Stop Cruelty to Animals

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.

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.

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).

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.

We find it quite interesting that WIBC is airing a commercial paid for by HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) this week about their version of the truth about Indiana Pet Stores. We wonder how an organization that has a 501c3 designation is able to justify paying for this type of lobbying media blitz with that 501c3 designation? It is our oppinion that most people in Indiana do not realize that HSUS has no direct links to any local Indiana Humane Society.

We believe if they truly wanted to Stop Cruelty to Animals in Indiana, HSUS would provide more direct funding to a local Indiana Humane Society or a local Indiana Dog Rescue. It is interesting that the Humane Society of Indianapolis has had a relationship with HSUS in the past. With the economy being the way that it is, we wonder if they would appreciate any of that money that HSUS collects to help their own animals? We ask you to click here and see for yourself what HSUS actually does with YOUR money. What does a national animals rights organization actually know about our small businesses here in Indiana?

We would like to provide you with a very useful resource to help you decide whether or not you want your money to go to this type of organization. We have been paying attention to the folks at Humane Watch for some time now. David Martosko is a very credible resource that HSUS truly does not like. There are so many watchdogs for so many non-profit organizations we believe that it is time HSUS got a watchdog and we think David Martosko is just the right man.

We are so glad that someone with the national following that David Martosko has, is now paying attention to all of the Animals Rights folks. So the next time you are wondering about Indiana Puppy Breeders or Indiana Pet Stores think about Humane Watch as well. We know that we will!!

Let us all pray that we never find a Indiana Humane Society like the Prichard Animal Shelter {AL). Quoting Prichard Police Chief Lawrence Battiste:

“I’m not concerned about the care,” [Prichard Police Chief Lawrence Battiste] said. “We have four full-time staff working here in the animal shelter,” says Battiste. He says the four people are scheduled to share shifts on Saturdays and Sundays, and that each morning their first duties are to clean the cages and care for the animals. But Jake says his visit came on a Monday at noon. The Chief says he’ll investigate.

“We wouldn’t want our employees to work in an environment where there was feces and the possibility of illness floating around,” Battiste said. “Because it subjects our employees to those types of things!” (Local 15)

When the person who is in control of the local animal shelter has the audacity to say he is not concerned about the animals under his control. It can only make you wonder is he not concerned about the prisoners under his control as well. The more that we find out about so many out of control, poorly run animal shelters and rescues around the country. We truly are starting to believe that any Indiana Dog Rescue or any Indiana Humane Society should absolutely regulated by the State of Indiana no differently than any of the Commercial Dog Breeders are by the state.

We keep talking to the people at the No Kill Advocacy Center and we are convinced that there is a better way to build this mousetrap. We especially like the model that Bill Bruce uses in the Calgary Canada shelters. “We don’t have a pet problem. We have a people problem.” This is an opening statement Bill Bruce often uses to grab everyone’s attention.

Owner responsibility is the mantra in Calgary. A three prong approach to responsible pet ownership incorporates licensing, public education and enforcement, with supporting agencies all working together to achieve the same goals. Educational programs developed for school age children through adults address responsible citizenship and responsible animal ownership. Educational programs include PAWS: Dog Bite Prevention, Dogs in Our Society, Urban Coyotes and the Junior By-Law Project, just to name a few. There is strong public support for the efforts of Bill Bruce by the citizens of Calgary, as they enjoy their pets in a community full of dog-friendly parks, paths and off-leash areas. They gain comfort knowing that their kinder friendlier Animals Services Department is there to help, not harm.


But we keep watching the failing programs in Indiana and keep wondering why none of them work like Calgary's. So with that being said maybe the State of Indiana should step in and mandate what they should do. Please let us know what you think about this idea.

Well after much thought about regulation. We at ICAW keep wondering why no Indiana Dog Rescue and not even one single Indiana Humane Society is regulated by anyone in the state or local county governments. We absolutely know that there are many good rescues or shelters in our great State of Indiana. Two that come to mind are Indy Pit Crew or Indy Feral both of these organizations have proven themselves over many years of having the ability to Stop Cruelty to Animals.

We at ICAW agree with the mindset of Nathan J. Winograd maybe just maybe the father of the no kill movement. If Nathan isn't the father he sure is the biggest proponent of the no kill movement in the United States. No Kill is the absolute proper way to deal with animal shelters or animal rescues.

With that being said we wonder why no one ever proposes to regulate a single Indiana Humane Society or even just one Indiana Dog Rescue. Over many of the past years there have been reports of abusive animal shelters or abusive rescues. We know that the majority of these organizations and facilities are absolutely on the up and up. But now that the State of Indiana has stepped in and started to regulate Commercial Dog Breeders with the mindset of getting rid of the bad actors in that industry. We at ICAW are suggesting we should do the same thing to all of the shelters and rescues in the state.

ICAW absolutely believes in appropriate regulation in the animal industry. However we think that includes everyone. How could anyone argue with that when you see pictures like these or documentation from someone who would never agree to the foundational principles of ICAW. Over the next few weeks we will be writing about this subject at length. So if any one in Indiana can give us a rational reason why a Indiana Dog Rescue or Indiana Humane Society that is a bad actor shouldn't be regulated please leave a comment.

After a long and cold winter weekend we at ICAW have given some thought to HB 1258 and some of its possible outcomes. If it passes the Senate as it did the House and Gov. Daniels signs it. As we wrote Friday if someone were to get hurt or possibly worse, even economically damaged we would pursue the full power of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act ( AETA ). We believe this would be one of the solutions for the type of Animals Rights people that would potentially harm Indiana Pet Stores or Commercial Dog Breeders.

ICAW absolutely wants to Stop Cruelty to Animals but we really want to Prevent Cruelty to Humans as well. What a shame that it has come to this where so many people are afraid of each other. Well just click the following link AETA and you will see for yourself that this is a very powerful tool.

If you think ICAW has been helpful and informative about the Animals Rights crowd click Here and show your support.

Well, after some of our members visited the Statehouse about HB 1258 (the Pet Store bill) this past Wednesday. We have a new perspective on HB 1258. When did the State of Indiana start  trying to run away small businesses. We absolutely know that Gov. Daniels doesn't want to do that. We would like to quote Gov. Mitch Daniels from his State of The State speech this past Tuesday.

"Saddest of all, our sister states, at least forty of them, are doing the worst thing possible in times like these.   They are raising taxes, adding to the burden on families already in distress, and making their economic climates even less attractive to new jobs than they were before.   Michigan, Wisconsin, New Jersey and at least eleven more have raised income taxes.  Ohio, Oregon, Minnesota, and thirty more have raised gas taxes.  Many states have raised multiple taxes at the same time.

I hope you will join me in saying tonight to the people for whom we all work, we will make the hard choices, we will stretch the available dollars, we will do whatever is necessary but we will not take the easy way out and we will not make this recession worse by adding one cent to the tax burden of our fellow citizens."

                   Our members walked away thinking about the following points:

• The tax imposed by this bill on the retail sale of dogs and cats is simply that a NEW TAX.
• The Provisions in this bill will simply be used by extremists to harass Indiana Pet Stores.
• The opportunity for citizens that are PRO Indiana Pet Stores to provide meaningful input on this bill was hoped to be non-existent, because the hearing was scheduled with virtually no notice and then rescheduled so animal extremists could attend the following week.
• Posting requirements under this bill are unnecessary and impracticable. Indiana Pet Stores generally do not even have the space to post this extensive information for every dog and cat in the store.
• The Pet Industry in Indiana actively participated in, and supported adoption of, the Commercial Dog Breeders bill (HB 1468) passed this past session. We absolutely do not support sub-standard kennel operators. Yet in this session some of the same legislators are still trying to go after Indiana Dog Breeders again, this time through Indiana Pet Stores.
  

We would also like to point out another obvious fault of HB 1258. To be able to implement this bill, it will force the State of Indiana to spend money they do not have. Every single legislator in the Statehouse knows they can not spend what they do not have and they have all agreed to this crucial point. We want you to read the Fiscal Impact Statement and you will see that the Author and the Co-Author of HB 1258 know that they will have to spend money.

We wonder if they are listening to the Democratic Caucus or not? If they are not. maybe they should pay attention to what happened in Massachusetts this week. It seems that when legislators do not listen to their constituents, the constituents do have a way to send their legislators a message. "We want you to go back home."

If you want to send a message to the legislators involved with this bill. Let them know that YOU are paying attention! Maybe then we all can go on about our business of trying to Stop Cruelty to Animals.

Please write, call and e-mail the following and ask them were they listening to what Gov. Daniels was saying. Express your opposition to HB 1258

 

State of Indiana

House Committee on Courts & Criminal Code information

State Capitol

Indianapolis, IN 46204

317/232-9600

 

REPRESENTATIVE                    DISTRICT(S)                                                 TEL. #             EMAIL

 

Matt Pierce (Ch)(D-61)                  Monroe                                                        317/232-9647    h61@in.gov

 

Nancy Dembowski (V-Ch)(D-17)    LaPorte, Marshall, Starke                             317/232-9676    h17@in.gov

 

Jacque Clements (R-38)                  Clinton, Howard, Boone, Hamilton               317/232-3827    h38@in.gov

 

Ryan Dvorak (D-8)                        St. Joseph                                                      317/234-9290    h8@in.gov

 

Ralph M. Foley (R-47)                   Morgan, Johnson, Hendricks, Owen              317/232-9815    h47@in.gov

 

Eric Allan Koch (R-65)                  Bartholomew, Jackson, Brown, Lawrence     317/232-9793     h65@in.gov

 

Linda C. Lawson (D-1)                   Lake                                                            317/232-9600      h1@in.gov

 

Gregory W. Porter (D-96)             Indianapolis                                                  317/232-9600     h96@in.gov

 

Vernon G. Smith (D-14)                Gary                                                              317/234-9016     h14@in.gov

 

Greg Steuerwald (R-40)                  Hendricks                                                      317/232-9677       h40@in.gov

 

Vern Tincher (D-46)                     Vigo, Clay, Owen, Monroe                            317/232-9999   h46@in.gov

 

Randy Truitt (R-26)                      Warren, Tippecanoe                                     317/234-3827   h26@in.gov

 

 

Pat Bauer (Spkr) (D-6)                  South Bend, St Joseph                                   317/232-9600     h6@in.gov

 

John Barnes (D-89)                       Indianapolis, Marion                                     317/232-9600    h89@in.gov