Siberian Cats » Animal Rights

Drs. Foster & Smith Digging a Deeper Hole

Pendraig — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:10:05 +0000

Customers are furious that Drs. Foster & Smith sold them out to the animal rights group, The Humane Society of the United States.

Well, the day has been a busy one for the Drs. Foster & Smith Customer Service, Marketing and probably their legal team. It has also been an interesting day watching a company go from telling us the truth to completely changing their story and it’s hard to find it credible.

The facts are these… when first contacted about providing HSUS with customer’s information the company had no apologies and openly admitted to selling/sharing customer data. One of the unhappy customers had this to report…

“I called Drs Foster & Smith (1-800-381-7179) and verified that they have, indeed, shared much information with HSUS. I spoke with a supervisor, "Marge", who read a prepared statement. She further indicated there is no certainty that names will not be shared with HSUS and similar organizations again in the future. I requested that any and all of my contact information be removed from their computers and to refrain from ever sending me another catalog. Any catalogs I receive from them will be returned to them postage due.”

One person who wrote to the company received this response:

“Dear XXX,
We appreciate your past loyalty and we would never intentionally do
anything that would betray that trust. As is common in the catalog industry we
share names with companies, and we have shared a small number of names with
the HSUS. We do understand your concern and appreciate your opinion. We
will reconsider our position regarding the HSUS going forward.
If we can be of additional assistance, please contact our Internet
Customer Service Department at 1-800-381-7179, via email or on our Live Help link.
Live Help is available 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. CST Monday through Friday
and 7:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. CST weekends.
Sincerely,
Customer Care
Drs. Foster & Smith
Foster and Smith Aquatics”

Then later in the day on Facebook we started to see a different response from Gordon Magee the Internet Marketing and Analysis Manager for Foster And Smith Inc. Mr.. Magee wrote this response.

“Recently through means and for reasons unknown to us, Drs. Foster and Smith has been falsely accused of financially supporting a particular advocacy group, HSUS and further that HSUS has a list of Drs. Foster and Smith’s customers.
We have not financially supported HSUS or any other advocacy group of perhaps a different persuasion than HSUS.
At no time has HSUS or any other advocacy group ever had a list of Drs. Foster and Smith customers.
Thank you for understanding that our focus as a company is on providing quality products and services related to superior pet healthcare.
Sincerely,
Drs. Foster and Smith”

And now they are in complete denial phase. They are claiming it’s a false rumor and has no basis in fact. More likely is that they figured out they were selling their mailing lists to a 3rd party that deals in such things and HSUS bought it from there. That does not excuse the lax policies of the company that’s business is pets in an increasingly hostile world for pet owners and breeders. Any good company would promise to protect vital data such as home addresses of their customers or at least disclose that it may be sold to third parties and where that information may end up and allow us the option to opt out. I think it’s time for every unhappy customer to report this incident to the Better Business Bureau and let them help us sort it out.

We had some good dialogue going on the Facebook Fan Page for Drs. Foster & Smith however that was ended quickly when those who dissented were stifled and prevented from posting and many arguments for the misconduct of Drs. Foster & Smith in this situation was also deleted.

We all make mistakes and this company has certainly made a big one. The worst part of this entire incident is their mishandling of it and dishonesty. I think many of us could have forgiven and forgotten if they had admitted it, and then didn’t deny it, and promised to work on it and provide us an option to protect our data and keep our names and addresses out of the hands of the animal rights industry. However they didn’t and they continue to try to sweep it under the rug. This coupled with the pet pharmaceuticals fiasco is more than enough for me to send people to another, more reliable company.

What does this mean for kitten buyers? Perhaps not a lot but if you rely on pet supply stores online or by catalog we must caution you not to trust this company and to carefully read the privacy policies of any company you choose to do business with. In light of this scandal we will be reviewing the companies we do business with and updating you on their policies and statements in regard to sharing customer databases with animal rights organizations.

Drs. Foster & Smith Shares with HSUS

Pendraig — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:09:25 +0000

Today I was dismayed, but not really surprised to hear that the Drs Foster & Smith pet supply company is sharing (selling?) the personal data of their customers with the radical animal rights group the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

In this day and age it’s pretty much standard practice for companies to sell their customer database to 3rd parties though I personally find it a distasteful and unethical practice. To have the information sold to a group well known for trying to cause the distinction of the family pet, the incarceration of all dog and cat breeders as criminals and destroying USA farmers this is unconscionable.

We are calling on all dedicated pet owners, breeders, exhibitors and animal lovers to boycott Drs. Foster & Smith and let them know that we will not tolerate this gross violation of our privacy. I am sure they never asked a single customer if it was ok to share their home address, phone number and the survey information they gather on how many pets you own and if you are a breeder with the HSUS. This information is vital to the HSUS’s efforts to stage animal raids where they break into property and steal animals from law-abiding citizens. They also use this information, I am sure, to tabulate the statistics they use with legislators when they try to get anti-pet legislation passed.

I am not sure i will ever trust Drs. Foster & Smith again even if they were to change their policy today. This also makes me highly suspicious and worried about the other companies I do business with including Pet Smart (their Pet Perks card asks for your address), and some other online suppliers. It makes me love my local livestock supply store that never invades my privacy but always has a friendly store with products I love.

If you have information on any other pet supply companies that are selling or sharing our information without permission please post it in a comment below. We need to help one another to be safe. I will be posting updates as I call each company asking about their policy regarding our privacy.

We will also post a list for our kitten buyers, and our readers, of companies that indicate they will keep your information private and protect their customers. Hopefully it will be a long list but we’ll only find out by investigation. Wish us luck!

More information:

Article on the HSUS and the rest of the Animal Rights Industry.

Pet Ownership vs. Guardianship

Pendraig — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:50:05 +0000

Hi Folks!

This is very important information that each and every pet owner and breeder needs to understand. The Animal Rights Industry has worked long and hard, and succeeded in many jurisdictions, to get our property rights over animals taken away. Instead we are “guardians” of our “wards” and that is not a good thing. It may seem warm and cozy but it is actually quite dangerous and will be the ruination of all pet ownership.

When you are a guardian of a child sexual mutilation (spay/neuter/castration as it is known in pets) is a violation of the rights of your ward.

Breeding the ward to create more wards and selling them is exploitation of that ward.

Help us preserve our purebred animals, and our fundamental rights as well. Support your responsible Siberian Cat breeder and help us stop these animal rights extremists for causing the extinction of the animals we hold dear. Learn all that you can about their tactics starting with the insidious use of the term “guardian” instead of pet owner.

- Dawn

—–Original Message—–
Subject: AVMA position on “Guardians” vs “Owners” –LONG

For those lobbying, here are some links exclusively from the Veterinary perspective. One is a study from UCDavis, the other links are from American Veterinary Medical Association is AVMA.

Permission to crosspost.

————–

1. A study from UCDavis regarding whether the use of ‘guardian’
has the effect of increased attachment to pet dogs. (note date
April 2009)

http://tinyurl.com/c5bc3z

J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2009 Apr 1
Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, School of
Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA
95616, USA.

Evaluation of owner attachment to dogs on the basis of
whether owners are legally considered guardians of their
pets.- Helms TD, Bain MJ.

OBJECTIVE:
To evaluate whether dog owners who are legally considered
guardians are more attached to their dogs than those who
are not.

CONCLUSION:
Dog owners residing in a city where owners were legally
designated as an owner/guardian were no more attached to
their dog than those living in a city without such a
designation. Although results did not indicate a negative
impact of the term guardian, its use was not associated
with an enhanced bond between owner and dog.

—————-

This is what the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) has to say about language change [emphasis mine: HARM]:

http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_welfare/ownership.asp

AVMA policy
Ownership vs Guardianship

Terminology Describing the Relationship Between Animals and
Their Owners (Current as of June 2005)

The American Veterinary Medical Association promotes the
optimal health and welfare of animals. Further, the AVMA
recognizes the role of responsible owners in providing for
their animals’ care. Any change in terminology describing the
relationship between animals and owners, including
“guardian,” does not strengthen this relationship and may, in
fact, ****HARM IT****. Such changes in terminology may
adversely affect the ability of society to obtain and deliver
animal services and, ultimately, result in animal suffering.

—————-

For reasons why it can HARM our animals, see this from AVMA (very
long):

http://www.avma.org/advocacy/state/issues/ownership.asp

Ownership versus Guardianship
(Approved by the Executive Board, June 2005)

Some animal owners may like to refer to themselves as “pet
guardians,” however “guardian” is a legal term that has
significant legal implications and repercussions. Its use to
describe the relationship between animals and their owners is
inappropriate. Under well-developed principles of
guardianship law, guardianship is a fiduciary relationship
(the highest legal civil duty owed by one person to another).
The ward’s interests are always to prevail over those of the
guardian. Some conflicts that arise from application of human
guardianship law to animals are described in the text that
follows. On the basis of these conflicts, the American
Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) recommends that
“guardian” not be adopted, even to semantically describe the
relationship between humans and their animals.

The AVMA recognizes that American society has evolved from an
agrarian one in which the animals most of us owned primarily
had economic utility, to an urban one in which most of us
derive some emotional value from our animals. Use of
guardian, however, does not clarify the responsibilities of
owners to their animals that are important for forming good
human-animal bonds. Instead, use of guardian may create legal
questions and consequences that have the potential to
adversely affect both the animals and humans involved in
these relationships. Such legal questions and consequences
apply to animal owners, service providers, society and
animals, and include, but are not limited to:

Animal Owners

* Reductions in the rights of owners and imposition of
additional legal obligations.With respect to veterinary care,
animal owners will have less authority and fewer treatment
options. Required treatment may exceed the financial capacity
of the owner to pay, yet guardianship will require that
owners accept such financial burdens. Financial inability to
provide treatment could easily result in increased animal
abandonment.

* Entailment of wards.Use of guardian gives rise to its
counterpart “ward.” The ward is defined as the person for
whose benefit the guardianship has been established. Wards
have legal rights. Applying human guardianship law to animals
would mean that animals have legal rights that can be
recognized in court (i.e., animals would have legal
standing). This may subject owners to civil lawsuits filed by
third parties on behalf of the animal.

* Inability to select procedures such as euthanasia or
spay/neuter.Owners wishing to relieve animal suffering by
euthanasia may no longer have that option. Non-health
justifications for euthanasia, including population control,
may no longer be acceptable under guardianship. Spaying and
neutering may also not be possible, if such procedures were
not deemed to be in the best interest of the animal.

* Confidentiality of veterinary information and control
of medical records.Where confidentiality of veterinary
medical records is governed by state statutes or regulations,
conditions are defined under which and to whom medical
records may or must be released. Generally owners have
authority over release of their animals’ medical records.
Under guardianship, a veterinarian, contrary to the owner’s
wishes, may be able to release information to third parties
because he/she believes it is in the best interest of the
animal. Conversely, the veterinarian may choose not to
release medical records to the owner or others because he/she
believes it is not in the animal’s best interest to do so.

* Ability to transfer an animal to another
party.Background checks may be required to ensure that
transfer of an animal from one guardian to another is in the
best interest of the animal. Transfer of guardianship from
one guardian to another, for profit, may not be legal. Third
parties may have the opportunity to impede transfer
proceedings if they deem such action to be in the best
interest of the animal.

* Coverage of animal-related claims by homeowners’
insurance.Homeowners’ property loss insurance may no longer
cover animal-related claims should animals be no longer
defined as property under the law. Under guardianship,
animals would no longer be considered property.

* Required registration as guardian.In states having
guardian registries, animal guardians may be required to
register and to comply with all laws and regulations
pertaining to that registration. Requirements for
registration could include background checks, bonding, and
conflict-of-interest evaluations. Registration processes are
time-consuming and potentially costly.

* Annual guardianship reports.Animal guardians may be
required to file annual guardianship reports, including
associated financial reports.

Service Providers

* Loss of protection under animal abandonment laws.Animal
abandonment laws are predicated on the basis that animals are
property. Guardianship removes the status of animals as
property.

* Veterinarians’ responsibilities unclear.The
veterinarian’s responsibilities become unclear when a
guardian’s direction is contrary to the best interests of the
animal. Veterinarians may be required to go to court to
obtain a judicial determination as to whether or not theirs
or the guardian’s direction is the appropriate course of
action. Inability to provide timely treatment to an ill or
injured animal during the course of court proceedings creates
the potential for unnecessary animal suffering. For example,
debate as to whether to treat a compound fracture versus
selecting euthanasia for the animal could create the
potential for continued pain, infection and other
complications while awaiting a judicial decision. Cases
involving animal issues are likely to have lower priority
than those involving human issues.

* Prohibitions on prescribing and dispensing controlled
substances.Veterinarians may not be able to lawfully
prescribe or dispense controlled substances or legend drugs
to a guardian who no longer has legal status as the owner of
an animal (i.e., current law assumes animals are owned and
that owners receive drugs and administer them, as prescribed,
to the animal).

* Payment for services.Guardianship may create questions
as to whom (guardian) or what (guardianship) is responsible
for payment of associated animal services. Personal payment
guarantees may need to be obtained.

* Interstate transport.Service providers may have an
obligation to prevent the physical transfer of an animal from
a guardianship state to an ownership state.

Society

* Unconstitutional taking of private property.A complete
shift to guardianship could result in claims of a state
having unconstitutionally taken private property (animals)
without just compensation.

* Impacts on existing statutes and regulations.Numerous
statutes, regulations and policies would have to be reviewed
and language altered to replace owner with guardian. These
include, but not limited to, pharmacy laws, controlled
substance laws, tax laws, veterinary practice laws, and other
laws, regulations and policies related to animal use and
services.

* Impacts on ability to responsibly use
animals.Guardianship may preclude the responsible use of
animals for agricultural production (food and fiber),
research, exhibition and entertainment (e.g., racing,
circuses, rodeo), and companionship. Use of animals and
animal products for such purposes may no longer be legal.

* Ability to control, quarantine and vaccinate
animals.Guardianship may affect the ability of governmental
agencies to control and quarantine animals and require
vaccination. Ensuring animal and public health requires the
ability to effectively control and eradicate disease.
Quarantine, vaccination, and sometimes depopulation, are
necessary components of effective disease control and
eradication.

* Conflicts between federal and state statutes,
regulations and policies.Potential conflicts may arise
between states’ laws, regulations and policies that are
predicated on the basis of guardianship and federal laws,
regulations and policies that are predicated on the basis of
animals as property.

* Homeless/unwanted animals.Financial burdens and
inability to control burgeoning populations (e.g., problems
associated with euthanasia and spay/neuter choices) may both
contribute to the problem of unwanted animals.

* Use of assistance animals.The concept of assistance
animals (e.g., guide dogs, hearing dogs) may be objectionable
under guardianship; therefore, there may be fewer animals
available to provide such services. The use of animals for
search and rescue may also not be acceptable.

* Burdens of ownership.Owning or keeping animals may
become burdensome with consequent negative impacts on
animal-related industries, including loss of jobs.

Animals

* Bidirectional benefits of human-animal bonds lost.Under
guardianship, people may be less willing to possess animals
because of concerns about increased liability. Some
responsible individuals and animals would thereby be deprived
of the benefits of the human-animal bond.

* Reduction in animals’ receipt of needed
services.Guardianship may reduce a person’s willingness to
seek appropriate services for animals in a timely fashion.

* Animals left in limbo.Guardianship may leave the
welfare of animals in limbo during associated legal
proceedings. A delay in the veterinarian’s ability to provide
medical care is one example.

* Adverse effects on health and welfare.Guardianship may
adversely affect the health and welfare of individual animals
and animal populations.

Source: AVMA Task Force on Legal Status of Animals
Contact: Dr. Gail Golab, Asst. Dir., Prof. and Public
Affairs, AVMA, 847-285-6618

—————-
The brief from AVMA in case the link is useful:

http://www.avma.org/advocacy/federal/legislative/110th/issue_briefs/lsa.asp

Legal Status of Animals

Summary:

* The use of “guardian” to describe the relationship
between animals and their owners is inappropriate.
* Guardianship is a fiduciary relationship (the highest
legal civil duty owed by one person to another), and the
ward’s interests are always to prevail over those of the
guardian.
* Many conflicts arise from the application of human
guardianship law to animals.

AVMA Position:
The AVMA is actively pursuing passage of federal legislation
that would preserve the existing legal definition of animals.
AVMA White Paper Ownership vs. Guardianship

Key Legal Conflicts Resulting From Guardianship

* Animal owners will have less authority and fewer
treatment options:

Responsible breeders in Texas are safe…. for now!

Pendraig — Sun, 31 May 2009 19:18:48 +0000

We won! HB 2130 no longer has the outrageous, and inappropriate, animal rights ammendment in it. So this responsible cat breeder can breathe easy, at least for now.

The Animal Rights Industry isn’t finished though and they will keep at it. It is so very important that everyone take a stance against the Animal Rights Industry and tell our elected officials that we will no longer vote for anyone who does not stand up against Animal Rights legislation. It is no longer acceptable to give our elected officials a free pass, they can no longer take a neutral stand, if they are not against Animal Rights then they are for it.

For now though we can take a much needed break. Thank you to everyone who helped stop these fanatics from winning. We appreciate it so very much.

Here is the latest RPOA report:

TX-RPOA E-News

From RPOA Texas Outreach and

Responsible Pet Owners Alliance
“Animal welfare, not animal ‘rights’
and, yes, there is a difference.”
Permission granted to crosspost.

May 31, 2009
The Whitmire amendment to HB 2310 which would have heavily regulated Texas dog and cat breeders has been removed from the bill. It’s now official on the state’s website:
http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/81ccrs/hb2310.pdf#navpanes=0

Thanks to all of you who made this possible. We’ll have a full report on this legislative session asap.

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.

More Animal Rights Tricks! Oppose the Animal Rights Ammendment to 2310!

admin — Fri, 22 May 2009 19:19:35 +0000

We have one more week of fighting this session! Please call and email and tell them that you oppose the amendment to 2310 that the animal rights radicals have hidden in there. The original author of the bill does not approve this change!

Latest info from RPOA:

TX-RPOA E-News

From RPOA Texas Outreach and

Responsible Pet Owners Alliance
“Animal welfare, not animal ‘rights’
and, yes, there is a difference.”
Permission granted to crosspost.

May 21, 2009

Action Alert!

Bear with us, only one more week!

Re: HB 2310, Relating to the powers and duties of the Texas Department of Licensing
and Regulation, including the power to issue emergency orders and temporary and emergency licenses, has been sent to a Conference Committee. This is the bill that was hijacked by Senator John Whitmire and amended to include the misnamed “Puppymill Bill.” Rep. Edmund Kuempel, the bill author, did not accept the amendment; therefore the Conference Committee was formed.

Contact all Conference Committee members below with this suggested wording:

“We ask that you remove Floor Amendment #1 from HB 2310. There was no public hearing held and Rep. Edmund Kuempel objected to his bill being amended. Actions such as this cause us to lose all faith in our elected officials who don’t appear to be representing us. You have been lied to about this bill regulating “puppymills.” It is a radical national “animal rights” agenda to end all dog and cat breeding in the U.S. HSUS will be back each legislative session to tighten the noose until they achieve their agenda.”

There are five representatives and five senators on the committee who decide the fate of this bill. The committee hasn’t met yet.

Contact all below with phone calls, faxes and emails:

HOUSE CONFEREES:

Chair: Rep. Charlie Geren (R-River Oaks)

Phone: (512) 463-0610

FAX: (512) 463-8310

Email: Charlie.geren@house.state.tx.us

Rep. Roland Gutierrez (D-San Antonio)

Phone: (512) 463-0452

FAX: (512) 463-1447

Email: roland.gutierrez@house.state.tx.us

Rep. Mike Hamilton (R-Mauriceville)

Phone: (512) 463-0412

FAX: (512) 463-1915

Email: mike.hamilton@house.state.tx.us

Rep. Delwin Jones (R-Lubbock)

Phone: (512) 463-0542

FAX: (512) 463-0671

Email: delwin.jones@house.state.tx.us

Rep. Jose Menendez (D-San Antonio)

Phone: (512) 463-0634

FAX: (512) 463-7668

Email: jose.menendez@house.state.tx.us

SENATE CONFEREES:

The Honorable Tommy Williams, Chair (R-Woodlands)

Phone: (512) 463-0104

FAX: (512) 463-6373

Email: Tommy.williams@senate.state.tx.us

The Honorable Troy Fraser (R-District 24)

Phone: (512) 463-0124

FAX: (512) 475-3732

Email: Troy.fraser@senate.state.tx.us

The Honorable Chris Harris (R-Dallas, Denton, Tarrant Counties)

Phone: (512) 463-0109

FAX: (512) 463-7003

Email: Chris.Harris@senate.state.tx.us

The Honorable John Whitmire (D-Houston)

Phone: (512) 463-0115

FAX: (512) 475-3737

Email: John.whitmire@senate.state.tx.us

The Honorable Kirk Watson (D-Travis County)

Phone: (512) 463-0114

FAX: (512) 463-5949

Email: Kirk.watson@senate.state.tx.us

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.

Texas Veterinary Association opposes Texas HB 3180!

admin — Wed, 20 May 2009 22:42:07 +0000

Help the responsible breeders in Texas! Call the senators and tell them to oppose HB 3180!! We have heard that if it stays out of committee through this weekend then it will be officially dead. We are almost there!!!

The phone calls take about 5 minutes, you can just be nice and say I am calling to ask the Senator to oppose HB 3180. Thank you very much!

Everyone is very nice and willing to take down opposition.

Then you can write an email and copy it to all the senators. Just a few minutes of your time to help save responsible pet breeders in Texas! We appreciate it too!

Good news that the Texas Veterinary Medical Association is opposing the bill too! Be sure to tell the Senators that when you write.

Here is the latest from RPOA:

TX-RPOA E-News

From RPOA Texas Outreach and

Responsible Pet Owners Alliance
“Animal welfare, not animal ‘rights’
and, yes, there is a difference.”
Permission granted to crosspost.

May 20, 2009
Texas Veterinary Medical Association (TVMA) has announced their OPPOSITION to HB 3180, the misnamed “Puppymill Bill” and is feeling the wrath of Texas Humane Legislation Network (THLN)!

THLN accuses TVMA of taking an “irresponsible position” and being callous; asking if they “support cruelty?” Sounds like what they say about Responsible Pet Owners Alliance! We’re in good company.

Texas Humane Legislation Network sent out an alert today asking members to contact their veterinarians and get them to support HB 3180 by calling the Senate Criminal Justice Committee members below.

Although it was pulled from yesterday’s agenda due to the lack of votes required for passage, HB 3180 is not dead and can be rescheduled at any time with 24 hours notice. We’re still in full alert until May 28th, the day after the deadline for all Senate bills to have a Floor vote. You’re to be congratulated for your hard work which has paid off so far. But we must remain vigilant and not let up now! Anything can happen.

We hear Senator Whitmire may try to amend the bill and try again. So everyone should call, fax and email the committee members below and tell them:
“HB 3180 is fundamentally flawed and cannot be fixed with amendments as it is a radical national animal rights legislative agenda.”
That’s all you need to say.

Call your veterinarians today and ask that they contact the Criminal Justice Committee members below to OPPOSE HB 3180, the misnamed “Puppymill Bill.” Thank TVMA for their position. Or you can forward or fax your vets this message!

TVMA has taken an educated stand on behalf of responsible pet owners in this state. Let your veterinarian hear loud and clear that you support TVMA’s stand and have your vets call and demand that Senators oppose this duplicative, wasteful and unenforceable proposal. This bill as written would cause veterinarians to be mired in legal disputes between buyers and sellers on issues of inherited diseases and other matters that take away vets’ valuable time from healing our pets.

If Texas Humane Legislation Network wants to help dogs and cats in cruel situations, they need to stop wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars on their salaries, lobbyists and politics, and spend those funds supporting the arrest and prosecution of abusers under existing animal cruelty laws.

COMMITTEE: Senate Criminal Justice
Committee Clerk: Vanessa Valdez
(512) 463-0345

SENATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE

Address for all:
P.O. Box 12068
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711

FAX, PHONE AND EMAIL ALL BELOW, your own senator and Governor Perry for good measure!

The Honorable John Whitmire, Chair
(512) 463-0115
FAX: 512-475-3737
John.Whitmire@senate.state.tx.us
DISTRICT: HOUSTON

The Honorable Kel Seliger, Vice Chair
(512) 463-0131
(512) 475-3733 fax
Kel.Seliger@senate.state.tx.us
DISTRICT: AMARILLO

The Honorable Glenn Hegar
(512) 463-0118
(512) 475-3736 (Fax)
Glenn.Hegar@senate.state.tx.us
DISTRICT: KATY

The Honorable Dan Patrick
(512) 463-0107
(512) 463-8810 FAX
Dan.Patrick@senate.state.tx.us
DISTRICT: HOUSTON

The Honorable Rodney G. Ellis
(512) 463-0113
(512) 463-0006 (fax)
Rodney.Ellis@senate.state.tx.us
DISTRICT: HOUSTON

The Honorable John Carona
(512) 463-0116
Fax: (512) 463-3135
John.Corona@senate.state.tx.us
DISTRICT: DALLAS

The Honorable Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa
(512) 463-0120
(512) 463-0229 Fax
Juan.Hinojosa@senate.state.tx.us
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.

Texas Responsible Breeders get a breather, but HB 3180 isn’t dead!

admin — Tue, 19 May 2009 23:09:44 +0000

Keep calling & Writing! This bill was pulled from the committee today but it is not dead. It can be put back in with as little as 24 hours notice.

We need to keep the pressure on so we can kill this bill! There are just 12 more days until the end of the session and we can all take a well deserved break, for now. HSUS, SPCA of Texas and other animal rights industry leaders are putting pressure of their own behind this anti-pet legislation. We need to beat them at their own game! (Read more about the latest HSUS scandal) Also the ABC News Atlanta Expose on HSUS Donations was pulled off the main websites but is still available on YouTube. Be sure you watch it! HSUS does not help pets!

Thank you to everyone who took time to write and call in and especially those people who went down to the capitol to represent all of us!!

Here is the latest report from RPOA:

TX-RPOA E-News

From RPOA Texas Outreach and

Responsible Pet Owners Alliance
“Animal welfare, not animal ‘rights’
and, yes, there is a difference.”
Permission granted to crosspost.

May 19, 2009
HB 3180 Update!

HB 3180, the misnamed “Puppymill Bill,” was pulled from the list of bills to be heard today in the Criminal Justice Committee! Your hard work paid off. BUT it can be rescheduled at any time with 24 hours notice. For now this probably means that Senator Whitmire, the committee chair and bill sponsor, doesn’t have the votes to get it passed out of committee.

The committee members are listening to you so keep up the good work. They are probably pet owners themselves. HSUS and ASPCA have both sent out alerts to gain support for the bill. This bill is not dead, but only “resting.”

We must continue to bombard the committee members with faxes, phone calls and emails. Include your own senator.
Find out who represents you: http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/

Tell the committee members and your own senator:
* This is not a “Puppymill Bill” and they are being lied to by extreme groups who not only want to stop all dog and cat breeding, but also want to put our Texas farmers and ranchers out of business; close down the zoo and
our rodeos — a longstanding Texas tradition. Pets are just a small piece of the “animal rights” pie!

* All eyes are on Texas to see how they vote.

* This bill regulates breeders, pet sales (including rescuers), and includes a puppy and kitten lemon law. It is a pet project of Texas Humane Legislation Network and HSUS (“animal rights” groups).

* They are being lied to as this bill defines a “Dealer” as anyone who pays sale tax which covers everyone selling one dog or cat. Is that a “puppymill?”

* If every dog and cat in Texas is sterilized (as mandated in Senator Van de Putte’s bill) and breeders face overly restrictive regulations (as in Representative Thompson’s bill), where will pets come from in the future?

* The bill sets up a new state bureaucracy for regulations and enforcement in a time of economic downturn all across the country. Commercial breeders and brokers are already regulated under the Animal Welfare Act. Everyone is regulated under the state Animal Cruelty Law.

The Engrossed Version of HB 3180 that passed on the House Floor is on the
state’s website: www.capitol.state.tx.us

We can still kill this bill even if it passes out of committee. It takes 21 Senate votes to get the bill to a vote on the Senate Floor — out of 31
total senators. All we need is for 11 SENATORS to vote “No.”
ASK YOUR SENATOR HOW HE IS VOTING AND LET RPOA KNOW.