Goldie’s Act: Unveiling this Deceptive Legislation

 By Carlotta Cooper for The Cavalry Group

Americans may be the most kind-hearted people on earth. When it comes to helping those in need, including animals, there is no question about their generosity. That’s why it has been so easy for animal rights groups to scam their way into the pocketbooks of unwary people, begging for donations with sad stories. Just as bad, these groups push for legislation that is harmful to animal-related businesses. The so-called “Goldie’s Act” is one of these bills.

As introduced in Congress, H.R. 1788 or Goldie’s Act would supposedly increase enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act. When you look at the details, all that glitters is not so gold. In reality, the bill would make enforcement of the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) more difficult. It could also lead to the unnecessary seizure and euthanasia of dogs.

The Animal Welfare Act (AWA), under which professional dog breeders operate, has been updated multiple times, including updates in recent years. The regulations have never been tougher. Breeders are inspected before getting a license; and they are inspected regularly after they are licensed. They must follow a handbook with several hundred pages of regulations in order to pass their inspections and retain their license. They can be written up for any violations which they must then correct before the inspector comes back to check them. Failure to correct a violation can lead to heavy fines or worse. Inspectors can report any serious problems with animals to local law enforcement to be followed up on for animal cruelty.

There are serious remedies for any breeder who fails to follow AWA regulations. Animal rights zealots seek even more punitive actions against dog breeders since their ultimate goal is to end all dog breeding. Goldie’s Act is highly problematic. The act would:

• Redefine “violations” of the federal Animal Welfare Act;
• Allow for immediate seizure or euthanasia of animals suffering from “psychological harm,” a term it does not define;
• Remove distinctions between minor non-compliances such as paperwork errors and animal care violations. AWA enforcement emphasis should be on the health and welfare of animals;
• Require posting of images of violations on a publicly accessible database so breeders can be harassed; and
• Undermine the property rights of responsible breeders.

 Like many animal rights proposals, Goldie’s Act is a “feel good” measure which doesn’t do what it claims. Advocates say that it would improve the Animal Welfare Act when, in fact, it would create mistrust between breeders and inspectors. Instead of emphasizing proper education and care for dogs, it would lead to confusion. It would create an atmosphere of potential abuse and the unnecessary euthanasia of dogs.

Goldie’s Act would remove the distinction between “direct” violations (care and welfare) which are more serious; and paperwork or non-welfare “indirect” violations. Animals could be confiscated for paperwork errors. Breeders should always strive to have zero violations but the care and well-being of animals must take precedence. By equating direct and indirect violations, the act would create misleading perceptions about breeders licensed under the Animal Welfare Act. Extremists could use this information from public databases to harass breeders who had only been cited for paperwork violations.

As for the “psychological harm” of a dog, how would an inspector determine this condition? This vague, undefined term could lead to the euthanasia of perfectly normal dogs. Many people probably have quirky dogs that someone could mistakenly label “psychologically harmed.” What is the criteria for this kind of dog? No dog owner should have to fear the arbitrary seizure and euthanasia of their dog based on a vague term such as “psychological harm.”

The bill claims that it would expand the enforcement of federal breeder licensing requirements yet it tosses out recent enforcement enhancements that are in the middle of a 3-year implementation process (scheduled to be completed in October 2024). It is illogical to pass a bill to expand licensing requirements in the midst of new enforcement improvements. Breeders rightly point out that constantly changing arbitrary rules creates a confusing, expensive, and potentially harmful environment for animal care that leaves licensees, inspectors, and regulators unclear about AWA requirements.

Goldie’s Act would apply not just to large-scale commercial breeders. Any breeder is subject to USDA licensing if they have more than four “breeding females” and transfers even one of the offspring “sight unseen.” “Breeding females” has never been clearly defined but it is generally taken to mean an intact female. “Breeding females” includes any combination of dogs, cats, or other small pet mammals such as hamsters, guinea pigs, etc. You could theoretically have one female dog and three female hamsters, breed a litter of puppies, and be subject to Goldie’s Act. That means that someone could be a show dog breeder and fall under Goldie’s Act, if they are required to be USDA-licensed.

Despite claims to the contrary, Goldie’s Act would affect small breeders. It is not aimed only at larger commercial breeders.

Goldie’s Act (H.R.1788) is currently in the House Agriculture Committee/Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry and recently, a Senate companion bill has been introduced by U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Rick Scott (R-FL) for a Senate companion bill, but a bill number is still pending. 

We urge you to contact the House Agriculture Committee Members, as well as your own U.S. Representative and Senators to express your concerns about Goldie’s Act. Ask the members to ignore the hateful rhetoric coming from the animal rights community. While some of those people might be concerned about dogs, they have been misled and misinformed. Others promoting Goldie’s Act are slick activists from well-known animal rights extremist organizations, backed by millions of dollars, who use animals as a way to gain money and power. Ask your representatives to do what’s best for the dogs and bury Goldie’s Act like an old bone.

To oppose Goldie's Act, CLICK HERE

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

In addition to being a regular writer for The Cavalry Group, Carlotta Cooper is also vice president for the Sportsmen’s & Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance (SAOVA) and  long-time contributing editor for the weekly dog show magazine DN Dog News and the author of The Dog Adoption Bible, a Dog Writers Association of America (DWAA) award winner. In addition, she is an American Kennel Club Gazette breed columnist and is the author of several books about dogs.

Private Property: The Real Endangered Species?

In 1973, Congress passed and President Nixon signed into law the Endangered Species Act (ESA) with the intent of protecting threatened species such as the bald eagle. Since then, close to 2,000 species and subspecies (1,400 of which are in the United States), have been added to the listing under the Endangered Species Act.

While the original Act was well intended, the Endangered Species Act has become the Trojan horse that sneaks in property-thieving regulations and a “sue and settle” lawsuit scheme while pretending to be beneficial to conservation. This threat to animal owners, animal based businesses, and private property has expanded significantly in recent years with animal rights groups hijacking the conservation aspect of the ESA to advance their radical agenda.

These groups make up a $400 Billion global coalition of organizations that raise money under the guise of promoting the welfare of animals, while using that money to buy lawyers and lobbyists to fund misleading, emotionally driven campaigns to pit the public against animal owners and breeders.

The Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) is one such radical animal rights group based in San Francisco that files lawsuits against privately owned animal businesses with no intent of winning in court. Rather, the lawsuits are used to propagate a false narrative against their targets (typically animal based small business owners) in order to force them out of business. Instead of doing the work of raising, breeding, and caring for animals, the victims of these lawsuits must spend scarce resources on lawyers and public relations experts to clear their good name, and defend their livelihoods and their animals. Many cannot afford this burden and simply close up shop.

Recent reports from the House Committee on Natural Resources have uncovered that an entire cottage industry exists around filing lawsuits based on the ESA. As a result, funds that were once intended to be used to protect species in danger of extinction are now being diverted to fund frivolous lawsuits against animal owners who are the targets of extremist animal rights groups.

In addition, government bureaucrats often act unlawfully through a tactic called “sue and settle.” They settle litigation with their allies in environmental and animal rights groups behind closed doors in a way that advances the activist’s radical agenda, and in the process block out citizens, states, and local governments affected by their decisions and their subsequent rules and regulations.

This “sue and settle” tactic funnels millions of settlement dollars from the Federal Government to the animal rights and environmental activists to fund their continuing efforts to game the system and wrongfully attack animal enterprise ultimately.   The result is the destruction private property, businesses and lives.

One such victim of these attacks is Pam and Tom Sellner, owners of Cricket Hollow Zoo in Iowa, are one of many faces of victims of these attacks. Pam and Tom have been bringing joy to families for years with their privately owned collection of tigers, lions, pumas, and other exotic animals. Their zoo provides learning opportunities for students in rural Iowa who may otherwise not have access or contact with these animals. However, that will never satisfy the animal rights extremists who believe that these animals don’t belong in captivity.

Tom and Pam are now faced with mounting legal fees to fight this frivolous lawsuit from an animal rights activists group (ALDF) radically out of step with American values, but funded and well staffed with attorneys to do the dirty work. The Sellers are just one of the many faces of the victims of ESA-based lawsuits that have sprung up across the country.

While well intentioned when written over forty years go, the ESA has become a weapon for lawyers to beat small animal businesses over the head, all at the taxpayer expense.

Ultimately, the abuse of power under the ESA puts at risk the very animals it was intended to protect, as private property rights are trampled under the hooves of this Trojan Horse, and the system attacks the animals it was intended to protect.

Animal rights groups are using the ESA and our court system as a weapon to destroy those who aren’t in line with their ideology.  If this works on animal enterprise, what is next?

Mindy Patterson is the President of The Cavalry Group, a member based company protecting and defending the Constitutional and private property rights of law abiding animal owners, animal-related business, hunters, and agriculture concerns legally and legislatively nationwide.

Follow on Twitter: @TheCavalryGroup  @cowgirlathart

You can read this article and more at JoeforAmerica.com click here

PUPS - - MISPLACED CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITIES - - THE “ART OF FINESSE!”

QUESTION:  WHEN WILL NURSING HOMES BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE SAME LEVEL OF CARE FOR LOVED ONES AS IS PROVIDED TO DOGS?

As of August 15, 2011, 128 Members of Congress (24%) have either sponsored or co-sponsored PUPS - - a Legislative Bill that would amend the Animal Welfare Act and establish even more stringent care standards for all Federally Licensed and Inspected Dog Breeders than currently exist.  Here it is significant to note that if PUPS were enacted, it would set the stage for the HSUS to “push” and “pressure” the USDA to extend coverage of the Animal Welfare Act to hobby breeders as well.

The existing standards for dogs, as set out in the implementing Animal Welfare Regulation, are very detailed as to the precise quality of care that must be provided for each and every dog and puppy, as well as exacting requirements that, among other things, include precise “comfort” limitations on the temperatures maintained for the sheltered housing of dogs.  In this regard, Section 3.3 of the Animal Welfare Regulation provides that “sheltered housing facilities for dogs . . . must be sufficiently cooled when necessary to protect dogs . . . from temperature or humidity extremes and to provide for their health and well being.”  This same provision further provides that the “ambient temperature must not . . . rise above 85 (degrees F) for more than 4 hours when . . . dogs are present.  The preceding requirements are in addition to, not in place of, all other requirements pertaining to climatic conditions in parts 2 and 3 of this Chapter.”   Furthermore, to ensure strict compliance with all provisions of the Animal Welfare Act, and its implementing Regulation, the Department of Agriculture is required to ensure that all Federally Licensed Breeders are in full compliance with the Animal Welfare Act and its implementing Regulation through the use of a detailed Federal Inspection Program which includes periodic, no notice inspections by Federal Inspectors of every Federally Licensed Dog Kennel in the entire U.S.

In contrast, while the U.S. Congress did enact the Nursing Home Reform Act in 1987, neither that Act nor its implementing Regulation that exists today - - nearly 25 years after Congress enacted the Nursing Home Reform Act - - establish Standards of Care for our Loved Ones, who must spend the twilight of their lives in Nursing Homes, with the same degree of detail as currently exists in the implementing Regulation to the Animal Welfare Act that explicitly establishes the required and detail care for dogs.  For example, if the air conditioning breaks down on a Friday Night in a Nursing Home and the ambient room temperature in the rooms of Loved Ones with respiratory problems rises above 85 (degrees F) for more than 4 hours, unlike the mandatory requirements for the care of dogs, there is no requirement for our Loved Ones to be moved to another room where the temperature is below 86 degrees F, or for the air conditioning to be repaired before Monday morning, if ever!  Furthermore, there is no current Statutory requirement, nor is there any pending legislation being considered by the U.S.  Congress that would require the Department of Health and Human Services to use Federal Inspectors to periodically inspect Nursing Homes - - that receive Billions of Dollars in Medicare and Medicaid Payments - - to ensure that our Loved Ones in Nursing Homes are actually receiving the minimum level of care mandated by the Nursing Home Reform Act.   To many, the absence of an air conditioning standard for Nursing Homes that is comparable to the air conditioning standard for dog kennels, and the absence of a Federal Inspection Program for Nursing Homes suggest that Congress places a higher priority on the care and welfare of dogs than it does for the care and welfare of our Loved Ones in Nursing Homes.

If you believe that a Loved One in a Nursing Home should receive at least the same quality of care as is provided to a dog, why don’t you ask your Members of Congress to support such legislation as a backdoor way to “finesse” and highlight the absurdity of the PUPS Bill without creating the appearance of a parochial interest of dog breeders.  That is the essence of the “Art of Finesse!”  In this regard, if the Members of Congress, who have co-sponsored the PUPS Bill, were to be made aware of the fact that they have placed  a higher priority on the care and welfare for dogs than on the care and welfare for our Loved Ones in Nursing Homes, a few may wince and reconsider their decision to co-sponsor PUPS.  And to those who are currently being “lobbied” by the HSUS to co-sponsor the PUPS Bill, the revelation about a higher priority for the care of dogs than for our Loved Ones in Nursing Homes may stop the momentum for any more Members of Congress to co-sponsor PUPS. 

I truly believe that if the Members of Congress became fully aware of the fact that the Federal Government places a higher priority on the care and welfare of dogs than on the care and welfare of our Loved Ones in Nursing Homes, such an awakening revelation may be the “showstopper” to derail the on-going momentum to enact the PUPS Bill.

Stop and reflect for a moment………. How many Members of Congress do you believe would welcome notoriety associated with the fact that the U.S. Congress apparently has placed a higher priority on the care and welfare of a dog than on the care and welfare of a Loved One in a Nursing Home?

If you wish to bring this comparative absurdity of Congressional Priorities to the attention your respective Members of Congress, you may do so by sending an E-Mail to them.  To send E-Mails, simply follow the instructions below.  It will take you less than 10 Minutes to do so, and it just may derail and stop the HSUS PUPS Freight Train!!!

1.  To send an E-Mail to your U.S. Representative, Log onto www.house.gov/writerep/

2.  Fill in your state and ZIP Code on the prompt that appears.

3.  Add your name, address and E-Mail address on the E-Mail Form for your U.S. Representative; and on the Subject Line add: PUPS - - MISPLACED CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITIES;  and then add the message set out below.

4.  To send an E-Mail to your Two Senators, Log onto:    www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

5.  Click onto the E-Mail Address for each of your two U.S. Senators.

6.  Add your name, address and E-Mail address on the E-Mail Form for your two U.S. Senators; and on the Subject Line add: PUPS - - MISPLACED CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITIES;  and then add the message set out below.

Suggested Text of E-Mail Message

“I was alarmed to learn that the Federal Government has an Inspection Program that requires that all Federally Licensed  Breeders receive no notice inspections by Federal Inspectors to ensure compliance with the Animal Welfare Act, but that there is no Federal Inspection Program for Nursing Homes where our Loved Ones must  spend the twilight of their lives in a Nursing Home.  I am equally concerned that the Federal Government has an air conditioning standard for dog kennels, but no such air conditioning standard exists for the Nursing Home Rooms where our Loved Ones reside. 

Since the Federal Standards for the care and welfare of dogs in kennels are already more stringent than the existing Federal Standards for the care and welfare for our Loved Ones in Nursing Homes; and since Nursing Homes are not subject to periodic inspections by Federal Inspectors in the same manner that dog kennels are subject to inspections by Federal Inspectors, would you please tell me why Congress places a higher priority on amending the Animal Welfare Act with the pending PUPS Bill than it does on ensuring that Nursing Home Reform Act is amended so that our Loved Ones in Nursing Homes will receive the same level of care that is currently required by the U.S. Government to be provided for dogs?”