On August 4th, the following article was released on the HSUS website, “Indiana Legislator Gives Second Chance to Puppy Mill Dog”.  In this article, Andy MacAlpine of the HSUS  details:

• Linda Lawson’s involvement in the raid
  • “Rep. Linda Lawson helped move dogs from their cages onto trucks that would take them to a a nearby emergency shelter.”
• Linda Lawson’s request that a specific dog (Pomeranian) be diverted to her local shelter,
  • “Lawson held the dog a second time later that day while her picture was taken, and she kept track of her the rest of the time she was there. Before she left, she told Sterling that she would like to see the Pomeranian go to her local shelter, the Humane Society Calumet Area in Munster”
• Linda Lawson’s taking her granddaughter to the Humane Society Calumet Area in Munster to adopt ‘a dog’,  ’stumbling across’ the Pomeranian and the subsequent adoption of the dog by her granddaughter.
  • “Later that month, Lawson took her 7-year-old granddaughter, Genavive, to the shelter to adopt a dog. It wasn’t long before Genavive spotted the Pomeranian. The two met in a nearby room, and the dog immediately started licking the little girl’s face. Soon memories of the Pomeranian imprisoned at the puppy mill came rushing back to Lawson. “Genavive said, ‘Grandma, I think this is the one!’” she says. “And I’m like, ‘Thank you, Lord. It is the one!’”

Puff piece that this article appears, it does no favors to Rep. Linda Lawson.  The picture of the Pomeranian in the picture with HSUS Indiana State Director (Lobbyist) Anne Sterling and the picture of the Pomeranian with Linda Lawson’s granddaughter certainly look like the same dog.  The statements and framing of the information in the HSUS article, at minimum, put forward the perception that Rep. Lawson exerted her influence in order to obtain her pick of dog from the raid.

This information is damning enough that both this HSUS article and the HSUS video of the raid of the Garwood farm have both been entered into evidence by the Garwood, to the outrage of Judge Whitis.  Given the questions already raised by Judge Whitis regarding due process, and therefore a perception by the judge that the constitutional rights of the Garwoods may have been violated, this information gives the appearance of abuse of power as well. 

The HSUS knows about the previous article examining Linda Lawson’s conduct with respect to the raid of the Garwood Farm (Breezy Valley Dairy).  I observed their activity on the article and their monitoring of the subsequent commentary by readers.

The HSUS knows about the articles examining the conduct of the Attorney General’s office with respect to the raid of the Garwood Farm (Breezy Valley Dairy).  I have observed their activity on the article and their monitoring of the subsequent commentary by readers.

This is an organization of very savvy people, highly skilled at media and message.  Yet they have volunteered additional damaging information regarding one of their political allies? In the midst of a rising furor over the questions posed by the August 2nd AR-HR.com article? (HSUS was also monitoring the proliferation of links to this article to other blogs and websites)  I find it very difficult to believe that this was accidental or not considered.  So, I have to ask if this is payback for what the HSUS perceived as failure regarding HB1468 with the removal of the overwhelming majority of the HSUS-backed additions from the bill?

With friends like this, do Linda Lawson and other legislators need enemies?

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved

Rep Linda Lawson at Breezy Valley Dairy Farm, 305 miles from District 1 & constituents

In light of recent documentation obtained regarding the seizing and sale of dogs in Southern Indiana, the question must be raised, “What is Indiana State Rep. Linda Lawson’s involvement in this situation?” Reported in a previous article by AR-HR.com, Rep. Linda Lawson was seen participating in the June 2, 2009 seizure of dogs from the Garwood farm (Breezy Valley Dairy Farm). The raid was conducted in Mauckport while Rep. Linda Lawson represents Indiana District 1, located 305 miles away. 

This raises a number of ethical questions regarding Rep. Linda Lawson’s involvement:

• If this was volunteer activity, was Rep. Lawson using state time and resources to coordinate with the Humane Society of the United States regarding participation in the raid? 
• How did she manage to clear time during the work week to participate in this raid during the greatest economic crisis since the 1920’s and in the midst of a special legislative session nearly 4 weeks prior to the passage of the Indiana state budget?
• If this was volunteer activity, why was Rep. Lawson standing with Indiana Attorney Greg Zoeller during the subsequent television press conference announcing the raid?  If this was not volunteer activity, why was Rep. Lawson acting in District 70  instead of  Rep. Paul Robertson? Rep. Robertson, a fellow Democrat to Linda Lawson, has been notably quiet through this matter.

Certainly any political representative is free to volunteer in their spare time as they see fit.  However the raid occurred on a Tuesday morning while the Indiana legislature remained in special session, a point when District 1 constituents would reasonably expect their state representative to be dedicating herself to their representation during a budget crisis.  Instead, Rep. Lawson was carrying puppies out of a barn a 4 hour drive away from her district and almost 2 hours drive from the state capitol. 

Rep. Lawson’s ties to the Humane Society of the United States are well known, as is demonstrated by latest news link on her homepage,”"STRONGER ANIMAL CRUELTY LAWS, PUPPY MILL REGULATIONS SET TO TAKE EFFECT“, includes the following, “Information that will be of use to municipalities that wish to impose stronger animal cruelty/puppy mill regulations will be distributed by Lawson’s office, the Humane Society of the United States and the Indiana Alliance of Animal Control and Welfare Operators in the upcoming weeks.”  She is also prominently displayed in the HSUS video made to proclaim the raid’s occurance.  (please note the CLEAN dogs, especially the ones with white fur)

This raid, which has raised serious questions regarding the conduct of the Attorney General’s office, would have required coordination between the Indiana Attorney General’s office, HSUS and its volunteers. Given Rep Linda Lawson’s previous history as a law enforcement officer:

• Did Rep. Lawson have knowledge of the terms of the search warrant?
• If Rep. Lawson had knowledge of the seize and hold clause, why did she not speak out regarding the sale of the seized dogs prior to court
• Considering Rep. Lawson’s efforts to involve the Board of Animal Health in dog related activities, why did she not question their absence from the action?  This is especially relevant considering Rep. Lawson’s comments to the media (WAVE 3 TV) on June 2, 2009. “Some of these dogs were covered in feces. So matted and so awful that they could barely walk,” said State Rep. Linda Lawson (D-Hammond), who helped with the rescue of the dogs.  If the conditions were so unsanitary, surely this would have been of concern on a dairy farm involved in the food supply?  These conditions were certainly not demonstrated in the HSUS video of the event with the exception of a dog that appeared to have mud needing removal from its coat.

 As a former police captain, surely Rep. Lawson should have known to avoid even the appearance of conducting personal business on the job and known better than to have supported this activity in light of the issues that have emerged.

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved

“Why are so many people convinced that pet ‘adoption’ differs from pet purchase?”

The question struck me after reading the following comment on Twitter and the HSUS response. (click here)  The original comment was, “So discraceful.(sic) I would never buy a pet-Adoption is my first/only option!”  The HSUS response?  “AMEN”  

In the legal sense, every pet acquired by paying a purchase pricean adoption fee or minimum donation is purchased.  Yet, ‘adoption’ is held up as morally superior.

A significant difference between the idea of conventional purchase and ‘adoption’?  Typically that one is not obtaining the pet from the person responsible for the breeding, though even this is not a hard and fast criterion if including USDA commercial breeders in the calculation. 

Another significant difference between the conventional purchase and adoption? Conventional purchases typically involve intentional breedings, whereas adoptions often as not involve unintentional breedings. 

Conventional purchases involve a majority of pups and a minority of adults, most ‘adoptions’ involve a majority of adults or seniors and a minority of pups.  This is the single most differentiating factor between conventional purchases of pets and ‘adoption’.  

These factors sum the most critical criteria for a prospective pet owner to consider.  Are they better suited to handle a young pet or an older one?  A known temperment or an unknown temperament?  Can they handle training young pet? Can they handle one with longer term behavioural problems or training deficits?  Are they willing to deal with the uncertainty of an unknown health history or does known health history of pet and parents make for greater peace of mind?  

 Every pet is the result of a breeding, intentional or unintentional and people typically don’t attach much value to that which comes cheaply or free.  Shouldn’t we be willing to commit resources to obtain a pet, which is ideally a lifetime commitment?   I own the full spectrum of pets.  I have a cat I purchased from a city shelter, another cat from a friend who couldn’t keep him and a dog purchased from a breeder.  I will have them all with me for the length of their lives.

Owning a pet is a choice.  Choosing the pet you can commit to for a lifetime, whatever the source is the ‘right’ choice, the ethical choice, the humane choice.  Choose what makes you human(e)

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders   http://AR-HR.com
All rights reserved

Its a phrase frequently tossed around in media, communications and especially in advertising.  Its also a concept that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has previously managed to leverage at an unprecedented level.  The overall public perception of the Humane Society of the United States often different dramatically from the actual activities of the HSUS.  Although the cracks in the HSUS shell have been around for a long time, but they seem to be growing more noticeable as the disparities between perception and reality grow.

A recent example can be seen in the title of a recent blog article by the HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle, “Our Very Own SWAT Team” discussing “investigative work by HSUS staff”.  One of the prime examples cited in this article pertains to a May 27 raid on a location breeding pure white American Eskimo dogs with conditions reported as “rusty pens caked with feces” and “of the dogs suffered from malnutrition, urine burns and overgrown claws”   Now, if you read these articles, you’ve probably stepped in dog poop at least once in your life and are familiar with (a) the odor and (b) the difficulty of removal from clothing/shoes and the staining.  So, ask yourself while looking at the slide-shows here and here, “What color are the dogs’ feet & fur?“  Its a little question but important, especially in light of a news article declaring, “All of the dogs will need  some medical care but some will need extensive treatment, Taylor said. All also need extensive cleaning.  Officials said some of the dogs suffered from malnutrition, urine burns and overgrown claws.”  I’ve looked at the photos myself.  Although the kennels are certainly not fancy (to say the least), the white dogs are all WHITE.   How do you have white dogs with white feet coming out of feces & urine soaked kennels? It’s simple, you don’t.   How often do you see people handling feces and urine-soaked dogs with shirts that remain clean and dry?  You don’t

Another example comes from HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle’s blog, where the iron fist under the velvet glove becomes clearly visible when talking about ”The HSUS, which is the object of sustained attacks, caricatures, and mis-characterizations by people who inhabit the domains of cockfighting, puppy mills, horse slaughter, trophy hunting, trapping, fur fashion, animal agribusiness, commercial whaling, and other animal exploitation industries.”   Its a disturbing statement when you look at the fact that the CEO of the HSUS refers to animal agribusiness in the same category as other industries whose eradication has been made a part of the HSUS mission.  Do you equate egg & chicken farmers with cock-fighting?  Now examine the inclusion of “puppy mills” in the light of the 2007 HSUS statement regarding “puppy mill” numbers in Virginia, “Commercial dog breeders in Virginia number nearly 1,000″ yet the actual number of commercial kennels was in the range of 22 according to USDA records. 

And what about the HSUS comments on the activities of HSUS State Directors, “Our state directors give us a leg up in learning of crisis situations and then allowing us to coordinate with local law enforcement agencies and local and national animal welfare groups,”  a statement substantially contradicted by interview and investigative information involving the HSUS GA State director in the WSB-TV report that HSUS is strongly suspected to have had forced off the air, by copies of email from the HSUS Illinois State Director and by written report from a NY HSUS meeting involving the NY State Director.  These are just three examples of the overt involvement of HSUS State directors in political and legislative activity, not in animal assistance.  There are significantly more.

Public perception is not the HSUS reality.  In the next article, I will look at further ways the HSUS tries to manipulate public perception and prevent evidence of its tactics from rising to greater awareness in the general public.

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders   http://AR-HR.com
All rights reserved

Wayne, Wayne, Wayne … May I call you Wayne?  After the past couple of months of reading your blog, I’m starting to feel like I know you.  After listening to your speech to the NAFB (National Association of Farm Broadcasting), its obvious that you are reading my writing as well  therefore you must feel like you are beginning to know me too. I wish your interpretation of my writing and direction had been a little closer in message to my own, but since you are comfortable annexing some of the key language of my blog ,calling you Mr. Pacelle seems a touch too formal.

As an individual who is intensely concerned with decent care for animals, and in a growing way a voice for a similarly concerned group, I have to disagree with your opinion that the HSUS proposed pet bills should have been met with universal approval.  The growing & increasingly organized opposition to the HSUS crafted animal care related bills openly demonstrates that they are not universally supported.  It is mis-leading to try and lump all the opposers as ‘puppy mills’ without recognizing that in the collective eyes of the HSUS (a) all dog breeders are lumped in to ‘puppy mill’ category and (b) all who disagree with HSUS positions are portrayed as not caring about decent animal care. 

I understand your passion for the ’cause’, but your truth is not the only truth. Your vision, is not the only vision. Blanketing a nation, at the state and federal levels, in the HSUS vision of ‘what is right’ is enough to give many a conscientious animal owner pause.  Many of the bills presented combine a distubing combination of vague language but defined numbers.  Despite their being spun as ‘puppy mill’ bills or as ‘Baby’s Bill’ or other warm and fuzzy names, the legal language contained within includes an overwhelming majority of dog breeders in their scope.  The ‘intent’ of a law doesn’t matter, only its language and scope of application.  Given the proclamations of animal law expertise by HSUS executive, your legal teams are well aware of this principle, making it hard to believe the broad targeting is anything but intentional.

Therefore it is no more astonishing for responsible breeders and the AKC to stand in opposition to HSUS proposed pet breeding bills infringing on their constitutional rights and freedoms of choice than it would be for you to stand in opposition to laws mandating that all citizens must eat meat, which would be in violation of your own rights.  Humane treatment of both human and animal demands a great deal of freedom to adapt on an individual basis, a trait that HSUS proposed bills are consistently lacking. 

As you ended your missive, I similarly end my own.  I believe that the American public needs to know who is proposing these despicable ‘puppy mill’ bills and how these battles are playing out. 

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders   http://AR-HR.com
All rights reserved

In this letter, the Spay USA statistic is quoted “…one un-spayed female dog and her offspring can reproduce 67,000 puppies in six years.”  This statistic depends on one thing, that the public will never look how those numbers were obtained.

To obtain this statistic from one dog in 6 years, the original dog must produce 6+ pups/year with every pup also producing 6+ pups/year.  Biologically, this isn’t possible due to a little thing called puberty.  Include the statistic that 75% of pets are neutered, it becomes mathematically impossible.  In fact, when the HSUS statistic of  a 75% pet neutering rate applied to the calculation, those 67,000 puppies become 56 puppies, in 6 years.  That is actually a frighteningly low number of pups.  The problem is, this biologically impossible statistic has become ‘common knowledge’ pushed by animal rights groups,  believed by a large portion of the animal welfare advocates and has filtered down to the rest of the population. 

Although it sounds like heresy, we don’t have an overall pet overpopulation problem.  We have a combination of problems with 2 of the most significant below: 

• Over-population in some regions but shortages in others.  There are shelters and rescues bringing in pets from out of city, out of state and even out of country to provide the pets people are looking for.  What we have here is a resource allocation problem
• Inexperienced pet owners with no idea how to train animals, and an inability to easily obtain a trained animal to fit their experience level.  It used to be acceptable to sell trained dogs, they even commanded a premium, yet it is demonized now.  So, inexperienced owners get pups they don’t have the tools to train, then turn them over to a shelter in frustration during the pup’s adolescence.  These untrained adolescent dogs often then get adopted by a new set of inexperienced pet owners who are equally overwhelmed by the challenges of animal training.  This problem alone is a massive contributor to shelter turn-ins and a very possible reason that previously adopted dogs make up the largest portion of shelter relinquishment.

This means that the dream of a home for all adoptable pets is challenging but realistic. It also means understanding that the concept of  ‘no-kill’ does not apply to every animal, but to the reasonably sound of mind and body.  Death is not the worst option an animal can face, but it certainly shouldn’t be the first option.  In cases of over-crowding and in the electronic age, it should not present an excessive challenge to establish where a rescue or shelter has space to assist. 

Unfortunately, bad statistics are even worse than no statistics.  They point us in the wrong direction, they send us chasing after the wrong questions and the wrong answers.  They justify actions that we would discard as unthinkable in the face of  accurate information, like killing adoptable animals.  Statistics like the Spay USA statistic don’t just drive bad policy, they kill.

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders   http://AR-HR.com
All rights reserved

In the eras of both McCarthyism and the Salem Witch Trials, government officials had been swayed by pressure exerted stemming from a philosophical/religious agenda resulting in the violation of due process and suspension of legal rights of a targeted human community.  Ms Bernardini is correct there is a growing body of outrage at individuals supporting Animal Rights to the future detriment of the communities in which they participate.  However, these individuals are not the ones being subjected to theft of property under color of law, interference in their lawful commerce, selective law enforcement to the detriment of property owners and even death threats.   These are all symptoms of the McCarthyist/Witch Trial attitude, but the communities suffering this treatment are animal breeders, farmers, scientific researcher and other groups currently targeted by PETA and HSUS

These groups are well-aware that they need only apply the label ‘puppy mill’ to a dog breeder, ’irresponsible’ or ‘hoarder’ to an owner to they wish to target for even Law Enforcement to look the other way.  Consider the following examples, all of which have occurred within the past 2 months and most are on-going, representing a miniscule portion of the affected.

• The rescue group “Saving Pets One at a Time” (SPOT) is currently holding a group of dogs hostage, in violation of a court order to return the dogs due to illegal seizure. Law enforcement refuses to intervene and enforce the court order, despite the fact they were willing to seize the dogs in the first place.  Their stated goal? To run the rightful and legal owner out of money in court so that they can keep the dogs and sell them. (otherwise phrased as ‘put them up for adoption’)
• The breeder of Vice President Biden’s German Shepherd pup has been subjected to harassment and death threats, while law enforcement has done little to protect her. 
• Pet owners across the country are now labeled irresponsible owners for making surgical decisions in consultation with their veterinarian with the right to determine their choice removed by mandatory spay/neuter laws (MSN)
• Pit Bull Terriers and dogs vaguely fitting the physical description are seized and destroyed for nothing more than their appearance or parentage, with their owners powerless to resist
• Animals seized and owners charged with cruelty despite animals being in ‘good condition’
• Scientific researchers having their cars set on fire, their children threatened due to their chosing to dedicate their lives to research for the good of human-kind (jeopardizing the current and future health of us all)
• Farmers having increasing requirements laid upon them that drive them ever closer to the brink of financial collapse with little to no benefit in food safety and often with less benefit to animal or crop health.
• Law enforcement and media referring to people with groups of animals numbering 5 as ‘animal hoarders’, which they like to refer to as a recognized mental illness. (which it is not)

There is most definitely an active witch-hunt and campaign of fear, no doubt about that.  Unfortunately, the groups depicted by as victims by Ms. Bernardini are not the subject of the McCarthyism and Witch-Hunt tactics.  They are the source of the McCarthyism and Witch-Hunt tactics, and they have a massive budget with which to do so.  For their followers to claim otherwise is disingenuous, at best.

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders   http://AR-HR.com
All rights reserved

PAWS Chicago and other rescuers are already messaging on Twitter to anyone that will pay attention ”there are 4 (Portuguese Water Dogs) on PetFinder today and a whole litter of PWD on adoptapet. Just had to look!”  Except that this is an outright lie.  The dogs currently available on these sites are all mixes, with the exception of 1 ‘possibly’ purebred senior female with issues likely making her unsuitable for the White House environment. 

The Obamas have been very clear that they needed to get a non-shedding dog due to allergies in one child from the beginning.  They indicated a preference for 2 types, the Portuguese Water Dog and the similar looking Labrador-Poodle mix often referred to as a Labradoodle.  They would have quickly found out that the chances of a Labrador-Poodle mix shedding were 50-50, and so this mix dropped off the radar.  This resulted in the Obamas opting for a 6 month old PWD pup, a known quantity of established temperament that suited the required criteria for the health of one of their children.

What have we come to when a family, even the First Family, is slammed for putting the health and wishes of their child above petty politics?  These Animal Rights and Rescue groups are angry over a lost public relations opportunity in their crusade against all pet breeders, not over the sake of a single dog adoption.  As a person who supports and participates in rescue, I find this incredibly embarrassing.  These are the same groups that preach making a careful, informed and responsible choice.  Now they are ready to string up the First Family for doing exactly that and it is shameful.

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders   http://AR-HR.com
All rights reserved