Over-Regulation and HSUS Carlotta Cooper

In these days of government over-regulation it still might surprise you to learn that a government agency could determine the next puppy you get. But if the Obama Administration and Tom Vilsack at USDA have their way, that's exactly what will happen.

The USDA's APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) agency announced a proposed rule in May that would devastate small-scale purebred dog breeders who raise dogs in their homes. This includes most breeders of show dogs, people who breed K9 search and rescue dogs, police dogs, and protection dogs, many hunting dog breeders, and people who breed dogs for the disabled, as well as people who produce good pet dogs.

The rule proposed by APHIS would result in a serious change in direction to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) which they administer. The Animal Welfare Act was originally passed in the 1960s to protect laboratory animals and it was later altered to allow USDA to oversee the care of breeding animals in large commercial facilities. For the past 15 years the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and other animal rights groups have been seeking to change the Animal Welfare Act so that it covers more than animals raised by wholesalers as it does currently. They have been trying to stretch the act to cover retailers, which would include breeders who raise a litter at home and sell directly to a buyer.

The Doris Day Animal League, which has since been subsumed by HSUS, sued USDA (DDAL vs Ann Veneman (Secretary of Agriculture) in 1997 in order to try to force USDA to apply wholesale breeding regulations to retailers, i.e., to treat home breeders the same way USDA treated large commercial breeders. DDAL initially won in court but the case was reversed on appeal by the Washington DC U.S. District Court of Appeals.  http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1362167.html One of the things that's so interesting about this case is that USDA opposed the animal rights position at this time. They claimed that the Animal Welfare Act should not be applied to retail breeders, who are typically small-scale breeders. According to USDA at this time, it would be a waste of the agency's inspectors and other resources to try to oversee these entities.

But things change and with the Obama victory in 2008, regulations were seen as the way to accomplish many things that could not be accomplished legislatively. Today USDA is supporting the animal rights position and trying to force small-scale breeders, as retailers, to live under commercial breeding or wholesaler regulations.

HSUS, which is NOT the same as your local humane society or animal shelter, has been trying each year to pass repressive legislation against pet breeders. So far they have failed, despite the fact that they have lured many first term congressmen to support the PUPS bill (Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety, Senate Bill 707 (S.707) and House Bill 835 (H.R. 835)  which would apply onerous restrictions to small-scale dog and cat breeders. Even some Republicans who should know better are supporting this bill which would do many of the same things that the proposed APHIS rule would do. It would label many small-scale breeders as commercial breeders and they would be forced to become USDA-licensed and inspected.

Just to make sure you get the picture, we are talking about your Aunt Susie who has a few Yorkies and raises some puppies. She would have to get a USDA license and have inspectors come to her home. But, it's not that simple. In order to become USDA-licensed, she would have to make her facilities (her home) USDA-compliant. That means having non-permeable surfaces that can be cleaned at temps of 180 degrees, proper ventilation in the areas where the dogs are kept, drainage for that cleaning water, insurance as a commercial business, possible approval by her homeowner's association, zoning approval, and a host of other requirements under AWA rules. She would go from being a hobbyist to a small business, whether she liked it or not. It's kind of hard to do these things if you're a small breeder living in the suburbs. And that's where many of our best home-raised puppies come from. When you want a good, home-raised puppy, you go to someone like Aunt Susie. But Tom Vilsack and the USDA would like to have small breeders put their dogs in kennels so they can make everyone be USDA/AWA compliant. Or, perhaps it's safer to say that USDA would like all of us small breeders to just disappear.

Are you wondering why the Humane Society of the United States would support the PUPS bill or the proposed APHIS rule when they would send our home-raised dogs out to the kennels? Aren't they the folks who are supposed to care so much for animals? Despite the ubiquitous ads with sad-faced kittens and puppies, HSUS does not support local shelters. The money they raise goes for lobbying on animal rights issues; lawsuits against agricultural interests; and their own salaries and pensions. Less than 1 percent of the money they raise goes to the animals. It would suit HSUS just fine to get rid of small hobby breeders who have been resisting them. The Humane Society of the United States opposes all animal breeding. It is easier for them to control breeders if they have breeders thoroughly regulated under the APHIS proposed rule and/or PUPS. They have won over USDA to a great extent now, at least under Tom Vilsack. HSUS, through it's lobbying arm the Humane Society Legislative Fund, is a contributor to the campaign of Vilsack's wife, Christie Vilsack, running for Congress in Iowa. And HSLF has contributed more than $100,000 to oppose Christie Vilsack's opponent, none other than Rep. Steve King, who has been a vocal opponent of HSUS-sponsored bills in Congress. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2941250/posts Earlier this fall, eight Iowa TV stations refused to air Humane Society Legislative Fund ads against King because of their sensationalism and dishonesty. The ads had to be re-worked before stations would accept them. When's the last time you heard of TV stations refusing ads? Well, PETA comes to mind.

The upshot is, the Humane Society of the United States is no friend to animals, whether they are pets or in agriculture. Over-regulation and animal rights-supported bills are hurting all of us, even the people who raise pets. Don't be fooled when you hear that something is “good for the animals.” If it comes from HSUS or if it smacks of over-regulation, just say no.

Carlotta Cooper writes for The Cavalry Group. She's a contributing editor for the weekly dog show magazine Dog News. She's been breeding and showing English Setters for 25 years.

HSUS FLEES MISSOURI

For Immediate Release March 26, 2012 HSUS FLEES MISSOURI WITH TAIL BETWEEN LEGS  Radical Animal Rights Group Shifts Focus to National PUPS Bill  The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) funded front group, “Your Vote Counts” announced this week that they are suspending their campaign to destroy the Missouri Constitution through an amendment which would prevent the alteration of any piece of legislation passed by ballot proposition. Mindy Patterson, Campaign Director for The Alliance for Truth which led the fight to oppose "Your Vote Counts" in addition to the HSUS sponsored 2010 Proposition B, released the following statement today: "Today is a great day for Missouri and our Constitution. We must, however, remain vigilant against future attempts by the radical Humane Society of the United States to use their deceptive lobbying tactics to destroy law-abiding animal enterprises. As we celebrate, we must remember that HSUS will now shift its focus to their dangerous piece of federal legislation, the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act (PUPS). Having been thwarted in their effort to fool Missourians, HSUS is moving on to destroy the dog breeding industry nationwide. American families who enjoy the ability to purchase pure-bred dogs should stand up and say “NO” to the HSUS agenda of making dog breeding a prohibitively expensive enterprise.” For more information, contact:   Phil Christofanelli, 217-971-3754, pchristofanelli@gmail.com

HSUS SENIOR LEADERSHIP "BLINKED!" by Frank Losey

HSUS SENIOR LEADERSHIP “BLINKED!” - - CALL TO ACTION BASED ON “NEW EVIDENCE”

ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 BY THE HSUS AND HSLF

In 2005 the HSUS was registered as a “Lobbying Organization” and it listed Wayne Pacelle as one of its “Lobbyists.”  However, the HSUS apparently terminated its Registration at a later date.  In contrast, the Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF) which oversees three PACs, and which was founded by Mr. Pacelle in 2004, had never registered itself as a “Lobbying Organization” - - UNTIL FEBRAURY 29, 2012!  That is when the HSLF and the Senior Leadership of the HSUS “BLINKED,” and they registered the HSLF as a “Lobbying Organization” - - a DELIQUENCY OF OVER 7 YEARS!!!  Most significantly, when the HSLF filed its Registration with the Secretary of the Senate, it listed Mrs. Constance Harriman-Whitfield as one of its “Lobbyists.”  This further “taints” the HSUS for its failure to no longer be registered as a “Lobbying Organization” because Mrs. Harriman-Whitfield, according to her BIO that was posted on the HSUS Website, is a Paid Employee of the HSUS, and she serves as the “Senior Advisor” for “HSUS President and CEO Wayne Pacelle.”   Thus, the recent HSLF Registration substantiates that the HSUS, which is no longer registered, is in violation of the Lobbying Disclosure Act.  In this regard, Mr. Pacelle was previously listed, BY NAME, as a Lobbyist for the HSUS in 2005, and now his Senior Advisor, who is on the payroll of the HSUS, has been identified as a “Lobbyist.”  If the HSUS were Pinocchio, its nose would be growing longer and longer with respect to how it has circumvented the Lobbying Disclosure Act.

Even if you have already sent an E-Mail to your Members of Congress, I urge you to send another E-Mail with the precise suggested text set out below.  And if you have not sent an E-Mail, I urge you to do so.  Do not add anything more than what is suggested.  In short, don’t mention PUPS or any other Bill.  Just limit your remarks to the Lobbying Disclosure Act.  If the HSUS then “BLINKS,” as did the HSLF, and then re-registers, it is admitting to the IRS that it has been playing “fast and loose” - - AND THAT COULD RESULT IN THE HSUS LOSING ITS TAX-EXEMPT STATUS.  And if it does not register, there will be mounting Congressional pressure to ask the Justice Department to investigate the HSUS.  Already, at least Six Members of Congress have asked the Justice Department to look into the documented allegations that it had previously received.  And yet another submission, WITH “NEW EVIDENCE,” was received by the Justice Department on March 7, 2012.  Let us build upon the potential “momentum changer” that was created when the HSLF “BLINKED” and registered as a “Lobbying Organization.”

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 E-Mail Form for your U.S. Representative; and on the Subject Line add: LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995.  If that Subject Line will not allow you to use that Subject, use "OTHER."  Then add 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 E-Mail Form for your U.S. Representative; and on the Subject Line add:  LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995. If that Subject Line will not allow you to use that Subject, use "OTHER."  Then add then add the message set out below.

7.   Send a confirmation that the three E-Mails were sent from which State, and any Congressional Responses, to Frank Losey: <f.losey@insightbb.com>

Suggested Text of E-Mail Message

NOTE:  Resist the temptation to mention your parochial "beef" with the HSUS.  Otherwise, you may receive a "boilerplate" response that says nothing more than:  "Thank You for bringing your issues of concern to my attention.”  WE NEED MORE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO CALL THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT!

On February 29, 2012, the Leadership of the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) made a monumental and self-incriminating admission as to the alleged and documented violations of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 by the HSUS and by the Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF) - - that was the day that the HSLF registered itself as a “Lobbying Organization,” which it should have done in 2004.

The “HSUS Leadership” includes Mr. Wayne Pacelle, the President and CEO of the HSUS, who according to the HSLF Tax Return Documents, also serves as the Vice President of the (HSLF), which he founded in 2004.  Additionally, the “HSUS Leadership” includes Mr. Markarian who serves as the COO of the HSUS, and who also serves as the President of the HSLF.  According to prior year Tax Returns for the HSLF, both Mr. Pacelle and Mr. Markarian averaged 10 Hours a Week carrying out the HSUS lobbying agenda.  

By way of further background, the Justice Department (Mr. Keith Morgan) received a documented Complaint about the alleged violations of the HSUS and the HSLF by letter dated August 1, 2011.  That initial Complaint was supplemented by Addendums that were dated September 12, and October 4, 2011, as well as the most recent Addendum that was dated March 5, 2012, which documented that:

1.   The HSLF registered itself as a “Lobbying Organization,” as defined by the Lobbying Act of 1995 on February 29, 2012, with an effective  date January 1,  2011 - - a “delinquency” of at least 14 months by its own admission, and more than seven years by the documentation that is now in the possession of the Justice Department.   Most significantly, the HSLF was established by Mr. Pacelle in 2004 when it aggressively began lobbying and assumed responsibility for the submission of the more than 2,300 pages of lobbying-related documents to the Federal Election Commission - - Millions of Dollars to Hundreds of Federal Candidates!!!

2.   The HSLF Registration Filing on February 29, 2012 listed Mrs. Constance Harriman-Whitfield as a Lobbyist for the HSLF, even though she is a paid employee of the HSUS.  Most significantly, Mrs. Harriman-Whitfield, according to her BIO that was posted on the HSUS Website, states that she is the “Senior Advisor, Presidential Initiatives,” and that she “develops initiatives in the area of . . . legislation for HSUS President and CEO Wayne Pacelle.”

3.   Since Ms. Harriman-Whitfield is a paid employee of the HSUS, and is OFFICIALLY LISTED AS A “LOBBYIST,” it logically follows that the HSUS employs a specifically identified “Lobbyist,” and as such, the HSUS should also have registered itself as a “Lobbying Organization.”  Such a conclusion is validated when one considers that the HSUS was previously registered as a “Lobbying Organization” in 2005, and specifically, by name, listed Mr. Pacelle as one of its “Lobbyists!”   This “FACT” raises the collateral question of “Why did the HSUS terminate its status as a “Lobbying Organization?”

Please let me know why the Justice Department apparently has not acted on the documented Complaint about the alleged violations of the Lobbying Disclosure Act as they relate to the HSUS and the HSLF.  If the Justice Department is not the appropriate Federal Agency to investigate documented allegations of violations of the Lobbying Disclosure Act, please advise me as to which Federal Agency is so responsible for ensuring compliance and enforcement of the Lobbying Disclosure Act.  Since at least Six Members of Congress have contacted representatives within the Justice Department concerning the documented allegations against the HSUS and the HSLF, I would appreciate if you would do the same. 

                     

Respectfully,

PUPS - - FOREBODING NUMBERS - - DO THE MATH!!!!

WARNING:  If the PUPS Bill - - which was drafted by the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) - - is enacted into Law, it may affect every single breeder in the U.S who breeds as few as one dog a year.  That's right . . . one dog!   And the PUPS Bill could affect you in more than 20 different ways, and would create a "slippery slope" that would inevitably lead to other intended or unintended consequences that may affect all dog owners - - even those who do not intend to breed dogs.

Slowly, quietly, methodically, and behind the scenes, the HSUS has been recruiting more and more co-sponsors for PUPS each week.  Currently there are 124 U.S. Representatives who are on record as being either the Sponsor or Co-Sponsors of PUPS; and 15 U.S. Senators who are also on record as being either the Sponsor or Co-Sponsors of PUPS.

I have said in the past that when the numbers reach 150 in the House and 34 in the Senate - - slightly more than 1/3 in Both Houses of Congress - - the HSUS will make a full Court Press to bring the PUPS Bill to a vote.  It is only a matter of time before the thresholds of "150" and "34" are met - - first in the House, and then in the Senate.  That  is inevitable unless Members of Congress realize that the HSUS has a "Dark Side" and is not what it has been perceived to be.   THAT IS WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT THAT ALL LETTERS SENT TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS INCLUDE AN "ATTENTION-GETTING," FIGURATIVE "LIGHTNING BOLT" IN ORDER TO GRAB THE ATTENTION OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHO ARE "APPROACHABLE" BY THE HSUS, BUT WHO HAVE NOT YET BECOME CO-SPONSORS, AS WELL AS SOME OF THE CURRENT CO-SPONSORS OF THE PUPS BILL WHO MIGHT CONSIDER WITHDRAWING THEIR CO-SPONSORSHIP OF THE PUPS BILL.

Why do I say "approachable?"    In March of this year, the HSUS presented its 2010 Legislative Awards to 144 Members of Congress who best supported the HSUS Lobbying Agenda in 2010.  Fifty-eight (58) of the 108 U.S. Representatives who received the HSUS Awards are currently co-sponsors of the PUPS Bill.  That means that if only 26 of the remaining 50 "uncommitted" Representatives who were "honored" by the HSUS were to co-sponsor the PUPS Bill, the "Magic Number" of 150 would be reached.  So far, only 11 of the 36 Senators who were honored by the HSUS in March of this year have Sponsored or Co-Sponsored the Companion PUPS Bill in the Senate.  Thus, if 19 of the "uncommitted" 25 Senators who were honored by the HSUS in March of this year were to co-sponsor the Senate version of the PUPS Bill, the "Magic Number" of 34 would be reached.  Both are very reasonably attainable.

So what can be the "LIGHTNING BOLT???"   I believe the most effective "LIGHTNING BOLT" WOULD BE A POTENTIAL "SCANDAL" ASSOCIATED WITH THE HSUS, SUCH AS THE ON-GOING INVESTIGATIONS OF THE HSUS AND ITS CURRENT AND FORMER EMPLOYEES BY THREE DIFFERENT FEDERAL AGENCIES - - ONE OF WHICH IS BEING REVIEWED BY THE U.S. OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS.

Ideally, the Offices of every Member of Congress need to be "flooded" with E-Mails that call attention to the "Dark Side" of the HSUS, as well as the fact that the HSUS has become the subject of Investigations   by three separate Federal Agencies.  The recommended wording for these E-Mails would read as follows.

********************************************

"Dear Senator/Representative:

No caring American supports the activities of those few "substandard kennels" that do exist.  Unfortunately, the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) has mischaracterized and slurred the activities of thousands of caring breeders by referring to them as "puppy mills."  Deceptively, the HSUS has never publicly acknowledged or disclosed the fact that these thousands of breeders are either Licensed and Inspected by the Federal Government, or by the State Government, and many of them are "Hobby and Show Breeders," as well as breeders of Search and Rescue dogs and breeders of dogs for owners with special needs, such as the blind.  Unfortunately, the HSUS's grotesque distortion of the true facts have worked up so many into a frenzied, false belief that the PUPS Bill will solve the purportedly systemic  "problems" that have been "highlighted" by the HSUS, but simply do not exist.

Throughout the History of the U. S., there have been charlatans who have deceived much of the American Public and many Government Officials.  By analogy, it took years before the scandal involving Mr. Bernie Madoff exposed the magnitude of his deception - - and so many, in the Government and outside of the Government, blindly trusted and followed his recommendations to their detriment.  That is why I am equally concerned that the PUPS Bill is deceptively flawed, and requires a more in-depth review before the Congress moves forward to vote on the PUPS Bill, especially since the three Senior Government Officials listed below have been briefed on the status of on-going investigations in each of their respective Federal Agencies.  These investigations involve the allegations of improper activities of the HSUS and their current and former employees.  And that is why, I urge you to contact each of the three Government Officials listed below, and ask them to brief you on the nature of the investigations involving the Humane Society of the U.S., and its current and former employees, before the U.S. Congress votes on the PUPS Bill.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA) - - INSPECTOR GENERAL PHYLLIS K. FONG:  Ask about the status of the on-going investigation involving allegations of a "Conflict of Interest" and a "Misuse of Government Position" by Ms. Sarah L. Conant, a former HSUS Litigation Attorney who was a hired by USDA but two days after she resigned her position with the HSUS to become the Chief of the APHIS Enforcement Branch.  Also ask about the preliminary review by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics of Ms. Conant's alleged "Conflict of Interest."

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - - ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY KEITH MORGAN IN THE OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA:  Ask about the status of the Complaint that he has received concerning the allegations that the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS); and its self-described "Lobbying Arm" and "Lobbying Affiliate," the Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF), which has submitted thousands of pages of lobbying documents to the Federal Election Commission; and the Senior Leadership of both the HSUS and the HSLF have violated the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.  Despite the fact that the HSUS, the HSLF and the Senior Leadership of those two tax-exempt organizations were required by Law to register with the Clerk of the House of Representatives and with the Secretary of the U.S. Senate because of their thousands of "Lobbying Contacts" with "Covered Executive Branch Officials and "Covered Legislative Branch Officials," THEY HAVE NEVER DONE SO!

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY - - INSPECTOR GENERAL J. RUSSELL GEORGE:  Ask about the inquiries made by at least Eight Members of Congress concerning the "apparent inappropriate activities" of the HSUS and its "tax-exempt status."   Also ask about his response to Senator Lugar that was dated August 24, 2011, in which he stated that "we have recently initiated an audit to determine whether the IRS's Exempt Organizations function is accurately accounting for referrals of alleged violations of Federal tax law."

While I personally believe that it is inappropriate for you to support the PUPS Bill, I only ask that you come to your own conclusions after you gather the "all of the facts" from the USDA, the Justice Department and the Treasury Department.  In short, the "lessons learned" from blindly following the seemingly logical and persuasive recommendations of Bernie Madoff may very well apply to following the seemingly logical and persuasive recommendations of the Humane Society of the U.S. which is the subject of on-going investigations by three different Federal Agencies, and which has been aggressively lobbying Members of the U.S. Congress to support the passage of the PUPS Bill.

                                                      Respectfully Submitted,

*******************************************************

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

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

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?”