Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Join: Sporting Dog Defense Coalition

Syndicate

Syndicate content
Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!

Gun Dogs Recent Posts

Categories

Recent Comments

Archives

Gun Dogs
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

April 21, 2010
Join: Sporting Dog Defense Coalition - 5

 

Whether you're a hardcore or amateur dog man, you need to join, donate or support, in anyway possible, the Sporting Dog Defense Coalition, an arm of U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance that evaluates and fights ambiguous language found in anti-hunting/animal-rights groups' proposed legislation—legislation supposedly aimed at egregious violators of animal welfare. Often these bills can snare the use, breeding, training and even ownership of hunting dogs.

With the USSA's legal expertise and state-by-state network of eyes and ears, they're the sportsman's, and especially dog man's, first defense against anti-hunting/animal-rights legislative giants like the Humane Society of the United States. They're also the second and third lines of defense in that they battle passed legislation in court and also take a proactive stance in the recruitment of new and younger sportsmen.

With their legal pen in upwards of 80 bills throughout 30 states last year alone, the USSA has been involved in everything from the New Jersey bear-hunting battle to defending hunting-license funded conservation dollars in California to a potentially precedent-setting trapping case in Maine to fighting to form cougar management plans via hunting on a National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona.

For gun-dog owners, the USSA's Sporting Dog Defense Coalition is the primary funding tool used to fight onerous legislation of canine issues. They've been successful in killing or amending numerous bills throughout the country. Many of these bills are, or at least seem, especially to the general public, a means-to-an-end to stop puppy mills, hoarders, dog fighting and other abuses.

The problem is, the wording often (and in my opinion, too often to qualify for coincidence) is so ambiguous that it snares lawful pet owners, hunters, legitimate kennel operators and conscientious breeders within its legal, punitive and sometimes Draconian grasp. Take a look at many of the seemingly innocuous bills that could limit your hunting, breeding or training:

*Puppy mill campaigns: A nationwide campaign to end abusive, commercial breeding operations through stringent and burdensome standards of care. The problem is, the wording many times doesn't differentiate between commercial operations and private sporting dog kennels or legitimate breeders. According to the USSA, as of April 1, 2010 there are 32 bills of this nature in 15 states.

*Mandatory spay/neuter: Couched as a way to reduce the population of stray animals and limit "backyard breeders," these bills place restrictions, license fees or monetary penalties on those wishing to keep a dog intact. Legit breeders, pet owners, hunt testers and field trialers are all caught in wording and/or monetary restrictions. Currently there are two bills in two states, but these proposals continually crop up across the country.

*Tethering: Designed to prevent animal abuse, tethering bills often use language that prevents a dog from being left unattended for any amount of time if not in the owners line of sight. Forget about stakeout chains during training sessions or field trials if something like this passes. There are 21 tethering bills in 10 states right now.

Number of dogs: Meant to impose legal ramifications on hoarders and puppy mills, legislation mandating a limit on the number of dogs a person can own or board catches breeders, training kennels and even avid sportsmen in its wording. Want to run a pack of beagles after rabbits or several hounds for bears or cougars? If these laws pass, multiple-dog owners often have to jump through hoops or are classified as "commercial kennels" and must submit to licensing costs, household inspections and more.

*Time outside: In my opinion, these bills are often just proposed by stupid people. They might be well meaning, but that does nothing to alleviate them of their stupidity. Wording of these bills usually includes not only time outside, but are also accompanied by temperature mandates. If it's below an arbitrary temperature, then dogs must be brought inside or provided shelter that must meet X, Y and Z standards. I understand providing shelter for your pup (in both heat and cold) but too often these bills are written by people that think like people. Dogs' bodies work differently than ours and they retain heat differently. They don't experience the cold in the same way we do. More than that, various breeds experience it differently; a husky is going to be loving life in 25 degrees and snow while a Mexican Hairless will be a Popsicle.

*Excessive kennel restrictions: Written to allow access to puppy mills, kennel restrictions/inspections open the door to local, state and federal government powers entering legitimate operators and breeders, often without due cause. Many times bills contain language that requires only an anonymous tip to be written and the governement can inspect a kennel. That would be fine if the puppy mills were actually being targeted, but what about the animal-rights whackos that would love to see a hunting-dog trainer or breeder shut down? They could harass them right out of business.

*Miscellaneous bills: Often written to ban the practice of ear cropping, tail docking or other cosmetics, they seem to address, for some at least, legitimate concerns of inflicting unnecessary pain. Sometimes, however, those "cosmetic" features actually do serve a purpose. I'd much rather humanely snip a dew claw of a young pup than to have him tear it off in the field when he's older. The USSA reports that there are 28 bills in 14 states that deal with many of these issues.

Again, if you're a hunter or dog man support and visit the USSA website regularly for news on the animal-rights/anti-hunting movement and to find out what action you can take.

The USSA has made staying abreast of issues important to you by creating their "Be a Sentry" program. It's FREE and requires minimal info (name, state, zip code and email address). The program will keep you up to date on legislative issues they're fighting or supporting in your neck of the woods.

Comments (5)

Top Rated
All Comments
from queen wrote 3 years 45 weeks ago

This bill definitely needs to be modified before it is signed into law, but there is a serious need for spay/neuter regulation. When you put down 30 perfectly healthy dogs on a SLOW day, you will realize the necessity of these laws.

The thought that dogs need balls to work is really silly; in fact, research points to neutered dogs as growing larger in stature and having the ability to be more powerfull than intact dogs. Also, many of the dogs in my hunt are female, and some out do the male dogs.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Regan Hauschen wrote 4 years 10 weeks ago

don't make dog ownners pay extra for dogs intack thats stupid thats unamercin to me a cut dog is worthless!!!!
a castrated dog don't have the drive or the nerve it takes to do the job I want it to do!! In other words it just plain don't have the BALL'S to do the jobs and if you have a blood line built up that took 20 to 100 yrs. and a lot of peoples hard work to devalope why tare it down because idoits think a dog should play games like fetch or what ever, my dogs are hard working hunting dogs,with born in traits to do their jobs, nomatter what it is.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dillybar wrote 4 years 11 weeks ago

All of these animal rights based bills should be opposed by all dog owners! Notice that all of these bills put AR folks in place for enforcement. They are trying to create their own industry at the expense of dog owners and breeders. Their attorneys take big tax write offs while lobbing your rights to privacy and property away. These laws create jobs for their minions through enforcement all during a time when we need to be seeing a great reduction in government not more expansion.

The misinformation they spew about breeders and hunters is downright shameful and disgraceful. HSUS broadcasts sad images of dogs on their money grab adverts while only spending less than 1% of their donations on actual care for animals. They line their pockets with the rest all the while pressing on for more discriminatory laws that erode your right to privacy and property.

Every dog owner in every state should get involved locally and resist this type of legislation.

I am glad to see the Sporting Dog Defense Coalition!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from kazu wrote 4 years 11 weeks ago

Dr. Gaines,
Exorbitant intact-dog license fees will only hurt the rest of us, not the so-called "puppy mills." If a legitimate high-volume commercial breeder has to pay more for licensing, it's a business cost that's deductible. For everyone else, it's a new tax on our show or companion dogs that make it harder to make ends meet, and for no good reason. I already pay $150 a year to license my dog - that's extortion enough. "Puppy mill" is a term invented by animal rights groups and is applied by them to just about any dog breeder regardless of the size or management quality of their operation. The term is used to vilify and convict in the court of public opinion.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from avianmed wrote 4 years 11 weeks ago

You may want to suggest alternatives to all the controls that the antis suggest. To eliminate puppy mills just have the states raise the license fee for intact dogs to a substantial amount, ie $50 or more per intact dog. The puppy mills cannot afford that and will go out of business if the statute is enforced. If the hunting dog owner wishes to breed a good dog then they pay the fee and make it up in puppy sales (I breed English setters). Everyone will benefit including the state treasuries.
I will be glad to advise.
James F. Gaines, DVM, MS

-3 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment (200 characters or less)

from kazu wrote 4 years 11 weeks ago

Dr. Gaines,
Exorbitant intact-dog license fees will only hurt the rest of us, not the so-called "puppy mills." If a legitimate high-volume commercial breeder has to pay more for licensing, it's a business cost that's deductible. For everyone else, it's a new tax on our show or companion dogs that make it harder to make ends meet, and for no good reason. I already pay $150 a year to license my dog - that's extortion enough. "Puppy mill" is a term invented by animal rights groups and is applied by them to just about any dog breeder regardless of the size or management quality of their operation. The term is used to vilify and convict in the court of public opinion.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dillybar wrote 4 years 11 weeks ago

All of these animal rights based bills should be opposed by all dog owners! Notice that all of these bills put AR folks in place for enforcement. They are trying to create their own industry at the expense of dog owners and breeders. Their attorneys take big tax write offs while lobbing your rights to privacy and property away. These laws create jobs for their minions through enforcement all during a time when we need to be seeing a great reduction in government not more expansion.

The misinformation they spew about breeders and hunters is downright shameful and disgraceful. HSUS broadcasts sad images of dogs on their money grab adverts while only spending less than 1% of their donations on actual care for animals. They line their pockets with the rest all the while pressing on for more discriminatory laws that erode your right to privacy and property.

Every dog owner in every state should get involved locally and resist this type of legislation.

I am glad to see the Sporting Dog Defense Coalition!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Regan Hauschen wrote 4 years 10 weeks ago

don't make dog ownners pay extra for dogs intack thats stupid thats unamercin to me a cut dog is worthless!!!!
a castrated dog don't have the drive or the nerve it takes to do the job I want it to do!! In other words it just plain don't have the BALL'S to do the jobs and if you have a blood line built up that took 20 to 100 yrs. and a lot of peoples hard work to devalope why tare it down because idoits think a dog should play games like fetch or what ever, my dogs are hard working hunting dogs,with born in traits to do their jobs, nomatter what it is.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from queen wrote 3 years 45 weeks ago

This bill definitely needs to be modified before it is signed into law, but there is a serious need for spay/neuter regulation. When you put down 30 perfectly healthy dogs on a SLOW day, you will realize the necessity of these laws.

The thought that dogs need balls to work is really silly; in fact, research points to neutered dogs as growing larger in stature and having the ability to be more powerfull than intact dogs. Also, many of the dogs in my hunt are female, and some out do the male dogs.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from avianmed wrote 4 years 11 weeks ago

You may want to suggest alternatives to all the controls that the antis suggest. To eliminate puppy mills just have the states raise the license fee for intact dogs to a substantial amount, ie $50 or more per intact dog. The puppy mills cannot afford that and will go out of business if the statute is enforced. If the hunting dog owner wishes to breed a good dog then they pay the fee and make it up in puppy sales (I breed English setters). Everyone will benefit including the state treasuries.
I will be glad to advise.
James F. Gaines, DVM, MS

-3 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment (200 characters or less)

bmxbiz