This Bullytin Board should be used to discuss health, diet, and new owner issues. Participants are encouraged to discuss personal experiences, however we will ask that you refrain from using names of other individuals unless you have prior permission. Additionally, The Bullytin strictly prohibits the sale of dogs.

Webmaster@bullytin.com

A friend emailed me yesterday to say she was watching CNN and suddenly she spied a white bulldog & THeRe hE WaS! Gabie in all of his GLoRY! It's being aired on the cable networks in WA, OR, ID & CA. The ad is for Insight Schools--an online high school--and they just put it up on their YouTube channel, so I was able to get a copy to put on my channel, too!

















So, here it is! Gabe is in the first part of this 30 second spot...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HosHflixBD0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eyoutube%2Ecom%2Fmy%5Fvideos%5Fedit2&feature=player_embedded

(don't know why it won't let me embed the video in the post--would this be because I'm in my channel editor?)


And, it is looking VERY promising that Gabe is being offered the LEAD ROLE in a new dog movie that will be filmed this summer. We met with the agent today & she really likes Gabe & is going to be searching for his "doubles" to use along with him as the movie has him in every scene (it's a HUGE part for him--doesn't pay much, but will be tremendous PR for him!)


*** Keep on casting those VoTeS & ViEWs for GaBiE'S AMeRiCa'S FuNNiEsT ViDeO! ***

http://abc.go.com/primetime/afv/index?pn=player&itemId=6325790

NOTE: Photos property of SittingBullies.com All rights reserved.




Posted on Apr 24, 2009, 3:19 PM
from IP address 76.28.213.49

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

I saw it... by

I saw the commerical last week here in the Bay Area! Its very cute

Melisa Barrett
PlatinumBulldogs.com

"Kindness Will Lead To Your Success"

Posted on Apr 24, 2009, 5:25 PM
from IP address 207.200.116.74

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

---

Wow--they snuck it in!

by

The agent didn't even know it was done yet. And I guess it's playing all around the country--someone in MN saw it--I thought it was just going to be aired on cable networks in WA, ID, OR & CA




Posted on Apr 24, 2009, 8:23 PM
from IP address 76.28.213.49

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

---

How fun!

by Jaime Gerdes

Although I was hoping to see a little more of him...LOL. Enough with the humans already.

Posted on Apr 24, 2009, 7:55 PM
from IP address 75.55.51.46

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

---

Well, at least they got his big mug...

by

in there front & center at the start of the ad




Posted on Apr 24, 2009, 8:24 PM
from IP address 76.28.213.49

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

---

Bucks for Billboards by

From: Marion Bradshaw
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 3:58 PM
Subject: BUCKS FOR BILLBOARDS

BUCKS FOR BILLBOARDS IN CALIFORNIA

MANY OF US WANT TO DO SOMETHING VERY VISABLE TO FIGHT FOR

OUR RIGHT TO OWN PETS

KEEP READING AND THEN WRITE YOUR CHECK FOR A BILLBOARD

Kathy Grayson ( a Southern California handler) contacted one of the outdoor advertising billboard companies and got prices for advertising in the Hollywood, Los Angeles area.? She found out that $6000 buys 100 billboards. That is only $60 per billboard. The economic hard times are playing in our favor here. She has started collecting checks¦..and will cash them and buy 100 billboards when her goal of 100 is reached, a worthwhile goal.

The billboards will say Protect your right to own a pet followed by an international NO sign covering HSUS / PETA. At the bottom the billboard will have a web site for further information so people will realize that giving money to HSUS and PETA is destroying pet ownership in America; in addition the
PETA mission statement will be on that sight.

If you agree that this might prove effective¦..write your donation for a billboard.
Send a check to

Kathy Grayson
25060 Hancock Rd., Suite 103 #188
Murrieta, CA 92562

permission to forward!


Kelly
Whitehills Bulldogs
http://www.geocities.com/kellywhitehills

Posted on Apr 24, 2009, 12:12 PM
from IP address 71.104.235.243

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

ALERT New York Crop and Dock Bill

by

Dear AKC Club Members:

A bill has been introduced in the New York General Assembly that could have serious implications for every responsible purebred dog breeder or owner throughout the United States.

If allowed to pass, NY Assembly Bill 7218 would:
Outlaw tail docking in the state of New York.
Render anyone who exhibits a dog with a docked tail in New York subject to a misdemeanor charge punishable with a fine up to $500 regardless of whether the exhibitor is a New York resident.
Allow any New York animal rights organization to sue a violator for declaratory judgment via a private right of action.

This bill must alarm all who value the right of the dog community to determine breed standards, regardless of whether your breed has a docked tail. As you know, the standards are set by the AKC parent clubs, recognized experts in a particular breed whose goal is to protect the health and welfare of the breed and preserve the function for which it was bred. The standards are set by these experts with the best interest of the dogs in mind, and not with solely aesthetic motivations.

A. 7218 is sending a clear message that the governmentand not you as dog ownerswants to determine the best care and conditions for your breed. Allowing this bill to pass would set a dangerous precedent of allowing the government to usurp your right to establish breed standards and allow radical organizations to dictate who may or may not exhibit at our events. Please visit the AKC website, www.akc.org, or contact the AKC Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720 to learn how you can help us stop this legislation.

We believe that the AKC bears a special responsibility to support our Parent Clubs to protect our cherished and functional breed standards. The AKC, along with its New York federation, has already begun taking extensive actions to stop A. 7218, but it will take a strong, collaborative effort to succeed. Please join us in standing up for the health and welfare of our dogs, as well as our rights as responsible dog owners, and call, email or write to members of the New York Assembly Agriculture Committee to oppose Assembly Bill 7218.


Sincerely,


Sheila Goffe
Director of Government Relations


Posted on Apr 24, 2009, 8:09 AM
from IP address 173.4.220.96

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Dont Give Up!! OK HB 1332 Headed for Senate Conference

by

We've got to keep trying this bill can still be successfully defeated or gutted by the amendments that this committee will add!
Ward


OKLAHOMA BREEDERS BILL HEADING TO SENATE CONFERENCE



[Wednesday, April 22, 2009]



Today, the Oklahoma Senate voted 30-16 in favor of House Bill 1332. However, the title of the bill was stricken and, as a condition of passage, the bill will now be sent to a Senate conference committee to work on amendments. If the bill survives the conference, it will be returned to the Senate for another vote. Only upon passage by the full Senate after conference will the bill be returned to the Oklahoma House for its approval of the Senates version of the bill.



Members and staff of the conference committee are expected to be appointed next week, and meetings are expected to be scheduled soon thereafter. The American Kennel Club Government Relations Department will report any and all new developments, including contact information for conference committee members, as developments warrant.



Please return to AKCs Legislative Alerts Page for the latest information regarding Oklahoma HB 1332.



For more information, contact AKCs Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.





Phil M. Guidry, J.D.

Legislative Analyst

AKC Government Relations Department

(919) 816-3503

pmg@akc.org





Stacy R. Mason

Sr. Breeder Field Representative

American Kennel Club

Breeder Relations Department

Phone 405-747-6053 Fax 919-816-4232

Email srm@akc.org







Posted on Apr 24, 2009, 8:03 AM
from IP address 173.4.220.96

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

ACTION ALERT for Texas SB 634

by

April 22, 2009
We've spoken to our lobbyist Gib Lewis and we're getting conflicting
messages about SB 634 which is scheduled for a second hearing tomorrow
according to the automatic notices we receive. We just attended the hearing
yesterday but heard from some sources the vote will be tomorrow. Gib now
says he is being told it was a mistake to list the public hearing for
tomorrow again, that the committee didn't get to hear all bills yesterday so
they
rescheduled "all" of them by mistake. The hearing was held yesterday for
SB 634.

HOWEVER: our lobbyist will be attending the committee meeting tomorrow to
see what happens and let us know. From past experience, we know anything
can happen at the state legislature. So we need to proceed with an action
alert to call, fax and email all the committee members below from now
throughout the day tomorrow (Thursday, April 23rd) just to cover all bases.
Thanks to Laura Dapkus, Lone Star State APBT Club and Endangered Breed
Association Board Member, for compiling the contact information below for
us. Phone calls can be brief. Just ask that you be recorded as OPPOSING SB
634. Then fax and email as backup.

*********************************
Laura wrote,
Thanks to the more than a dozen sportsmen, dog show enthusiasts,
professional trainers and pet owners who traveled to Austin to testify
against SB 634 yesterday. We brought up many important points to the
committee concerning how existing animal cruelty laws should be used to
prosecute cruel conditions and how this bill is unreasonable and
unnecessary. Unfortunately, only Chair, Sen. Whitmire and Co-Chair and
author, Sen. Seliger were present during both sides' testimony. So, the
committee members still need further education about this bill.

There is an amended version of the bill which is not online yet. It does
away with the temperature requirements and ads an exception to the tethering
part only (not the enclosure size requirements) for dogs that are "engaged
in, or actively training for" an activity requiring a license (i.e.,
hunting) or (this is the added part) "any other legal activity." However,
this exception very clearly does not include retired dogs, breeding stock,
dogs too young to begin training in these activities, etc. In addition,
hunters and sportsmen would still have to prove that their dogs qualifiy for
the exception. In addition, the 150 square foot kennel requirement has not
been changed.

This bill still makes me a criminal. How about you? Please call the
committee members and your own State Senator TODAY.
Please write your brief and respectful letters & faxes and call the members
of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee to say "I OPPOSE SB 634". If you
are a constituent please say so! Check to see if you live in their districts
here:http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/

PERMISSION TO CROSS POST=============

HTML version & link to bill:
http://lsspbc.com/blog/2009/04/17/sb-634-hearing-tues-421-need-action-now/

SB 634 Author: Seliger and HB 2001 Author: McCall (Companion)

Caption: Relating to the unlawful restraint of a dog.
OPPOSE: Would prohibit tethering or trolley runs under any condition,
mandates 150 sf kennel size, does not allow dogs to be outside unattended at
all even in a fenced yard (hunting dogs are not exempt). This means that
owners cannot leave their dogs outside even to go to work or run errands.
Requirements will result in more dogs at large and therefore dog bites, as
well as more dogs being surrendered or impounded and destroyed.

TALKING POINTS:

* The state law passed in 2007 already requires safe and humane
tethering practices. In addition, cities can and do pass tethering
ordinances if unsafe tethering practices are a problem in the city.
* Some dogs are happier and safer when tethered correctly than when
crated, kenneled or left alone in a fenced yard. Some dogs will injure
themselves by chewing on or digging out of kennels and crates.
* This bill is detrimental to hunting kennels, which have always used
tethers to safely confine their working dogs. These working dogs would be
anxious and unhappy in kennels or crates.
* A 10 foot long tether provides 314 square feet of space, which is
superior to the 150 square foot kennel specified in SB 634 and HB 2001. A
tether provides vastly more space than an indoor airline kennel-type crate.
* This bill requires 150 square feet of kennel space for any dog over 6
months of age in Texas when the Texas prison system only requires 40 square
feet for inmates.
* Each dog is an individual, and a few are escape artists. Most urban
areas have a problem with dogs running at large, so why take away a method
that can keep dogs safely confined?
* When we see 100 dogs or cats crammed into a filthy house, it doesn't
mean that most indoor pets are abused. Any confinement method can be abusive
when taken to extremes. We already have animal cruelty laws to address
owners who cruelly keep their dogs.
* The standard size for off-the-shelf kennels is 100 square feet, making
150 square foot kennels an unreasonable burden. Low income people and the
elderly, who do not have the means to build new fences and kennels, will be
unfairly targeted by this law.
* How many dogs will be turned loose or left alone with inadequate
fencing and allowed to escape? Owners who cannot pay the fines for violating
the tethering ban will be forced to give up their dogs. The vast majority of
the dogs surrendered or impounded under this law will be destroyed because
there simply are not enough homes willing to adopt large-breed adult dogs.
* The popular opinion is that tethered dogs are more likely to bite
people. Aggression is caused by many factors including genetics, lack of
socialization and abuse, and these conditions can exist in a yard, a kennel
or inside a home.
* This bill is not the same as the restraint of dog ordinances that
certain cities have passed recently. Those city ordinances apply to
permanent means of confinement. This bill applies even to those who confine
their dogs temporarily to go to work or run errands.

SENATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE

The Honorable John Whitmire, Chair
P.O. Box 12068
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 463-0115 FAX: 512-475-3737
DISTRICT: HOUSTON

The Honorable Kel Seliger, Vice Chair
P.O. Box 12068
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 463-0131
(512) 475-3733 fax
DISTRICT: AMARILLO

The Honorable Glenn Hegar
P.O. Box 12068
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 463-0118
(512) 475-3736 (Fax)
DISTRICT: KATY

The Honorable Dan Patrick
P.O. Box 12068
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 463-0107
(512) 463-8810 FAX
DISTRICT: HOUSTON

he Honorable Rodney G. Ellis
P.O. Box 12068
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 463-0113
(512) 463-0006 (fax)
DISTRICT: HOUSTON

The Honorable John Carona
P.O. Box 12068
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 463-0116
Fax: (512) 463-3135
DISTRICT: DALLAS

The Honorable Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa
P.O. Box 12068
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 463-0120
(512) 463-0229 Fax
DISTRICT: MCALLEN

RPOA Texas Outreach (501C4 Nonprofit)
www.rpoatexasoutreach.org
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (501C3 Nonprofit)
www.responsiblepetowners.org

900 NE Loop 410 #311-D
San Antonio, TX 78209
$15 Annual dues (January - December)
To subscribe or unsubscribe, e-mail rpoa@texas.net.



Posted on Apr 24, 2009, 7:58 AM
from IP address 173.4.220.96

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

OK HB1332 on Wednesday's agenda

by

All OK residents please call, email and/or fax your state Senator first thing Wednesday morning. If you have done it before, do it again!

You can use NAIA's capwiz as Ward posted below:
http://capwiz.com/naiatrust/issues/alert/?alertid=13100026&queueid=[capwiz:queue_id]

Better yet, CALL. And while you are calling your senator, call several others too. We have to change Senator's minds on this bill NOW.

You can find an alphabetical listing of all OK Senator's and links to their contact information athttp://www.oksenate.gov/Senators/directoryalpha.htm .

If you are not from OK, this bill will affect your ability to transport dogs to or through the state. If you ever sell or even give a single puppy to someone in OK you will also be subject to the licensing requirements established by the bill.

Every state in which this type of animal rights extremist legislation passes makes it more likely it will be introduced and passed in YOUR state, wherever you live.

BTW - OK's Senate has a Republican majority and this bill is still likely to pass as things stand now. Don't fall into the trap of thinking this can only happen in Democratic controlled states. The pockets of the AR lobby are deep and they couldn't care less what the position of the votes they swing is on other issues. Let your senator know you too will be a single-issue voter next election and that you will work to defeat anyone who votes for this bill REGARDLESS of their record on other issues.

If you've read this far, now is the time to pick up the phone before it is too late!
Dan Bandy

Posted on Apr 21, 2009, 9:29 PM
from IP address 72.215.9.166

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Explanation of OFA Trachea Study by

I know a lot have questions as to what the results from OFA mean when you do the Trachea Study. When you do submit your application, you will receive a copy back with the results checked, and a number next to it. It has nothing to do with the size of a trach tube or anything else. Below is Dr. Kellers explanation.
>>>>>>

The number is a ratio of the inside diameter of the trachea at the thoracic inlet divided by the width of the proximal 3rd rib. The literature reports that a ratio of 2 or greater is normal. The BCA is trying to determine if this is accurate for the Bulldog and also to document the prevalence of hyoplastic tracheas.


Thank you.


G.G. Keller, D.V.M., MS
Diplomate ACVR
Chief of Veterinary Services
Orthopedic Foundation for Animals




Posted on Apr 21, 2009, 9:16 AM
from IP address 56.0.84.25

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Additional info on trachea by

The trachea and the width between the ribs is measured in centimeters. You then take the width of the ribs and divide it into the width of the trachea. So, anything 2 or more is very good for a bulldog. That means the trachea is twice the size of the distance between the ribs. However, you will not find them probably close to 3. Only breeds such as a greyhound would measure at that.

Posted on Apr 22, 2009, 2:50 PM
from IP address 72.193.125.150

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

---

We got an "equivocal" rating on one...

by

with a 1.8 ...so it sounds like it wasn't actually too far off the "normal" rating at that measurement. Another one was 2.6 with a "normal" rating, so that one sounds like it's pretty fantastic




Posted on Apr 28, 2009, 9:00 PM
from IP address 76.28.213.49

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

---

That one is a great one, Cheryl by

They want to see 2 or more. A high 1 is not real bad. It is something more like a 1.1, 1.2, etc that would not be good. But a 2.6 is awesome. Congratulations!

Posted on Apr 29, 2009, 1:06 PM
from IP address 56.0.84.23

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

---

Correction, updated info by

The trachea and the width between the ribs is measured in centimeters. You then take the width of the ribs and divide it into the width of the trachea
>>>>>

At first protocal and how OFA was looking at it was as I said above. HOWEVER now, it is the WIDTH of the actual 3rd rib divided into the WIDTH of the trachea. My understanding is that they felt that it depended if the dog was inhaling or exhaling that the space between the ribs could change, but the actual diameter of the one rib is constant.

Posted on Apr 29, 2009, 1:09 PM
from IP address 56.0.84.23

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

---

Oklahoma HB 1332 to be Voted on this Week!!

by

FYI from the OAIA



Stacy R. Mason

Sr. Breeder Field Representative

American Kennel Club

Breeder Relations Department

Phone 405-747-6053 Fax 919-816-4232

Email srm@akc.org






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Shelly Kuhn [mailto:nutz4gr@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 4:58 PM
To: Shelly Kuhn
Subject: HB 1332 vote this week



We think that HB 1332 will go before the senate this week. Here is a current list of Senators who state they are going to vote no and below that are those that indicate they are on the fence. If you know of others please let us know so that we can update our list.





Nayes: Schulz, Sykes, Brogdon, Corn, Ellis, Garrison, Gumm, Justice, Sweden



Undecided: Coffee, Lamb, Bingman, Laster, Aldridge, Ballenger, Barrington, Ivester, Marlat, Nichols, Wyrick



NAIA Alert: http://capwiz.com/naiatrust/issues/alert/?alertid=13100026&queueid=[capwiz:queue_id]



Shelly


Posted on Apr 21, 2009, 8:29 AM
from IP address 12.74.199.68

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Say No to US HR 669!!!

by

SAY NO TO HR 669




What is HR 669?
H.R. 669 stands for House Resolution 669 and is titled "The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act". It is a bill currently before Congress that if passed will change the way that20the US Government classifies animal species that are not native to the United States. H.R. 669 will make it illegal to breed and sell many animals that are very common in the pet trade.

Why should you care about HR 669?
Anyone with pet fish, birds, reptiles, or small mammals will be affected by this bill. Any company selling product or services for pet fish, birds, reptiles or small mammals will be affected by this bill. Would you be impacted by "The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act"?

Virtually all fish in an aquarium are not native to the United States

Most pet birds are species not native to the US

Most reptiles kept as pets are not native to the US

Hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs and ferrets are not native to the US

What can you do to stop HR 669?
Pet owners support the concept of a risk based approach to non-native imports, unfortunately H.R. 669 as drafted does not provide a constructive way forward.

You can help by standing up and making your voice heard. Let your Representative know that you oppose H.R. 669 as drafted and the financial and/or emotional effect it will have on you, or your friends, or your family members if it passes. The link below will allow you to send an email to your Representative in Congress and even give you the option to follow up with a phone call.


got to this website www.nohr669. com





ITS IS VERY IMPORTANT, AND EASY TO CONTACT YOUR CONGRESS REPRESENTATIVE



Dennis Garetano








The opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the author & do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Bonanza Kennel Club of Carson City.



Permission granted to forward.



If you do not want to receive future mailings from this list, please reply to this mail & put REMOVE in the Subject.





Posted on Apr 20, 2009, 8:35 AM
from IP address 12.74.199.206

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Help Needed Texas SB 634

by

HELP NEEDED SB 634 Committee Hearing / Companion Bill to HB 2001 (Tethering)þ
From: Carol Williamson (Carol.Williamson@kirbycorp.com)
Sent: Fri 4/17/09 9:18 PM
To: Carol Williamson (Carol.Williamson@kirbycorp.com)

Following are excellent notes from RPOA, Zandra Anderson, and Laura Dapkus with the Lone Star State APBT Club and Endangered Breed Association (as forwarded by Jim Crawford, HKC Board member and very successful breeder / handler / owner of multiple dual champion Brittanys.)



I think there are a couple of additional notes that are very important:

The author of the Senate version is the vice-Chair of the committee to which the bill was assigned.

The author of the House version is the Chair of the Calendar Committee. As Laura Dapkus notes below, he is the most powerful person in the House besides the Speaker.

Both will tend to read and listen to your comments as authors and, therefore, may be extra protective.



Please be very clear in setting forth your opinion AND be a little extra courteous.



By the way, save your letters and e-mails for use again (with an address change) when the House committee meets.



As always, thank you for your efforts.



/Carol Williamson







Please email rpoa@texas.net if you're able to attend the Public Hearing on SB 634 Tuesday, relating to unlawful restraint of a dog.



Thanks to Laura Dapkus, Lone Star State APBT Club and Endangered Breed Association, for assembling the information below for us, including the analysis by Zandra Anderson. www.TexasDogLawyer.com



----------------------

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:59:52 -0700 (PDT) Laura Dapkus writes:



I just looked at this again and we are in trouble for two reasons

1) Most of the committee members are from urban areas who are generally not sympathetic to our issues. 2) The house version is authored by McCall who is the chair of the calendar committee and therefore he is the most powerful person in the House besides the speaker.



I am copying our contacts in the hunting community here because if there was ever a bill we need you on, it is this one. There are NO exceptions for hunting dogs.



============PERMISSION TO CROSS POST=====================================



SB 634 makes many of us criminals for how we keep our dogs. Lone Star State APBT Club president, Tom Lundberg, is organizing a trip to testify at the hearing. If you would like to go please email tom at lsspbc.com or call him at 214-662-1971.



HTML version & link to bill:http://lsspbc.com/blog/2009/04/17/sb-634-hearing-tues-421-need-action-now/

COMMITTEE: Senate Criminal Justice
TIME & DATE: 1:30 PM or upon adjournment
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
PLACE: E1.016 (Hearing Room)

SB 634 Author: Seliger and HB 2001 Author: McCall (Companion)

Caption: Relating to the unlawful restraint of a dog.
OPPOSE: Would prohibit tethering or trolley runs under any condition, mandates 150 sf kennel size, does not allow dogs to be outside unattended at all even in a fenced yard (hunting dogs are not exempt). This means that owners cannot leave their dogs outside even to go to work or run errands. Requirements will result in more dogs at large and therefore dog bites, as well as more dogs being surrendered or impounded and destroyed.

TALKING POINTS:

* The state law passed in 2007 already requires safe and humane tethering practices. In addition, cities can and do pass tethering ordinances if unsafe tethering practices are a problem in the city.
* Some dogs are happier and safer when tethered correctly than when crated, kenneled or left alone in a fenced yard. Some dogs will injure themselves by chewing on or digging out of kennels and crates.
* This bill is detrimental to hunting kennels, which have always used tethers to safely confine their working dogs. These working dogs would be anxious and unhappy in kennels or crates.
* A 10 foot long tether provides 314 square feet of space, which is superior to the 150 square foot kennel specified in SB 634 and HB 2001. A tether provides vastly more space than an indoor airline kennel-type crate.
* This bill requires 150 square feet of kennel space for any dog over 6 months of age in Texas when the Texas prison system only requires 40 square feet for inmates.
* Each dog is an individual, and a few are escape artists. Most urban areas have a problem with dogs running at large, so why take away a method that can keep dogs safely confined?
* When we see 100 dogs or cats crammed into a filthy house, it doesnt mean that most indoor pets are abused Any confinement method can be abusive when taken to extremes. We already have animal cruelty laws to address owners who cruelly keep their dogs.
* The standard size for off-the-shelf kennels is 100 square feet, making 150 square foot kennels an unreasonable burden. Low income people and the elderly, who do not have the means to build new fences and kennels, will be unfairly targeted by this law.
* How many dogs will be turned loose or left alone with inadequate fencing and allowed to escape? Owners who cannot pay the fines for violating the tethering ban will be forced to give up their dogs. The vast majority of the dogs surrendered or impounded under this law will be destroyed because there simply are not enough homes willing to adopt large-breed adult dogs.
* The popular opinion is that tethered dogs are more likely to bite people. Aggression is caused by many factors including genetics, lack of socialization and abuse, and these conditions can exist in a yard, a kennel or inside a home.
* This bill has mandates concerning extreme weather without taking into account that Huskies and Chihuahuas prefer vastly different kinds of weather.

Please write your brief and respectful letters & faxes and call the members of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee. If you are a constituent please say so!



Check to see if you live in their districts here:http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/




SENATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE

The Honorable John Whitmire, Chair
P.O. Box 12068
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 463-0115 FAX: 512-475-3737
DISTRICT: HOUSTON

The Honorable Kel Seliger, Vice Chair
P.O. Box 12068
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 463-0131
(512) 475-3733 fax
DISTRICT: AMARILLO

The Honorable Glenn Hegar
P.O. Box 12068
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 463-0118
(512) 475-3736 (Fax)
DISTRICT: KATY

The Honorable Dan Patrick
PO. Box 12068
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 463-0107
(512) 463-8810 FAX
DISTRICT: HOUSTON

The Honorable Rodney G. Ellis
P.O. Box 12068
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 463-0113
(512) 463-0006 (fax)
DISTRICT: HOUSTON

The Honorable John Carona
P.O. Box 12068
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 463-0116
Fax: (512) 463-3135
DISTRICT: DALLAS

The Honorable Juan Chuy Hinojosa
P.O. Box 12068
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 463-0120
(512) 463-0229 Fax
DISTRICT: MCALLEN


Posted on Apr 20, 2009, 8:28 AM
from IP address 12.74.199.206

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Journi's Reserve Winners pic.... by

Very proud of her, not bad for a 6 month old baby girl!






If youu pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you; that is the principal difference between a dog and a man.
-Mark Twain


The average dog is a nicer person than the average person.
-Andy Rooney






Posted on Apr 19, 2009, 2:41 PM
from IP address 67.76.192.86

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

she's a cutie..congrats! n/m by

n/m

Posted on Apr 20, 2009, 1:59 AM
from IP address 67.167.72.17

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

---

Congrats Lisa!

by

Scott

Posted on Apr 20, 2009, 12:07 PM
from IP address 66.74.131.250

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

---

Pretty little lady!

by

She's off to a great start, too!




Posted on Apr 24, 2009, 8:25 PM
from IP address 76.28.213.49

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

---

SB250 voted through committee

by

Vote was by party line, both republicans NO all three Dems YES

BUT Wolk asked for amendments and Wiggins asked for the speakers to provide hard proof of Santa Cruz "success" and Calgary's success as well as Financial figures for BOTH

Santa Cruz, still being waved as a "victory" for MSN is not, it's been an expensive fiasco and out performed by it's non-MSN neighbors.

Calgary on the other hand has been very very successful, without controversy and is actually financially self supporting and has fostered actual cooperation between owners, ACOs, breeders and rescues with a 95% licensure rate for dogs!, Compare that to the dismal 15-23% rate common in California. Calgary also kills less than 10% of it's impounded dogs and expects to do even better this year.

SO if we hit all the senators, especially the democrats, with good, accurate, solid factual information HARD and POLITELY in the coming weeks, we may be able to get SB250 converted to something actually useful.

Stay tuned....

Posted on Apr 15, 2009, 4:02 PM
from IP address 208.106.99.77

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Thanks Jen

by

Waiting for further direction from you

Posted on Apr 16, 2009, 4:11 PM
from IP address 24.4.55.121

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

---

*** ThE BuLLHoRN BLaBBeR--Blast from da past back issues! ***

by

It was this time of year--almost three years to the day--that the first "issue" of the infamous "BuLLHoRN BLaBBeR" was released. The initial issue of this classic Bulldog Tabloid featured a "Mystery Romance" (can YOU guess who this "couple" might be?!!...the featured story is filled with "hints") as well as a Mystery Editor (...I already gave that away this time), which was revealed a few issues into the weekly publication.

Photos were taken from our friends at BulldogsWorld.com & fabricated into "stories"...so you may recognize some of these Famous Mugs if you look closely. I thought I'd resurrect The Blabber to bring a few chuckles once again. Initially there were over 12 "issues"...maybe one of these days we'll hit the "press" with some NEW HoT SToRiES for your entertainment. Until then we can look at the "back issues"...






*** And DoN't FoRGeT to keep BLaBBiNG about our favorite CaNiNe CoWPoKE so we can convince the AMeRiCa'S FuNNiEst Producers to bring about GaBiE's return to HoLLyWoOF! WhOoHoO!!! We've passed the 200,000 mark & are rolling right along amongst the Most Viewed videos on the site--AND--still holding strong at the ToP RaTeD spot!...Keep those VoTEs-N-ViEWs a'comin'!


http://abc.go.com/primetime/afv/index?pn=player&itemId=6325790


NOTE: Photos property of SittingBullies.com All rights reserved.




Posted on Apr 15, 2009, 2:07 PM
from IP address 76.28.213.49

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

One Down...14 more to go in Texas

by

April 14, 2009



One down and 14 more to win in Texas!

HB 1982 by Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer (D) relating to vicious dogs, is dead according to Jon Ryan Parker, assistant clerk of the House County Affairs Committee. This was reported to RPOA by one of our members so we just called to doublecheck. The clerk said she can't say it is dead; only that "there are no plans to hear the bill." When we asked if the bill could come back up again, she emphatically said "No!" There is no companion bill in the Senate to HB 1982.



This is the bill that many cities and especially San Antonio city officials have diligently tried to make breed specific, allowing cities to regulate certain dog breeds. The bill allowed vicious dog determinations on dogs confined in their own back yards that had not bitten and ridiculous requirements for all dogs over 40 lbs. The San Antonio Express-News editorial board also urged it be made breed specific and slanted newspaper coverage for the past two weeks to support their position.



Thanks to all of you who went to Austin for the committee hearing. Jeff Shaver and Zandra Anderson, our two attorneys, arrived around 1:30 p.m. for the hearing scheduled for 2:00 p.m. and did not get to testify until around 10:30 or 11:00 p.m. This made it 1:30 a.m. before they got back home in Houston.



Texas already has one of the strongest dangerous dog laws in the country. A dog owner can land in prison for 10-20 years on a felony conviction for the actions of his dog. Now on to all the other bills listed on our website:

www.rpoatexasoutreach.org

If you haven't made a contribution for our lobbying efforts yet, please do so with PayPal or mail in. Your animals will be glad you did. We're still running behind on adding new subscribers to our TX-RPOA E-News. But to subscribe, email rpoa@texas.net and we hope to be caught up soon! Your response to this legislative session has been fantastic! We can do this with your help.



RPOA Texas Outreach (501C4 Nonprofit)

www.rpoatexasoutreach.org

Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (501C3 Nonprofit) www.responsiblepetowners.org



900 NE Loop 410 #311-D

San Antonio, TX 78209

$15 Annual dues (January - December)

To subscribe or unsubscribe, e-mail rpoa@texas.net.





Posted on Apr 14, 2009, 2:16 PM
from IP address 12.74.204.9

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

*** HoPpY EaSteR from Da SiTTiNgBuLLiES GaNg! ***

by

One of my favorite little Easter Bullies--Baby Moxie--taken just before I took her to the airport (and I have it on cards in my store--it's also on one for Valentines that says, "Somebunny loves you!" )








...and what's Easter without greetings from Da BiDDiE BuLLiES TeA CLuB?



(Chubbs LOVES her Duckies!)






Easter Greetings EVeRyBuLLy!





*** Don't forget to visit GaBe's AMeRiCa'S FuNNiEsT ViDeo & help usher it into the 200k zone! ***

http://abc.go.com/primetime/afv/index?pn=player&itemId=6325790



NOTE: Photos property of SittingBullies.com All rights reserved.




Posted on Apr 10, 2009, 9:45 AM
from IP address 76.28.213.49

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

8 States on the Brink - OH, CA, IN, TX, DE, WA, OK and TN

by

Dog Legislation On Brink In Eight States


Ohio, California, Indiana, Texas, Delaware,
Washington, Oklahoma And Tennessee


by JOHN YATES

American Sporting Dog Alliance

http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org

asda@conline.net



This article is archived at:http://eaglerock814.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=34



Legislation that would severely restrict the ability to raise high quality purebred dogs in a home environment is advancing rapidly in several states:



In Ohio, new legislation was introduced this week that defines a breeding dog as any dog that is not spayed or neutered, and creates a new state Kennel Authority with the power to write and enforce regulations without legislative oversight.


In California, the 13th reincarnation of last years failed bill to mandate spaying and neutering of all dogs faces a hearing before the Senate Local Government Committee on April 15. This bill would force the sterilization of any dog that is accused of being in violation of any animal law, even if the allegation is not proven. A second bill, AB 1122, has many dog owners very concerned about its impact on raising or competing with dogs.


In Indiana, legislation that defines many serious hobbyists as puppy mills has passed both the House and Senate, faces a conference committee to resolve differences, and may be sent to the governor soon. Similar legislation is moving quickly in Washington and Oklahoma. While dog owners working with the American Sporting Dog Alliance have caused amendments to improve all three bills, the results still fall short of protecting our rights.


Texas breeding legislation continues to be contained in committee, but animal rights groups are lobbying hard and a major push by dog owners is needed to make sure it stays in committee.


And Tennessee legislation aimed at people who raise dogs is moving fast in both houses of the Legislature, and a hearing on similar legislation in Delaware was postponed after dog owners working with the American Sporting Dog Alliance filed strong objections.




Each of these states will be profiled separately below. They are part of a 34-state legislative push by the radical Humane Society of the United States that has resulted in more than 179 pieces of animal rights legislation targeting dog owners nationwide. Information about this legislation compiled by the Cat Fanciers Association also is profiled below.



Ohio


Animal rights groups failed to pass legislation last year that would have destroyed the breeding of high quality purebred dogs in Ohio. As expected, they are back again this year with Senate Bill 95. The prime sponsors, Sen. Gary Cates and Sen. Jim Hughes, also were the sponsors of last years failed animal rights legislation.



Here is a link to the text of SB 95:http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=128_SB_95 . Please read its 42 pages of anti-dog-owner bureaucracy. It is straight from the drawing board of HSUS. The legislation has been introduced, but still has not been assigned to a committee, according to the Senate website. Last year, the sponsors managed to keep the legislation out of the Agriculture Committee, which understands the threats of extremist animal rights activism.



We are asking Ohio dog owners to do two things to help stop this destructive legislation. First, contact the Senate leadership and ask them to assign SB 95 to the Agriculture Committee, which is the only appropriate place. No other committee works regularly with animal issues.



Here is a link to the Senate leaders:http://www.senate.state.oh.us/leadership/index.html . Click on each name to get contact information.



Second, please contact your own senator and ask him or her to oppose SB 95 from the outset, and to use her/his influence with Senate leadership to direct this bill to the Agriculture Committee. Here is a list of each senator:http://www.senate.state.oh.us/senators/by_name.html . Click on a name to get contact information.



Here are some key provisions of SB 95:



A breeding dog is defined as a dog of any age that is not sterilized. It includes both males and females, and even newborn puppies. A regulated breeding kennel is defined as a kennel that produces either nine litters of puppies a year, or at least 40 puppies a year. This definition entraps many serious hobbyists, as 40 puppies could translate into only four or five litters a year in some breeds, and may also entrap private animal rescue networks that dont breed any dogs.


A kennel control authority is created that will write and administer kennel regulations, with no provision for legislative control or oversight, and no accountability to the citizens. These rules will include inspections, background investigations of applicants, rules governing animal rescue organizations, and many other requirements.


Applicants for a kennel or rescue license will be required to have insurance and also to post bonds ranging from $5,000 to $50,000. Both the insurance and bonds will be payable to the state, in the event of a license revocation, in order to pay for the cost of caring for seized dogs.


Anyone who sells a dog or a puppy will be required to obtain a vendors license (some county treasurers already are requiring this in violation of the law, the American Sporting Dog Alliance reported earlier this year).


Kennel housing requirements will eliminate raising puppies inside a home or in a family environment, for all license holders. Fenced yards for dogs living in a home environment would not meet exercise area requirements, and the bill says that half of the lawn would have to be paved in concrete to comply. For dogs that live in indoor or indoor/outdoor facilities, minimum pen sizes are required that may create dangerous conditions in cold weather. Most dogs will have to have continuous access to clean and unfrozen water, which is an impossibility for dogs kept outdoors in the winter.


Tail docking, dewclaw removal and ear cropping can be done only by a licensed veterinarian. For hundreds of years, these routine procedures have been done by people who raise puppies, and few if any problems have been reported.


Veterinary care is required for any disease, illness or injury, even if the problem is only minor and easily treated by the animals owner. As with parents of human children, most people who own kennels are skilled and equipped to handle routine situations. The bill also requires veterinary approval before any female dog can be bred, and all euthanasia must be done by a veterinarian, even if this causes a dog to experience prolonged suffering.


No dog can be sold at any public place. This definition would include dog shows, field trials or competitive events, or events sponsored by rescue groups in public places.


Dogs can be seized and impounded for any violation of the law, including minor or technical violations. Dogs can be seized when the owner is not present, and an owner is entitled only to an administrative hearing before the agency that seized the dogs. There is an appeal only to the environmental division of the Franklin County Court. Civil penalties cannot be appealed, and range from $25 to $15,000 for each dog and each day of violation.


And an advisory board is created that is heavily stacked in favor of animal rights groups. Only one representative of an AKC breed club is included, and there is no other representation for other dog owners.


California



Senate Bill 250 is the 2009 manifestation of last years failed spay and neuter mandate, AB 1634. It was amended most recently on April 2, 2009. Here is a link to the amended version (please read it):http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb_250_bill_20090402_amended_sen_v98.html .



SB 250 is scheduled for an April 15 public hearing before the Senate Local Government Committee. We are urging all California dog owners to contact members of the committee to express opposition to this legislation, submit formal testimony to the committee and, if possible, attend the hearing and offer oral testimony.



This legislation introduces the term custodian to weaken the concept of ownership, and treads the dangerous ground of taking a step toward turning animal ownership into animal guardianship. This would make animals wards of the state, and provide the same legal protection to animals that the law now provides for foster children.



"Custodian" is defined as any person who undertakes the personal care and control of a dog or cat, or any person who intentionally provides care, security, or sustenance for a dog or cat on the person's property for any period exceeding 30 days. This definition ensnares professional trainers and handlers, animal rescue groups, and people who provide food for feral cats.


SB 250 also creates a wholly unreasonable standard of mandating sterilization for any dog that has been impounded, even on a first offense. This would cause the forced sterilization of hunting and field trial dogs that get lost or out of touch with their handler even briefly, dogs that escape confinement through no fault of their owners (or for a simple accidental occurrence, such as bolting through a door that is opened by a visitor), or for animals that are deliberately stolen or turned loose by animal rights fanatics who advocate using this tactic to destroy a hobby breeding kennel. There is no appeal.



All dogs over the medically unsafe age of six months must be sterilized under the legislation, unless an intact permit is obtained. An intact permit can be revoked or denied if the dogs owner has been cited for any violation of any animal control law or ordinance. Please note that the legislation requires only a citation, not a conviction. Thus, even if a dog owner is found not guilty in court, an intact permit could be denied.



A dog owner is given only a reasonable opportunity to respond to a denial or revocation, but is not entitled to a hearing in a court of law or an appeal.



The hearing on SB 250 is set for the Senate Local Government Committee on April 15 at 9:30 a.m., in Room 112 of the State Capitol in Sacramento.



Please contact committee members as soon as possible to voice opposition to SB 250. They are:



1. Senator Dean Florez (Author), State Capitol, Room 313, Sacramento, CA 95814; Phone:(916) 651-4016; Fax: (916) 327-5989

2. Senate Local Government Committee Consultant Peter Detwiler, State Capitol Room 5046, Sacramento, CA 95814; Fax: 916-322-0298 to enter testimony into the record.

3. Senator Patricia Wiggins (Chair), State Capitol, Room 4081, Sacramento, CA 95814; Phone: (916) 651-4002; Fax (916) 323-6958

4. Senator Dave Cox (Vice Chair), State Capitol, Room 2068, Sacramento, CA 95814; Phone: (916) 651-4001; Fax: (916) 324-2680

5. Senator Sam Aanestad, State Capitol, Room 3063, Sacramento, CA 95814; Phone: (916) 651-4004; Fax: (916) 445-7750

6. Senator Christine Kehoe, State Capitol, Room 5050, Sacramento, CA 95814; Phone: (916) 651-4039; Fax: (916) 327-2188

7. Senator Lois Wolk, State Capitol, Room 4032, Sacramento, CA 95814; Phone: (916) 651-4005; Fax: (916) 323-2304

The second bill, AB 1122, appears innocuous at first glance, in that it bans sales of dogs or puppies at flea markets or along streets and roads. However, dog owners are concerned that the language is designed to entrap dog shows and other competitive events under references to the states Business and Professional Code.



Because there are vendors at an AKC dog show and many other canine events, these events would fall under the legal definition of a swap meet. Dog owners who compete or exhibit would be entrapped by this definition if they attend three or more events a year.



Combined with SB 250, this provision would be grounds to revoke an intact permit for all of a competitors dogs.



It also appears to the American Sporting Dog Alliance that this legislation would prohibit someone from posting a kennel sign along a road on their property, or posting a sign in their yard advertising puppies, dogs, or stud services for sale. It also appears to prohibit kennel information from being placed on motor vehicles or trailers while traveling.



The term offering for sale could include posting notices on grocery store billboards, and even walking an intact dog on a leash in a park could be construed as displaying the dog. All participation at canine events also could be seen as displaying the dog in order to promote the sale of dogs or services from the owners kennels.



A further provision calls for misdemeanor penalties for the owner of any dog that is displayed that also is placed in a situation in which its life or health may be endangered. This would appear to include hunting with a dog (accidents are possible), competing in field trials, agility tests, or herding meets, and working with a dog on a farm or ranch.



An April 28 hearing on AB 1122 has been set before the Assembly Business and Professions Committee. Here is contact information for members of this committee:




Mary Hayashi - Chair
Dem-18
(916) 319-2018
Assemblymember.Hayashi@assembly.ca.gov


Bill Emmerson - Vice Chair
Rep-63
(916) 319-2063
Assemblymember.emmerson@assembly.ca.gov


Connie Conway

Rep-34
(916) 319-2034
Assemblymember.Conway@assembly.ca.gov


Mike Eng

Dem-49
(916) 319-2049
Assemblymember.Eng@asm.ca.gov


Edward P. Hernandez

Dem-57
(916) 319-2057
Assemblymember.Hernandez@assembly.ca.gov


Pedro Nava

Dem-35
(916) 319-2035
Assemblymember.nava@assembly.ca.gov


Roger Niello

Rep-5
(916) 319-2005
Assemblymember.niello@assembly.ca.gov


John A. Pérez

Dem-46
(916) 319-2046
Assemblymember.John.Perez@assembly.ca.gov


Curren D. Price Jr.

Dem-51
(916) 319-2051
Assemblymember.Price@assembly.ca.gov


Ira Ruskin

Dem-21
(916) 319-2021
Assemblymember.Ruskin@assembly.ca.gov


Cameron Smyth

Rep-38
(916) 319-2038
Assemblymember.Smyth@assembly.ca.gov






Here is a link to the text of the bill:http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1101-1150/ab_1122_bill_20090227_introduced.html



Delaware


House Bill 95, which regulates raising dogs in Delaware, had been scheduled for a House committee hearing this week. However, the hearing was postponed after many dog owners objected to the legislation. It is not know if or when another hearing may be scheduled.



The official legislative summary of the bill leaves no doubts about its radical animal rights origins: This bill adopts the recommendations of the Humane Society of the United States regarding restrictions on the large-scale for-profit dog breeding operations commonly known as puppy mills.



The bill defines a breeding dog as any unsterilized dog over the age of six months that is being raised for the purpose of being sold, or for the purpose of breeding it and selling its offspring. No definition is given about how that purpose would be defined, and the American Sporting Dog Alliance also strongly objects to dog owners be required to state a purpose for owning any dog. For example, the same dog may be a family pet, a hunting companion, a field trial competitor, and a dog that will be bred someday.



Using that definition, HB 95 prohibits anyone from possessing, caring for or controlling more than 25 breeding dogs. This requirement ensnares every professional trainer and handler, hunt club, hound pack owner and private rescue network in Delaware, and also many serious hobby breeders of high quality purebred dogs.



The bill also requires veterinarians to examine and certify any dog (male or female) used for breeding, and to be used to treat any illness, condition or injury, even if it is a minor problem such as having fleas or worms. Only veterinarians could dock a tail, crop ears or euthanize a dog under this bill.



Here is a link to the bill:http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/lis145.nsf/vwLegislation/HB+95/$file/legis.html?open .



The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all Delaware dog owners to contact members of the House Agriculture Committee to express opposition to HB 95. This link will list all committee members:http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/LIS145.NSF/*/E650A11F8152E9FA85257507005A4C94/?opendocument&nav=House . Click on each name to find contact information.



Tennessee



More bad legislation targeting people who raise dogs is before the Tennessee Legislature, in the form of identical twin legislation, HB 386 and SB 258. Hearings were held yesterday.



Dog owners who opposed the bill received a courteous hearing before the Senate Commerce, Labor and Agriculture Committee, which heard testimony but did not vote.



However, the reception received by dog owners was hostile at a hearing held before the House Subcommittee on Civil Practice and Procedure, which voted to approve the legislation and send it to the full House Judiciary Committee for a hearing. A hearing of the full Judiciary Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, April 15.



This legislation defines anyone who possesses or maintains more than 20 intact female dogs of any age as a commercial breeder, if the dogs are used as breeding animals; this is very ambiguous, as a dog may be in a kennel for many reasons, including breeding only once in its lifetime. This definition unfairly ensnares many private kennel owners, serious hobbyists, private rescue groups, boarding kennels and professional trainers and handlers.



No one would be permitted to possess or control more than 75 intact animals over the age of six months, even if they receive extraordinary care.



The bill also allows searches and seizures without warrants, provides high fines and multiple tiers of violations for even minor or technical offenses, and assess license fees of $500 (for 20 dogs) to $1,000 a year.



Here is a link to the actual legislation (note that the House and Senate versions are identical):http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Bill/HB0386.pdf .



We are urging Tennessee dog owners to contact members of the Senate Commerce, Labor and Agriculture Committee to oppose this legislation (SB 258). Here is a link to each committee member and contact information:http://www.capitol.tn.gov/senate/committees/commerce.html .



Also, please contact members of the House Judiciary Committee and voice your strong opposition to HB 386:http://www.capitol.tn.gov/house/committees/judiciary.html .



Indiana


Indiana dog owners have won many concessions on what started out to be very dangerous anti-breeder legislation, but still have to contend with language that defines a commercial kennel as the mere possession of 20 or more intact female dogs.



The bill passed the house while still in dangerous form, but was amended in the Senate to reflect the concerns of dog owners. The amended bill passed the Senate, and has been sent back to the House to concur. If the House concurs, it will be sent to the governor to be signed into law.



When it was introduced, HB 1468 would have entrapped virtually every serious dog fancier, rescue organization, and professional handler and trainer under the puppy mill classification.



However, dog owners worked hard and were able to win several concessions in the Senate. The amendments exempts hobby breeders (defined as someone who possesses fewer than 20 intact females over a year old), people who breed hunting dogs for sport, people who breed police or military dogs, and some rescue groups from the licensure requirement.



We endorse these changes, but cannot endorse the 20-dog cut-off. The mere possession of 20 intact females does not indicate that they will be bred or that the person who owns them is a commercial breeder. Many serious fanciers exceed this number if elderly and retired dogs are counted, along with young dogs that are being evaluated and dogs in their competitive prime that arent being bred. Many professional trainers and handlers also would exceed the 20-dog limit at certain times.



Here is the amended version:http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2009/EH/EH1468.2.html



Thus, we are asking Indiana dog owners to contact their legislators and senators to ask for this definition to be amended to reflect the federal definition of a commercial kennel, which is based on selling puppies wholesale to dealers or pet stores for resale. Here is contact information for the House http://www.in.gov/cgi-bin/legislative/listing/listing.pl?data=alpha&chamber=House) and Senatehttp://www.in.gov/cgi-bin/legislative/listing/listing.pl?data=alpha&chamber=Senate).



We continue to maintain that there is no need for this legislation, as existing state and federal laws have proven that they can fully address any problem kennels that are found. There is no evidence that any problem kennels have fallen between the cracks.



We also object to any legislation that ensnares law-abiding dog owners if needless but stifling bureaucracy.



Oklahoma


Several very positive changes were made to HB 1332 in the Senate Appropriations Committee, and the legislation now has been sent to the full Senate for a vote.



While we applaud these changes, we continue to view this legislation as a foot in the door by animal rights advocates, and also the creation of unnecessary laws that will impact people who obey the law but do nothing to solve problems. Existing state and federal laws already do a good job, if they are enforced.



Thus, we are asking the Senate to vote down HB 1332. Please contact your senator and ask him or her to vote no on HB 1332. Here is a link to contact information:http://www.oksenate.gov/Senators/directoryalpha.htm .



Here is a link to the current version of HB 1332, following the Senate Appropriations Committee amendments:http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/WebBillStatus/main.html .



HB 1332 has been tainted with the animal rights agenda since the beginning, in spite of denials by the Oklahoma Veterinary Medical Association, which is the main impetus for the legislation. The original bill that was introduced in the House was straight out of the HSUS playbook, as was a failed attempt at this legislation a year ago.



Subsequent versions softened the original legislation, but dog owners, farmers, ranchers and sportsmen quite simply have lost their trust for the people behind this legislation. We also know that there is no need for state kennel legislation, as commercial kennels already are federally regulated and are also covered by tough state animal cruelty laws.



The amended legislation sets up an advisory committee with well-balanced membership, and yet fails to give that committee any teeth to do more than make recommendations about future regulations, policies and procedures.



Anyone who sells, transfers or gives away 35 or more dogs would be required to get a license. However, this definition also would entrap many rescue groups and networks.



The legislation also would give complete control of kennel standards and procedures to veterinarians, thus removing important decision-making powers from the owners of the dogs. This is not a matter of poorly run kennels, but simply about individual decisions by animal owners about how to raise, house and care for their dogs. A veterinarians opinion thus becomes arbitrary and invasive.



In addition, the legislation opens any dog owner to inspections by the state, even if they do not own a kennel that is required to be licensed, denies the right of appeal, and allows for confiscation of dogs if a license is denied or revoked for merely technical reasons, including paperwork deficiencies.



Washington


SB 5651 started out an overly restrictive exercise in bureaucracy that was aimed at people who raise dogs as a hobby, in spite of its stated purpose as a puppy mill bill. The original bill was truly insulting to dog owners, echoing radical HSUS ideology in every word.



Several improvements were made before the bill passed the Senate by a 35-11 vote, but the results still were unfair to the best kennels in the state. It must be emphasized that, when challenged by the American Sporting Dog Alliance, supporters of this legislation were unable to name a single example of a situation where existing laws failed to shut down a poorly run kennel, rescue the dogs and successfully prosecute the offender. Not one!



But the supporters of SB 5651 continued to press for more bureaucratic control over people who raise dogs, even in the absence of any rational justification. The measure was sent to the House, where it was passed by the Committee on Judiciary.



However, dog owners continued to inform the legislators of the many major problems with this bill, and the Rules Committee ultimately listened to many of our concerns and made more improvements to the bill. The result passed the full House by a 74-23 vote, and has been sent back to the Senate for concurrence.



In spite of the improvements, we must continue to oppose this bill because it is completely redundant and unnecessary, is clearly directed at hobby breeders of purebred dogs (federally licensed commercial kennels were removed from the bill in the latest amendments), and establishes state control over anyone who maintains 10 or more intact dogs of either gender. This ensnares virtually all serious hobby breeders, as well as professional trainers and handlers who do not breed.



Again, it must be emphasized that there is no reason for this bureaucracy, as not a single example can be produced to show that existing laws are inadequate.



Thus, we are asking all Washington dog owners to contact their legislators and ask them to vigorously oppose concurring with the Senate version, and to send this legislation to the trash can where it belongs.



Here is a link to the legislators contact information: http://www.leg.wa.gov/House/Representatives/



Here is a link to the latest version of the bill:http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Amendments/House/5651-S.E%20AMH%20JUDI%20TANG%20080.pdf . Changes are outlined at the bottom of the page.



Texas


The Texas House Licensing and Administrative Procedures Committee held a hearing recently on legislation that would place crippling restrictions on people who raise dogs. The committee did not vote on the legislation at the hearing.



Thus, the American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all Texas dog owners to submit comments in opposition to this bill to each member of the committee.



In addition, please ask each committee member and the committee Chairman, Rep. Kino Flores, and Vice Chairman, Rep. Mike Hamilton, to allow the bill to die in committee. Comments should be submitted by mail, fax or phone, with email as a somewhat less effective alternative.



Here is a link to the committee website:http://www.house.state.tx.us/committees/list81/350.htm . If you click on each members name, his or her home page and contact information will be displayed.



At the hearting, about 20 people testified in opposition to the bill, and perhaps a half-dozen supported it. The Responsible Pet Owners Association of Texas played a major role, and three American Sporting Dog Alliance members were among those who testified in opposition.



HB 3180 is a complex piece of legislation. Please read it for yourself athttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HB03180I.htm .



Here is a summary of its major provisions:



Anyone who owns or possesses 11 or more intact female dogs is considered to be a commercial breeder, subject to intense and crippling regulation. Most serious hobbyists fall into this category. Most professional trainers and handlers would be ensnared in this provision as well. No one could possess more than 50 intact adult dogs.


A hobby breeder is defined as someone who owns or possesses 10 or fewer intact female dogs. Most serious hobbyists would exceed this number if retired dogs, elderly dogs, dogs in competition, young dogs for evaluation and dogs for breeding are counted.


A troubling definition says that a dealer is anyone who is required by law to collect sales tax for the sale of a dog or puppy. In some municipalities, zoning ordinances say that sales tax is required on any sale of a dog.


A criminal background check is required of everyone who applies for a license as a commercial or hobby breeder.


The Department of Licensing and Regulation will inspect kennels and administer the law. This will entail annual inspections. A veterinarian or animal control officer could be called in to assist in the inspection, with the kennel owner paying for the cost. Regulation will not be with the Department of Agriculture or any other agency familiar with animal husbandry.


A seven-member advisory board will be created to oversee the law and develop regulations. People who raise dogs will not have representation on this committee.


Commercial kennels (including serious hobbyists) would have to shut down until bureaucracy runs its course, an inspection is held and a license is issued. No time limits are set for the state to act.


Intensive regulation on the care of dogs in commercial kennels would be established. These standards essentially would prohibit serious hobby breeders from raising puppies inside their home, and would require a sterile institutional environment. Paperwork also would be extensive.


Puppies could not be sold until they are 12 weeks old, and provisions for disclosures and a lemon law are included. Regulations would require kennels to employ a staff deemed to be sufficient, and formal training would be required.


Stiff fines and civil penalties are imposed for even minor violations, and the penalties could be cumulative, counting each dog and each day as a separate offense.


The CFA Report


The Cat Fanciers Association (CFA) has done a great job in assembling a resource document of pending legislation this year.



It can be viewed online athttp://www.cfa.org/exhibitors/bill-tracking.pdf .



The states are listed alphabetically in the report. To read the legislation in your state and learn about its status, search online (Google) your states legislature and find the bill search page. Type in the number of the bill and follow the links.



Some states are facing major assaults on dog ownership on many different fronts.



New Jersey leads the pack, with 23 separate bills, followed by 18 in Illinois, 15 in Massachusetts, 14 in New York, 13 in Hawaii, nine in Tennessee, eight in Connecticut, seven in Texas, and six in New Hampshire and Florida.



Other states with more than one bill are Arizona, Arkansas, California, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia.



Wyoming, Washington, Vermont, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Kentucky, Kansas, Delaware and Colorado face one bill apiece.



The most common kinds of legislation are about people who breed dogs, people who sell puppies, mandatory pet sterilization, puppy lemon laws, restrictions on selling dogs, and limits on the number of pets a person can own.



The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life. The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.

Please visit us on the web athttp://www.americansportingdogalliance.org . Our email is asda@csonline.net .



PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS



The American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
Please Join Us
WARNING: This e-mail is a suspected phishing scam.


Posted on Apr 10, 2009, 7:44 AM
from IP address 12.74.219.66

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

California SB250 (AKA AB1634 the 13th) NAIA Capwiz tool EASY Opposition **DO IT**

by

----Please cross post----


Please please please get these letters in. And then send it to any and all relatives, friends etc and other dog lists whatever.

this takes three to five minutes.

Do it once and click on "FAX" then refresh and e-mail the same letter too

JUST PLEASE GET IT DONE AND GET A FEW FRIENDS ON BOARD TOO>

http://capwiz.com/naiatrust/issues/alert/?alertid=13064541&type=ST&show_alert=1


And then take a minute and send $10.00 or $25.00 or whatever to PetPAC or your favorite group fighting to save your/my/our rights here in California

Jen



Posted on Apr 9, 2009, 8:30 PM
from IP address 208.106.99.77

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

*** CHuBBs MeEts Mr. FLoATy! ***

by

Here's some SpRiNGTiME FuN from a few years back. Our son, Jake brought a package of balloons out to play with & Chubbs went wild! (of course we supervised well, so she wouldn't choke on any pieces)



What's that noise? Lemme see, lemme see!!!








Well now, THAT'S a breath of fresh air on this lovely spring day! Ahhhh....








Well, would ya look at that--it can FLY (almost)!







Hope it doesn't think it can get away from ME that easily! Watch out Mr. Floaty--HERE I COME!








Whoa! Where'd ya go? I know you're up there somewhere...








###GOTCHA!!!###





..Uh. Wha' happened to Mr. Floaty?







Hmphhh. It's so hard to find good friends these days. Just when y'think you've found one...PffffBTTT. They're gone--just like that.





*** Of course GaBiE's got LOTS of friends who regularly "PoP" in to VoTE & ViEW his AMeRiCA's FuNNiEsT ViDeO & keep it risin' higher & higher on da charts! His GaBeSTeRoOTeR PaWSeE PaLs are da BRiGHt SpOt of his day! ***

http://abc.go.com/primetime/afv/index?pn=player&itemId=6325790



NOTE: Photos property of SittingBullies.com All rights reserved.




Posted on Apr 9, 2009, 2:32 PM
from IP address 76.28.213.49

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

PCBC/ DIV III Health Clinic- April 18th by

PCBC and Div III invite you to participate in a Health Clinic held in conjunction with the PCBC Specialty Show. Dr. Butchko will be in attendance performing Cardiac and Patella examinations from 10-3, room to be announced. Price is $20 per dog (includes both tests). Microchips will also be available for a nominal fee.



Posted on Apr 8, 2009, 5:39 PM
from IP address 69.230.100.136

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Dr. Butchko is great

by

Enjoy a show and get my health testing done at the same time? Saves me time and money. This is a great idea.

Scott

Posted on Apr 9, 2009, 5:31 PM
from IP address 66.74.131.250

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

---

our new pup.. and some brags by

Cosmo won Best Puppy last Friday at the Bulldog Club of Connecticut specialty under English breeder-Judge Bill Roberts (Iscraig). He won his class the next day under Mrs. Roberts.

Our Captain was WD and Best of Winners under Mr. Roberts Friday and RWD under Mrs. Roberts Saturday, as well as BOS in sweeps Friday and Best in Sweeps Saturday.

Both boys are Armani sons.
Here is Cosmo, aka; Milam's Hug-O-Bull Cosmo Kar-Isma (Bred by Lorraine Eyth)



Posted on Apr 8, 2009, 1:50 PM
from IP address 65.77.65.11

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Congrats on the nice wins

by

This is a nice youngster. Congrats to you and Loraine both.

Scott

Posted on Apr 8, 2009, 3:42 PM
from IP address 66.74.131.250

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

---