|
1-10 of 30 messages
|
Page 1 of 3
Next
|
|
Obama admits he supports exotic animal bans
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on November 4, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK, Obama finally admitted in writing he supports ban on pet monkeys, he is against exotic animals
Z
<<I have an interest in a number of animal welfare bills that have been introduced in the 110th Congress, such as the Pet Safety and Protection Act, the Captive Primate Safety Act, and the Polar Bear Protection Act, which are all currently pending before Senate Committees.>>
________________________________________
From: REXANO@yahoogroups.com [mailto:REXANO@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Brian Amble
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 11:13 AM
To: CAPLA@yahoogroups.com; pet-law@yahoogroups.com; pets_across_World@yahoogroups.com; Hava_Mentors@yahoogroups.com; SGENews@yahoogroups.com; SilverGoldenForum@yahoogroups.com; cfa-list@yahoogroups.com; TICAMEMBERS@yahoogroups.com
Cc: wethepeoplepets@yahoogroups.com; UAOA@yahoogroups.com; REXANO@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [REXANO] Obama Pledges Support For Animal Rights
LETTER TO SENATOR OBAMA
Special thanks to Margo Milde for allowing SAOVA to post Senator Obama's response. PUPS will be given a new number and re-introduced in 2009 possibly with a new name. Bookmark Margo's letter for future reference.
RE: Opposition to P.U.P.S. (Puppy Uniform Protection Statute, S. 3519)
Date: October 18 2008
Dear Senator Obama:
I am writing to you today to respectfully state my opposition to P.U.P.S. (Puppy Uniform Protection Statute, S. 3519) for the following reasons:
1. I do not believe that retail-only breeders should be inspected under USDA regulations, and in this I concur with the USDA on this matter. Under current regulations, the USDA does not include retail-only breeders, and successfully defended their position in the U.S. Court of Appeals in 2003, after being sued by Doris Day Animal League to attempt to force them to license retail breeders. You can see a copy of the court’s opinion here (Doris Day Animal League vs. Ann Venneman, 315 F.3d 297 [D.C. Cir. 2003]):
The arguments used by the USDA are based on the following: a. Retail dealers, especially those who breed and sell out of their homes, are already subject to much self-regulation through membership in breed clubs. These clubs require member breeders to have agreed to numerous Code of Ethics statements, and to meet guidelines related to the health and genetic soundness of their breeding stock and puppies sold. In addition, they are subject to inspections from the registries under which they register their breeding stock and puppies bred in their homes and kennels. Therefore, additional regulation and inspection of these individuals is not necessary and would only be a duplication of efforts. On the other hand, wholesale dealers, who the USDA does regulate, do not have such oversight and it benefits the pet purchasers for wholesale dealers to be licensed and inspected under existing AWA regulations.
b. Retail dealers are already subject to State and local laws regarding humane treatment of all animals under their care and maintenance of proper facilities. The USDA has stated that further regulation under USDA oversight for retail dealers would not be the most efficient use of our resources, to quote from the Court’s opinion.
2. The AWA (Animal Welfare Act) kennel regulations and licensing is designed for a large kennel operation, and clearly not practical or applicable for a breeder who breeds out of their home or smaller attached kennel facility. In fact, with the relatively small numeric limits proposed in S 3519, it is quite possible that such a breeder does not have a formal kennel, but has the animals housed and cared for in their homes. A home breeder would not need the type of oversight that a commercial kennel facility would require. However, since a human habitation is not a kennel, these home breeders would be unable to meet the specifications under current AWA kennel requirements that would now apply to them should S 3519 be enacted into law. They would therefore either be forced out of business, or required to construct a kennel at great expense and then remove the animals out of their homes, where undoubtedly they had been getting the best of care and socialization.
3. The wording used in this bill is very ambiguous the exact phrase, to copy from the text of the bill, is retail pet store, or other person who does not breed or raise more than 50 dogs use as pets during any one-year period¨. Not only would breeders be subject to these new regulations, but because of the word “Raise” would likely include animals not bred in that facility, pet rescuers, trainers, and boarding kennels might also be subject to these new rules. I am particularly concerned with the burdensome effects this bill, if passed, would have on private and breed club rescuers, since these people do so much good in rehoming dogs into suitable homes that benefit both the rescued dog and the new owners; these dedicated and selfless individuals should not have to face onerous and completely unnecessary regulations such as that in this bill.
4. Finally, the required exercise periods are not well thought out. I understand the intent of this bill that animals should not be confined their entire lives to small cages. But quite obviously, whoever wrote the bill is not familiar with the various exercise needs of the various breeds of dogs or modern kenneling. For example, a number of breeds of dogs, especially toy breeds, do not require long periods of exercise. Certainly older animals require much less exercise than do young adults, possibly much less than the full required hour per day. Modern kenneling provides roomy dog runs for the animals; dogs residing in such adequate kennels certainly do not need additional “exercise¨ areas. Where would this exercise area be located? Many breeds of dogs, particularly many Toy breeds, as well as dogs with short coats, are cold intolerant; forcing them into outdoor areas for mandated daily “exercise¨ periods in the more northerly areas of the U.S. may put these dogs in danger of frostbite or other cold-related illness or injury, in additional to making them just plain physically uncomfortable during those exercise periods. Another concern is the sanitation of such an “exercise¨ area, one reason dogs are confined to a kennel run is ease of sanitation which better meets the health needs of all animals in the kennel and limits spread of disease. If such an exercise area provided is outside on gravel or dirt, or inside on a non-sanitizable surface such as wood or carpeting, one ill dog would likely contaminate the area for many months, since these surfaces could not be sanitized. Certain breeds are not compatible in groups and would require individual exercise areas; this required extra space would be very costly for the breeder to construct. Finally, in sum, these new exercise requirements would not at all necessarily result in improved conditions for the dogs, and only would lead to additional expenses for the breeders.
Please spend some time thinking further about this issue. A good place to start would be to confer with representatives of American Kennel Club (AKC), as well as with the AKC parent breed clubs. In addition to the American Kennel Club, other registries which would have very useful information on these types of regulations and their impact on dogs and their breeders would be the United Kennel Club, American Dog Breeders Association, and America’s Pet Registry Inc. I would be happy to obtain useful contacts for you and your office if you wish.
Please respond to me at your earliest convenience. Thank you so very much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Margo Milde
Glenview IL
SENATOR OBAMA'S RESPONSE CLEARLY SHOWS HIS SUPPORT FOR H$U$ POLICIES AND AGENDA.
senator_obama@obama.senate.gov wrote:
Subject: Message from Senator Barack Obama
From: senator_obama@obama.senate.gov
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:05:43 -0400
Dear Margo:
Thank you for contacting me regarding puppy mills. I am pleased that this issue is being raised more prominently in government circles and appreciate the opportunity to talk about some of the federal legislation in this area.
Sufficient funding for improved animal welfare law enforcement is critical to the fight for humane animal treatment. This year, I sent a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture to request strong funding for enforcement services that handle site inspections at places like zoos, circuses and laboratories, and to urge their support for vital animal welfare programs, veterinary services, plant and animal epidemiological monitoring and prevention, and associated issues.
Media reports have drawn much needed attention specifically to the problem of dog fighting. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) estimates that each year, over 40,000 people are involved in dog fighting, a malicious enterprise that turns famished and neglected dogs upon each other for so-called "entertainment". This cruel and often unreported problem led me to cosponsor S. 261, the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act, which passed in the Senate on April 10th, 2007, by unanimous consent and is now Public Law No. 110-22. This law makes buying, selling, exhibiting, transporting, or delivering any animal for participation in an animal fighting venture punishable by a fine and/or prison term of up to three years.
During my time in the Senate, I have also become concerned by the existence of so-called “puppy mills” and I am firmly opposed to the inhumane treatment of animals used for breeding, research, and security purposes. I learned of the cruel practices of puppy mills when I met with dog activist Jana Kohl, a representative from the Humane Society, and "Baby", a survivor of a puppy mill. Baby, a lovely and kind dog, lost a leg and had her vocal chords severed during her experience at a puppy mill. To support humane treatment of animals, I participated in the promotion of Ms. Kohl and Baby’s book so that individuals can become more aware of the positive societal implications of compassion for all beings.
I have an interest in a number of animal welfare bills that have been introduced in the 110th Congress, such as the Pet Safety and Protection Act, the Captive Primate Safety Act, and the Polar Bear Protection Act, which are all currently pending before Senate Committees. I will urge my colleagues on those panels to take timely action on legislation affecting animal welfare, and will continue to bear your comments in mind should these bills come before the full Senate. You may be assured that I take seriously the responsibility we all have to be good stewards of this planet and all its inhabitants, human or otherwise.
Again, thank you for your comments and concerns about animal rights. Please stay in touch.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
United States Senator
******
Humane Society Legislative Fund Endorses Obama-Biden
In his response to the HSLF questionnaire, he pledged support for nearly every animal protection bill currently pending in Congress, and said he will work with executive agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior to make their policies more humane. HSLF website
Obama Pledges Support For Animal Rights
HENDERSON, NEVADA (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama says he won't just be a president for the American people, but the animals too. "I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other," he said. "And it's very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals." www.breitbart.com
__._,_.___
Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
Messages | Polls
http://www.rexano.org/
http://www.youtube.com/user/REXANOEXOTICS
http://www.exoticanimalforums.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/rexano
http://www.myspace.com/rexanoexotics
__,_._,___
|
| |
|
RE: Obama admits he supports exotic animal bans
|
Reply
|
|
by atwageman on November 5, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Well now that Obama is president, let's hope that he spends most of his attention the next 4 years on economic issues, as well as his buddies in congress. Hopefully the AR nut job legislation out there will take a seat on the back burner. Yeah I know it's wishful thinking on my part. The balance of power has taken a definite skew in one direction. For all the fence sitters, NOW is the time for you to take interest and support groups like USARK and other groups that speak up for reptile owners. Just my 2 cents.
|
| |
|
RE: Obama admits he supports exotic animal bans
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on November 5, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, if people have any change left after the promised change
Z
<<support groups like USARK and other groups that speak up for reptile owners. >>
|
| |
|
RE: Obama admits he supports exotic animal bans
|
Reply
|
|
by atwageman on November 5, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Very true Z. Pocket change indeed. Just wait till all these college kids that voted for him go out and get real jobs. Then they might just understand what hardwork and taxes is all about.
|
| |
|
RE: Obama admits he supports exotic animal bans
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on November 5, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Somebody sent me this joke few weeks ago, cant find it , so I will just paraphrase.
This small business owner can’t keep/pay all his workers because of bad economy, but he can not decide which ones to fire. After few hours of emotionally wrenching thoughts, he goes outside to the parking lot and fires the people who have Pro Obama bumper sticker on their cars
Z
|
| |
|
RE: Obama admits he supports exotic animal bans
|
Reply
|
|
by toddg on November 6, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Given the state of... well, EVERTHING, perhaps a little change isn't such a bad idea.
P.S. I'm also for a ban on pet monkeys. Monkeys aren't pets, neither are my snakes. they're animals I keep and work with. There's a difference! I'm also for a ban on someone like Paris Hilton keeping a pet kinkajou. There's also one or two people in the history of this website that maybe shouldn’t be keeping venomous. I guess you have two look at BOTH sides of an issue before you make up your mind!
|
| |
|
RE: Obama admits he supports exotic animal bans
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on November 6, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, big reason why we supposedly need 'change' is because Obama and his croonies srewed up with fanny Mae, and now people elected them to higest office, so they can really screw bad for a change. I guess problem is many dont remember Carter years???
As for primates, You are helping the dividing games. U just feel exotics shouldn’t be pets, but somewhat it is OK for you to keep them yourself because yours are ‘working’ snakes.
AR feel you shouldn’t keep and work with yours for any purpose.
Now, look at it from your snakes’ point of you, do you think your snakes have any clue if they are pets or working snakes? Or do you have special snakes that can understand the concepts, pet versus working snake?
Also, what the hell is wrong with pet monkeys? If people are allowed to have human kids, what is wrong with a pet monkey, aka hairy kid???
AR are against monkeys that are working (research) as well as against pet monkeys.
So I guess it is up to who plays what game.
I don’t play games, I want to be left alone and keep government out of my life, that includes the choice of my pets.
Z
|
| |
|
RE: Obama admits he supports exotic animal bans
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on November 6, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
PS: Regarding Paris Hilton keeping a kinkajou, they are already illegal in California, obviosuly laws don't work on some people.Besides, she (or world) has bigger problems than her pets collection.
Is anybody researching/working on brain transplants?
She might be a great test subject.
Z
|
| |
|
RE: Obama admits he supports exotic animal bans
|
Reply
|
|
by toddg on November 6, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is a VEN-OM-OUS REP-TILE forum, not the Rush Limbaugh show and as such, I don't believe this is the place for political rants and opinions and will not discus them further here with you or anyone else. If however, you wish to continue this debate further, please feel free to e-mail me (it's on my profile) and I'll be happy engage you in healthy political debates all you like!
Now for the semantics over the word pet, it comes down to DOMESTICATION. It takes thousands of years to domesticate an animal i.e. dogs, cats, chickens cows, horses, so on… you get the picture. My “snakes” are only one or two generations removed from being wild which means they’re NOT domesticated hence not pets.
Also, I never said folks shouldn’t keep exotics, just not as pets. There ARE other reasons for keeping exotics other than just for the sake of acquisition. And for the record, I’ve seen several teens walk into my local pet store with cash and walk out with baby green anacondas, burms, retics, and assorted monitors. Responses from store clerks when questioned as to why they would sell a potentially deadly animal to an inexperienced teen include “That kid doesn’t know what he’s doing… that snake will be dead in a year.” Or “This IS a pet store, if he doesn’t by it here, he’ll get it somewhere else.” So when you say I think it’s o.k. for me to do but not someone else, that’s not necessarily true. I’d much rather see a ban on large constrictors than see so many mistreated and poorly kept.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
