…” published in prevarication.net. If you don't believe that, please read a paper published in the Social Science Research Network by Mr. Sunstein titled "The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer".

  You probably are wondering at this point why we bring all of this up. We were reading an article in Greenversations (The Official Blog Of The U.S Evironmental Protection Agency) "Living Without Meat" About the author: Nicole Reising is an intern at the Office of Children’s Health Protection. She is a sophomore studying non-profit management at Indiana University. Wow, a sophmore in one of our great Indiana colleges is officially writing on a U.S government blog about why we should not eat meat.

We truly wonder how this could have ever come about? Is the EPA now going to jump in the whole Factory Farming issue? We wonder if Ms. Reising ever gave thought to all of the farmers she potentially wants to put out of business? The real question is, "Would this type of article ever been published prior to Mr. Sunsteins tenure?" The editor of the blog does qualify that the opinions expressed on the blog are those of the authors.

But once again think about it, would this have been possible prior to Mr. Sunstein? We know that we here at the Indiana Council for Animal Welfare don't like to see our tax money spent this way! What do you think about it?

Well we are sure that our favorite Animals Rights factory fundraising group H$u$ is not going to be happy. On April 9th 2010 the McDonalds Board of Directors has recommended that shareholders vote "NO" against a proposal to require that 5 percent of the eggs purchased for the chain’s restaurants in the United States be the cage-free variety.Last year McDonald’s joined the Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply, which is organizing a commercial-scale study led by Michigan State University and the University of California, Davis, to examine different housing options for egg-laying hens.

We are sure that our friends at Rose Acre Farms were glad to hear this news. We at ICAW believe the wisest thing anyone has done recently is to put their foot down and say "Let the Scientists tell us what to do." Those on the Animals Rights front have to be quite upset about this latest turn of events.

By the way read the home page of Rose Acre Farms website and you will see an article about them donating over "ONE MILLION" eggs to churches and foodbanks. Who on the other side of the fence is caring so well. So the next time you say to Rose Acre Farms Stop Cruelty to Animals please make sure and tell H$U$ to stop the cruelty to humans!!

Well we are into our 4th month of HB1468 being the law of the land in Indiana. As of April 7th, 2010 there are over 80 Commercial Dog Breeders and 2 Commercial Dog Brokers registered with the Indiana Board of Animal Health (BOAH). During the heat of the battle in 2009 over HB1468 many numbers were thrown around about how many Indiana Puppy Breeders there actually are in the state, on the low side that number was less than 100 Commercial Dog Breeders and on the high side 3000. We always knew that 3000 Commercial Dog Breeders was ludicrous. Take a moment and think about it, 33 Commercial Dog Breeders per county. This would mean there is at least one Commercial Dog Breeder on every corner in some counties.

With that being said, ICAW would like to know who (if any) has not registered with the state of Indiana as Commercial Dog Breeders or Commercial Dog Brokers. We know that there are more breeders and brokers out there and want to get them registered or find out why they are not. So if you know of any Indiana Dog Breeders that should be classified as Commercial Dog Breeders or someone that should be classified as a Commercial Dog Broker. Please let us know at info@icaw.org.

When we get the opportunity to talk to the Animals Rights folks we have always told them that we want to Stop Cruelty to Animals as much as they profess to. We are going to action as we promised to find the bad actors, so please help us to Find Dog Breeders or Dog Brokers that are not following the law.

The Indiana Council for Animal Welfare was created to protect our human rights but we absolutely will stand up to "ANYONE" about making sure that "THEY" follow their human responsibility to be forthright and legal.

Well Mr. Pacelle's at it again! H$U$ the United States largest Factory Fundraiser (they want to call it Factory Farming so let's call them how we see it) just can not seem to grasp the idea that they are not in control. H$U$ called a meeting at the downtown Marriott in Des Moine, Iowa Wednesday April 7,2010 to start their march towards trying to get the Iowa legislature to embrace a Prop. 2 style of bill for Iowans. Wayne is well on his way to running all of the farmers out of California, now he and his cronies at H$U$ want to do it in Iowa.

One of the most interesting aspects of this meeting was it was a closed door "Expose" on the poultry business in Iowa. How can you have a meeting of this magnitude and lock out all of the journalists? You can read the news article for yourself to validate the last point. Evidently Mr. Pacelle just can't stand it when someone just might have something to say back to him when he does his sneak attacks.

Iowa is our countries largest egg laying state which produces approximately 1.25 Billion eggs a month. Interesting number that 1.25 Billion, if the United States would of needed to inoculate our whole population with the H1N1 vaccine Iowa could have been able to produce the necessary amount of eggs to get the vaccine in "One Month" (approximately 3 eggs per vaccine).  Mr. Pacelle always tells us how much he is worried about the animals but it doesn't seem he is to worried about us.

In the second half of the title of this article it says "and aren't we glad". Why we are so glad is the fact that our friends from Rose Acre Farms in Seymour, Indiana who own some of the farms in question were there to try and rebutt Mr. Pacelle's allegations, but were not even allowed in the door. We have come to know the folks at Rose Acre Farms and know them to be upstanding, forthright Hoosiers. Maybe Mr. Pacelle did not want to let them in because Indiana has already helped to put a stop to this foolishness about supposed Factory Farming when the Indiana legislature overwhelmingly passed into law this year HB1099 the Standards for Livestock and Poultry Care act.

Mr. Pacelle says he wants to Stop Cruelty to Animals in regards to poultry, yet he doesn't seem to want to read anything about the results of cage-free egg laying. When are these animals rights folks at the factory fund raising H$US going to be honest with our country and just come out and tell us that they want us all to be vegans whether "We" want to or not. Hopefully the executives of Rose Acre Farms get the opportunity to talk to Mr. Pacelle face to face. Here at the Indiana Council for Animal Welfare we certainly hope so. Yet, it won't surprise us if it doesn't happen because Mr. Pacelle just might walk away with a little "EGG" on his face.

We received a letter today from Frank Losey. Mr. Losey writes about another way to get the Animals Rights folks attention. All across our great country there are so many unbelievable ordinances, laws being created that are just flat out unconstitutional. All Indiana Dog Breeders anyone who truly wants to Stop Cruelty to Animals will pay heed to Mr. Loseys advice. So please go and Find Dog Breeders to show this post to.

“Ex Post Facto” Provision - - A Potential “Poison Pill” and “Finesse” to the Bills Sponsored by the HSUS

 

For the “sake of argument,” let us suppose that the HSUS were to decide, hypothetically of course (!!!!!), to push for legislation at the Federal or State Level, or both, that would do one or more of the following:

·         Limit the maximum number of dogs and puppies that breeders or pet owners may keep in their homes or kennels at any given time, under the ruse of prohibiting “hoarding.”

·         Limit how many intact dams may be kept in a home or kennel.

·         Limit how often breeders may breed dams in their homes or kennels.

·         Prohibit the use of cages in homes or kennels to house dogs and puppies.

·         Establish standards for how much space each dog or puppy is required to have in a home or kennel that is used to breed dogs.

 

 

 

For the “sake of discussion,” let us assume that you are a hobby breeder who may have up to 24 dogs and puppies in your home or kennel at any given time; and that you had used your home or small kennel to breed your dogs for at least several years.  Would you have a problem if a State or Federal Law prohibited you from using cages in your home, or limited you from having more than 10 dogs and puppies in your home at any given time because more than 10 would  mean that you are hoarding dogs and puppies?  I suspect so!

For the “sake of discussion,” let us assume that you are a commercial breeder who is Federally licensed and inspected; who last year spent $50-100,000 on upgrading your kennel, which exceeded all Federal requirements at the time of improvements; who has never had a major discrepancy on any Federal or State Inspection Report; who has 20 intact females; and who on occasion may have a total of 100 or more dogs and puppies in your kennel.   Would you have a problem if a State or Federal Law prohibited you from having more than 10 intact females; prohibited you from having more than 50 dogs and puppies in your kennel at any given time; required that you invest additional money to expand the size of your kennel so that each dog and puppy would have a minimum of 50 square feet of living and sleeping space; and that you would be prohibited from using cages in your kennel at any time for any purpose?   I suspect so!  

As “Food for Thought,” I suggest that hobby breeders and commercial breeders consider throwing some figurative sand into the wheels of the HSUS Legislative Freight Train Agenda by suggesting to their “friendly” and supportive elected representatives that any new law, that is intended to restrict the activities of existing hobby or commercial breeders, must “GRANDFATHER” and exempt all existing hobby and commercial breeders from any new restrictive law based upon the Constitutional protections as set out in Article 1, Section 9 which explicitly states that “No . . . ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

 

Ex Post What?!?!?!?  Well, the “Ex Post Facto” Clause was intended by our Forefathers to prohibit enacting a law that would be retroactive and criminalize actions that a citizen had been doing before the criminal statute was passed.   And is not the HSUS seeking laws that would criminalize the activities of breeders?  (If there is any doubt, read the following excerpt from Nancy Perry’s Bio - - she is the HSUS Vice President for Government Affairs:  “The HSUS has lobbied in all 50 states for animal protection legislation and  secured felony cruelty provisions in 41 states (including Washington DC). . . and aided in the passage of 24 ballot measures.”)

 

 

And let us not forgot that the meaning of the word “hoarder” is in the process of being redefined by the HSUS, which is notorious for distorting images of responsible breeders in the minds of the public and legislators.  Once the meaning of “hoarder” is redefined by the HSUS, this will provide yet another basis for HSUS to seek and orchestrate changes to laws that could result in expanded prosecutions for alleged “animal abuse!!!”

 

 

 

Is this scenario a bit of a stretch?   Stop and ask yourself, if you are a hobby breeder and a law is passed that stated that anyone who had more than 10 dogs and puppies in a home would be determined to be a “hoarder,” and you had 19 dogs and puppies in your home on the day it was enacted, what would you do to avoid being in violation of a new criminal statute?  And if you were a commercial breeder who had 98 dogs and puppies in your kennel on the day a new law was passed that made it a crime to have more than 50 dogs and puppies in your kennel, what would you do to avoid being in violation of a criminal statute?

So what is to be gained by raising the issue of the “Ex Post Facto Clause” of the U.S. Constitution to Federal and State legislators?  It might cause some legislators to pause and urge that new Bills be delayed until everyone understood what “ex post facto” means.  It may provide breeder/agriculture-friendly legislators with a new basis to oppose any new “restrictive” law.  It may also cause other legislators to add “Grandfather” amendments to a pending Bill.   Any one of these three scenarios would probably slow down or derail the growing legislative momentum of the HSUS and other animal rights activists.  Often “delays” result in Bills never being enacted.  Additionally, the “Grandfather” provision scenario would probably be a “Poison Pill” Amendment that could drive the HSUS “nuts” because the HSUS might have to publicly renounce the Constitution of the U.S., especially if it opposed a “watered-down” Bill that had a “Grandfather” provision in it.  Could HSUS oppose a Bill because it is not written the way HSUS wants it to be written?   Yes, it could and it has done so in the past!  For example, one of the reasons that the HSUS stop pushing to have the PAWS Bill enacted a few years ago was because the sponsor of the Paws Bill would not include the additional provisions that the  HSUS and the Doris Day Animal League had wanted to be included, such as limiting how often a dam may be bred.

So how would the “Grandfather” provision work?   In essence, it would mean that if you were a breeder at the time the new law was enacted, and the law created new limitations on what a hobby or commercial breeder was permitted to do, those limitations would only apply to future breeders, and not to the breeders who were breeding dogs before new limitations were enacted into law.  For example, if the new limitations placed a limit on how many dogs or puppies that you could have in your home or kennel, those limitations would not apply to any breeder who had been breeding dogs before the new law was enacted.

If the “Ex Post Facto” Clause is appropriate “Food for Thought” for the hobby and commercial breeders to consider, perhaps those in the Agriculture Community should consider this same “Food for Thought” to counter the “Distortion Mill” of the HSUS!!!!!! 

If we all stand up for our human rights as one maybe just maybe then the Animals Rights folks will pay attention!

A proposal in the U.S. House would take production agriculture standards out of the hands of professionals and turn them over to bureaucrats. That’s what I find worrisome about new animal welfare legislation by two U.S. representatives California. The Bill is HR 4733 The Prevention of Farm Cruelty Act. The Bill was introduced earlier this month by Reps. Diane Watson and Elton Gallegly, both from California. If passed, the bill would prohibit the government from purchasing animal products that are not "humanely" produced for school lunch and other federal programs.

So who defines "Humane?" That's the real problem! the bill would mandate arbitrary humane animal production standards. By arbitrary, we mean standards developed without input from veterinarians or animal producers. Now we (all of us) have real problems. The legislation—which resembles doctrine espoused by the animals rights activists of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and other animals rights groups—is based on the presumption that farm animals are not routinely treated humanely. In Indiana when we were accused by the animals rights folks of being the "Bad Guys" we litterally got HB 1099 passed unanimously in both houses of the legislature and signed into law.

As a defense, agriculture points to painstaking animal welfare standards—proper veterinary care, fresh water, clean animal feed, etc. from birth to harvest—which have been developed through years of research by scientists and producers for every species of livestock. Those standards by and large have been developed to maintain healthy animals. And we can argue until the cows come home that healthy livestock are happy livestock. But reactive thinking isn’t cutting it anymore. The industry needs to get get ahead of this issue.

We are never going to satisfy PETA and HSUS, and shouldn’t even try. But we can throw a barrier between them and the American consumer. We think "ethical standards of care" for livestock is the answer? We especially think that your local farmer,veterinarian and locall researchers should set those standards. Start running through your mind some of the people that you see or hear everyday in national news who know absolutely nothing about these issues and telling us here in Indiana "We know better than you" how to stop cruelty to animals and what you should eat.

As for us here at the Indiana Council for Animal Welfare we keep having faith in our local farmers and the Indiana Board of Animal Health (BOAH) under the guidance of Dr. Bret Marsh to set the care standards for Indiana livestock. As for the federal level, we still trust the USDA as well.

Please contact your Congressman or Woman and US Senators and let them know what you really think before it's too late!!

I have been sitting here thinking about all of the things that an Indiana Humane Shelter has said  when getting your dog from a pet store or some type of retail establishment. Repeatedly they say: "Ask them where did this dog come from?", "What is the temperment of the sire and dam?", "Does this dogs parents have any genetic problems?" More to the point here is a list of questions.

1. Where do the puppies come from?
2. Is that a licensed USDA dealer?
3. Does the kennel or breeder insist on genetic clearances for breeding stock?
4. What health problems are common in this breed?
5. What type temperament does this breed have?
6. Does the breed have a tendency to bark a lot?
7. How much socialization do they need?
8. How much exercise does this breed need?
9. How much grooming is required?
10. How badly do they shed?
11. What happens to the puppies you don't sell? Are they sent to rescue groups? Euthanized? Returned to the breeder?

Some of these questions are only looking for the commercial breeders to only help disqualify them. Most of these questions are absolutely great questions. When getting your dog from any Indiana Humane Society do these same questions get asked, or more to the point is there ever an answer to those questions. How do those Dog Adoption Shelters respond when asked these same questions? I keep sitting here trying to answer that question and simply can't do it. We all want to Stop Cruelty to Animals but if the shelters and/or rescues are not answering the same questions as the retail establishments.  And in some cases they are requirements, isn't that hypocritical on some level.

Over the coming weeks I will be giving you some other questions to ask when getting your dog. So remember the above questions are not the only questions to ask. Please give me some of the questions that you think should be asked when getting your next dog.

Someone sent us this video last weekend. It just made us think more and more about the reasons for euthanasia at Dog Adoption Shelters. We can not come up with any reason that any Indiana Humane Society or any Indiana Dog Rescue would not embrace the No Kill mentality of Nathan J Winograd. Nathan has written a book called Redemption, we highly suggest that you read it. Nathan explains the history of how our relationships with shelters came about. How many of you know who Henry Bergh was?

How did we as a country or a state get so twisted in our thinking. How did we allow the Animals Rights folks to pit us against each other? Could it be about money? No matter where you look it seems that is what it is all about. Why can't we sit down and work out our differences together?

The more we think about it any Indiana Humane Society or  Indiana Dog Adoption Shelters should be regulated by the Indiana State Board of Animal Health (BOAH). If someone can give me a rational, logical reason that they should not, we will listen. Let's make it fair and equitable for all parties. Let's leave no stone un-turned and maybe then and only then we can Stop Cruelty to Animals.

After another busy legislative session, we at ICAW have had a chance to take a breath and form some ideas for the upcoming elections and future legislative sessions. When HB1258 died in committee and HB1099 passed resoundingly and becomes law January 1, 2011. ICAW truly understood that this battle with the Animals Rights folks is far from over. Will it be someone new going after Indiana Dog Breeders or someone else with some kind of different attack on quote "Factory Farming"?

We have truly realized we can not sit back and think that nothing else will happen. Too many other states around us are going through their own battle for survival when it comes to pet ownership or the myriad of other livestock issues. Pay attention to Ohio, it could of been Indiana.  There is much talk that the Animals Rights folks are going straight to the top and are going to force their agenda even more at the Federal level.

HSUS has what they call their "Humane Scorecard". Starting this year we at ICAW are going to create our own scorecard for Indiana elected officials. It truly is time to let the elected officials of our great state of Indiana know that there is another side of this equation and always will be. We need to let everyone of them know at the ballot box how we feel about past voting records for or against.

We will be publishing a document in the near future featuring a simple thumbs up or thumbs down opinion of our elected officials. We are compiling some ideas for future legislation as well. We whole heartedly ask for your input on both of these topics. Please e-mail us at info@icaw.org with any of your thoughts or ideas about these issues.

We want to take a moment and thank all of the people who thought they had no voice in this battle for our rights, for never giving up. Remember, all of us together can and will Stop Cruelty to Animals and protect our own human rights as well.

ICAW responds with a resounding "NO". We have so many members of ICAW who are true sportsmen and love the call of the wild. Yet they are not immune to the attacks of the animals rights folks either. When the activists attack they can not see any possible reason any human could have for hunting.

Hunting for sport or food in Indiana is an experience of peace and well being. It is exciting and educational for hunters of all ages. There have been so many statements made to the Indiana Council for Animal Welfare that this form of hunting has no positive results and therefore should be prohibited. There are too many people in our state who do not understand the real purpose of hunting and will never realize that hunting should never be banned. Education is lacking with the animals rights folks when assumptions are made when they refer to hunting. They will never understand it's just another way to relax in nature with or without your dogs and leave without doing any damage to the surroundings.

The advantages of hunting are not just for the hunter, but that of the natural world as well. Without the hunter, so many breeds of animals have become overcrowded, and eventually they die of hunger because of too many animals and a much lower proportion of food for them. Not only does this lead to an overpopulation of those animals, but there will be a greater chance for disease, and inner fold murder. In nature it is survival of the fittest. Those who are weak and old will be the first to go.

Hunting offers benefits both for the hunter and the hunted. There are advantages to teaching, observing and studying animals. The hunter, in turn, learns how to connect with  the animals, their patterns of reproduction and migration, and inclinations of their behavior. Therefore, the hunter will benefit from this knowledge in their hunt, but also an understanding of what animals to harvest when hunting. The hunted, will have sick or deformed animals removed. This does give the hunter a sense of sympathy or purpose when hunting. It is unlikely that these animals will live very long and have the potential to spread disease and defects with other animals or when breeding season rolls around. Culling these herds or flocks in Indiana does stop cruelty to animals. So for us it’s easy to understand why hunting should not be banned when taking the information from this point of view and applying it to the natural order of life.

Hunting in Indiana provides the excitement and possibility for a peaceful connection with nature. During a hunt, the hunter is often sitting in silence, and has a connection with nature. This opportunity for the hunter to take in his or her environment and learn the area around them is invaluable. Knowledge of the vegetation and growth of that area of cultivation is an important step towards being a good hunter and steward of the land. Part of this knowledge is through the maintenance of the land that is managed for hunting. By means of control in our state of Indiana, the flora and fauna are always rich and prosperous. That same type of management keeps our herds and flocks healthy as well.

Hunting without this type of knowledge is discouraged by the sportsmen of our state.. There are too many environmental benefits of vegetation and fauna. Animal health and healthy living production of wildlife in Indiana is so important that hunters have been shown to produce bigger, stronger, wild animals, without weakening their chances of survival. Hunting is also beneficial to humans through the control of the game and their impact on our neighborhoods when man’s territory has expanded.

Please take a moment to consider this point of view and tell us what you think.

ICAW wants to congratulate the legislators in the State of Indiana and Indiana Farm Bureau for working together so diligently to pass HB1099. This bill will establish standards of care for the livestock and poultry industry. ICAW has watched and written about the animals rights folks reapeated attacks on the livestock and poultry industry around the country. We are so proud that Indiana has decided to not knuckle under to HSUS and their Prop. 2 style of legislation.

We have consistently supported farmers around this great country to be able to take care of their own industry, not some outside Animals Rights activist organization. The Indiana Board of Animal Health is one of the most respected boards of animal health in the United States. We know from experience that they are fair and balanced when making their decisions on what is Right and what is Wrong.

No one in Indiana wants to see their livestock or poultry be treated cruelly. As such, Indiana has taken a great leap forward by passing HB 1099. We the citizens of Indiana together will Stop Cruelty to Animals, the emphasis being on "We". So once again we congratulate all of the above parties on using that great Hoosier common sense approach to dealing with our own issues and problems.

So remember "Hug" that farmer when you see them and today, hug your Farm Bureau Rep. and you local legislator who supported HB 1099.

Well they are at it again says American Farm Bureau policy analyst Kelli Ludlum. who warned Farm Bureau Leaders in Washington of an animal care agenda that potentially ties into agricultural policy, food policy, and even obesity. Ludlum warned.

"There are a number of animal rights groups out there that really seek to limit producers ability to be proper stewards of their livestock," Ludlum told FarmWeek. "Fighting those off at both the federal and state levels is going to be something were going to continue to deal with for some time to come."

ICAW has talked with so many farmers in Indiana about the Animals Rights issues that seem to be permeating our state these past years. How can so many people in our great state just not realize where their food comes from "Farmers." When you start talking to the average, everyday consumer they really do not want to know where that package of pork chops came from or how did that bucket of chicken come about at the local fast food restaurant. The Indiana Council for Animal Welfare does, it comes from our great farmers.

Moving from controlled indoor production, raises concerns about the producers environmental compliance at a time of already heavy regulation, Leaders warned Capitol Hill lawmakers. Illinois farmer Edwin Livengood stressed "we already raise our animals humanely," and maintained that if animals are forced outdoors, "our production is going to go way down" and ultimately, "costs are going to go up."

Our Indiana farmers are so proud of their jobs, history and necessity for our survival we should be humbled by their example. All of our farmers want to Stop Cruelty to Animals and fight to preserve their heritage. So the next time you are sitting down and eating, a chicken sandwich or turkey dinner at Thanksgiving, a hamburger at the neighborhood cookout or a T-bone steak or even a ham dinner at Easter dinner,  because it is a afforadable, just remember without that farmer what would you do then! So today we ask you the next time you see an Indiana Farmer "HUG EM".

I ran across a picture the other day that absolutely shows the hypocrisy of HSUS. I was reading an article by John Dillard a student at the University of Richmond Law School. In his article was this graph a plain old bar chart. ICAW has been writing, talking and presenting the hypocrisy of the Animals Rights movement. Some folks get it some don't. The following picture is the HSUS budget of 2008 in a graph. Please take a moment, in fact take as long as you need to digest what you are seeing. When Indiana Dog Adoption Shelters or any Indiana Dog Rescue jump on the HSUS bandwagon please explain to me WHY!




The HSUS budget in 2008 was well over $100 million dollars. According to their (2008) Annual Report, only $6.7 million dollars (5.4%) of their $125 million dollar budget that year was spent on animal shelters. The bulk of the balance was spent on fundraising, campaigns, lawsuits, propaganda, and salaries. Divide that $6.7 million dollars by 50 states and you get $134,000 given per state on average. If we divide that average amount of $134,000 by the 92 counties in Indiana you get $1456 per county. If HSUS really wanted to Stop Cruelty to Animals they would give more. Why does any Indiana Humane Society or Indiana Dog Rescue ever want anything to do with HSUS.

If the citizens of Indiana donate their money to help Indiana animals should it not be used to directly help Indiana animals? So the next time you write a check or pull out that credit card, think local, very local. Please urge your local Indiana Dog Adoption Shelters or whatever Indiana Dog Rescue you want to help, to please think about their association with a group of Animals Rights folks like HSUS.