Post by John Yates on Feb 1, 2009 15:34:58 GMT -5
Illinois Bill Makes Tail Docking ‘Torture’ A Felony, PA Docking Bill Reincarnated
PA Puppy ‘Lemon Law’ Also May Be Strengthened
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@conline.net
This article is archived at:
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is taking aim at tail docking, ear cropping and dewclaw removal this year.
An Illinois bill would make tail docking and ear cropping a felony, even if done by a veterinarian. In Pennsylvania, legislation that died last year would have restricted tail docking, ear cropping and dewclaw removal. This bill has been resurrected this year.
Another Pennsylvania bill would strengthen the state’s puppy “Lemon Law.”
Tail docking and ear cropping are under assault by the animal rights movement, which sees them as mutilation. The Illinois bill calls it “torture.”
These common practices have been banned in several European countries, and HSUS and its allies want to see these practices become illegal in America, too.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly supports the right of every breeder to make his or her own choices about tail docking, ear cropping and dewclaw removal. If done correctly, these practice do not harm a young puppy in any way and are extremely safe, virtually painless and also may serve an important purpose for many hunting dogs, terriers, working dogs, guard dogs and herding dogs.
To call the common and traditional practices of tail docking and dewclaw removal “torture” or “mutilation” is completely absurd. Quite frankly, anyone who describes these practices in those terms is confessing to appalling ignorance about them, and about dogs.
We are urging dog owners to join us in fighting any legislation that prohibits, criminalizes or overly restricts the responsible and conscientious choices of dog breeders.
Illinois
Current Illinois law specifically excludes tail docking and ear cropping from the crime of animal torture.
However, Senate Bill 0139, introduced by Sen. Terry Link (D-Lake County), removes those exclusions and adds tail docking and ear cropping to the list of acts that would constitute animal torture, which is a third class felony offense.
SB 0139 makes ear cropping a felony in all cases.
Tail docking would become a felony under SB0139 in almost all cases, even if it is performed by a veterinarian. A veterinarian would be allowed to dock a tail only “for a medical reason.”
Docking for any other reason, such as to assist the dog in hunting or herding, or to conform to the official standard for a particular breed, would be a felony under SB 0139.
Please read this legislation for yourself: www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=76&GA=96&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=139&GAID=10&LegID=40561&SpecSess=&Session= .
SB 0139 is awaiting its committee assignment.
However, we urge Illinois dog owners to take two actions now.
Please contact the Committee on Assignments and ask them to commit SB 0139 to the Agriculture Committee, which would be more sensitive to the concerns of animal owners. Here is contact information for the assignment committee: www.ilga.gov/senate/committees/members.asp?committeeID=760 .
Also, please contact your own state senator and ask her or him to oppose this legislation. Here is a list of links for every state senator: www.ilga.gov/senate/ .
Pennsylvania
Last year, Rep. Thomas R. Caltagirone (D-Berks County) introduced House Bill 2532, which would have restricted a person’s ability to dock tails or clip dewclaws on a litter of young puppies. This legislation died when the session ended before last Christmas. It passed the state House unanimously with 198 “yes” votes, but died in the Senate Agriculture Committee.
Rep. Caltagirone is back again with the same bill, which now is called HB 39. This bill appears to be moving quickly, as it already has been committed to the House Judiciary Committee and moved to the Appropriations Committee. Rep. Caltagirone is chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance sees HB 39 as very dangerous legislation because it is based on a series of ambiguities that do not clearly spell out a dog owner’s responsibilities or provide a clear definition of proof of innocence.
The heart of the measure is that the owner of a litter of puppies can clip dewclaws or dock tails until the puppies are five days old, after which time it legally becomes animal cruelty. The litter owner also can have a veterinarian perform the procedure.
The dangerous ambiguity comes because the bill provides no way for the owner of a litter to prove that tail docking or dewclaw removal was done legally, except if it is done by a veterinarian, who could certify it. Thus, no way is given to a litter owner who legally performs these procedures to prove her or his innocence if he or she is falsely or mistakenly charged with violating this law.
The legislation demands that a litter owner keep a record of the procedure, but does not specify what kind of record must be kept, or what kind of record will be sufficient legal evidence if the litter owner is confronted by an animal cruelty police officer or is taken to court on a charge of animal cruelty.
This alone makes it very dangerous and poorly conceived legislation.
HB 39 also says that the evidence of an unhealed wound from tail docking or dewclaw removal is “prima facie” evidence of a violation of the animal cruelty statutes. “Prima facie” means that an accused person is automatically guilty and has no defense against the charge.
This creates many gray areas. First, it may take several days for the wound to completely heal, which could be beyond the fifth day. Second, many people could not actually prove how old their puppies are in court, unless there was a witness to the whelping.
Thus, the American Sporting Dog Alliance believes that HB 39 is a backdoor attempt to require a veterinarian to perform all tail docking or dewclaw removal procedures, as there would be no other way for a litter owner to prove they were done legally in court.
HB 39 also creates a very real and very dangerous situation for anyone whose dog loses a tail accidentally. With hunting dogs that move with a merry and cracking tail, for example, broken tails are not uncommon. Sometimes the part of the tail that is above the break atrophies and falls off, leaving exposed flesh until healing is complete. This would subject the dog’s owner to a charge of animal cruelty for a purely accidental event of a dog’s tail whipping against a rock or tree.
Also, on occasion, a puppy’s tail can be broken in the womb or shortly after birth by its mother. These kinds of broken tails almost always atrophy and fall off when the puppy is several weeks or months old.
Many other dogs lose their tails accidentally by having them caught in car or house doors, stepped on, or struck by a hard and heavy object such as a falling tree limb. A legitimate accident should not be the basis for a possible animal cruelty charge.
Moreover, the entire concept of a dog owner being forced to prove her or his innocence runs against the most basic American principle of justice: That a person is presumed to be innocent unless guilt can be proven in court. It is unconstitutional and un-American to force people into a legal situation of having to prove their own innocence.
Like most animal rights-inspired legislation, HB 39 attempts to use a sensationalized issue to garner support. In the case of HB 39, the issue is “debarking.” Animal rights activists claim that some commercial kennels “debark” dogs by breaking their vocal chords with a pipe or other object.
Simply put, we have never seen or even heard of anyone doing this. Nor have we seen the slightest shred of proof to indicate that this is being done in commercial kennels or anywhere else as anything more than an isolated and rare incident.
We abhor the animal rights group tactic of using an emotionally charged but almost nonexistent problem to try to push through legislation to take away dog owners’ rights to perform common, safe and painless procedures like docking the tails of young puppies.
Comparing tail docking to “debarking” is even more far-fetched than comparing apples to oranges. It’s more like comparing apples to chainsaws.
HB 39 amends current law, which already contains similar provisions for ear cropping. Ear cropping must be done only by a veterinarian, or the work performed before the effective date of the act and certified before a county treasure, under existing law.
We believe this section of the law should be repealed, as many people buy or are given a dog that has had its ears cropped, but have no way of proving that the work was done legally. In addition, many people bring dogs with cropped ears into Pennsylvania from other states where the laws are different. It is wrong to place law-abiding people in the cruel situation of having to part with or euthanize a beloved family pet because of a poorly conceived law.
Also, the ear cropping law would do tremendous harm to rescue work and animal shelter adoptions, because few if any dogs that would come into such a program would have the required proof that ear cropping was done legally. Most of these dogs are strays or pets that have been abandoned, or dogs that have been confiscated from illegal kennels. The absence of a veterinarian’s certificate would offer only one choice under the law: Euthanize the dog or face possible animal cruelty charges.
That is not fair to the dogs that enter rescue or sheltering programs. These dogs have a tough enough time finding loving homes.
SB 39 also would give state dog wardens the legal authority to enforce animal cruelty laws in counties that have not appointed a humane society police officer. Under current law, dog wardens cannot enforce animal cruelty laws.
Many areas of Pennsylvania do not have an officially designated animal cruelty officer. Sometimes, this is because a trained officer is not available.
However, over the past year there has been much dissention within the ranks of animal cruelty police officers and the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which administers the law enforcement program. Many humane police officers have been fired or have quit over the past year, and state dog wardens have reported that many counties do not have anyone to handle cruelty cases.
We question whether the state Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement has the manpower to do this job, especially in light of last year’s complicated new kennel and dog law, which has severely strained the Bureau’s resources. It also may cause all of the conflicts and problems associated with the expression, “too many cooks in the kitchen.”
Please read this legislation for yourself: www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2009&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0039&pn=0031 .
If last year is a measure, HB 39 can be expected to garner considerable support in the state House of Representatives.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging every Pennsylvania dog owner to contact members of the Judiciary and Appropriations committees, and also his or her own representative, to voice opposition to HB 39.
Here is a link to all representatives’ home pages and contact information: www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/representatives_alpha.cfm .
Here is a link to members of the Judiciary Committee: www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/cteeInfo/cteeInfo.cfm?cde=24&body=H . Comments should include the legal problems presented by this legislation, and the lack of a clear standard of proof of guilt or innocence.
Here is a link to members of the Appropriations Committee: www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/cteeInfo/cteeInfo.cfm?cde=4&body=H . Comments should include the costs of enforcing and prosecuting this law, as this is the job of the Appropriations Committee.
HB 39 was cosponsored by Reps. Adolph, Belfanti, Beyer, Brennan, Buxton, D. Costa, Fabrizio, Frankel, Freeman, Goodman, Grucela, Hornaman, Killion, Kortz, Manderino, Mann, M. O’Brien, O’Neill, Pashinsky, Payne, Readshaw, Samuelson, Santoni, Siptroth, Sturla, Swanger, Vulakovich, Watson, White and Walco.
If your representative is a cosponsor, please ask him or her to withdraw support for HB 39.
PA Puppy Lemon Law
Senate Bill 50, introduced by Sen. Stewart Greenleaf (R-Bucks and Montgomery Counties), enhances protections both for puppy buyers and breeders under Pennsylvania’s current “Puppy Lemon Law.”
The American Sporting Dog Alliance generally supports this bill.
Here are some of the changes:
· Buyer protection: Extends the period from 10 to 14 days after the date of purchase for a puppy buyer to have a dog examined that has become clinically ill or has died from a contagious, infectious or parasitic disease.
· Buyer protection: Current law says that a breeder must reimburse the buyer for the reasonable cost of curing the disease. This bill adds treating the disease to the cost of reimbursement.
· Buyer protection: It expands the covered timeframe for a dog that has died of a genetic or congenital disease from 30 to 90 days.
· Breeder protection: Liability will not be extended for puppies that have internal or external parasites, unless the dog is clinically ill or dies from them.
· Breeder protection: A breeder is not liable for a dog that becomes sick or dies from an injury or illness likely contacted while in possession of the purchaser.
· Breeder protection: A breeder will not be liable for any medical problem that was fully disclosed to the purchaser in writing before the sale.
· Buyer protection: The time limit to report a problem to the breeder was extended from two days to five days.
Here is a link to the text of this legislation: www.legis.state.pa.us/dtsearch.asp?cmd=getdoc&DocId=192&Index=D%3a%5cProgram%20Files%5cdtSearch%20Developer%5cUserData%5c20090txt&HitCount=3&hits=657+66c+68c+&hc=5&req=kennel&mindx=20090txt&fc=2&ndoc=0&nPage=1 .
SB 50 has been introduced into the Senate Consumer Protection and Special Licensure Committee. No action has been taken to date.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web at www.americansportingdogalliance.org . Our email is asda@csonline.net .
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS
PA Puppy ‘Lemon Law’ Also May Be Strengthened
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@conline.net
This article is archived at:
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is taking aim at tail docking, ear cropping and dewclaw removal this year.
An Illinois bill would make tail docking and ear cropping a felony, even if done by a veterinarian. In Pennsylvania, legislation that died last year would have restricted tail docking, ear cropping and dewclaw removal. This bill has been resurrected this year.
Another Pennsylvania bill would strengthen the state’s puppy “Lemon Law.”
Tail docking and ear cropping are under assault by the animal rights movement, which sees them as mutilation. The Illinois bill calls it “torture.”
These common practices have been banned in several European countries, and HSUS and its allies want to see these practices become illegal in America, too.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly supports the right of every breeder to make his or her own choices about tail docking, ear cropping and dewclaw removal. If done correctly, these practice do not harm a young puppy in any way and are extremely safe, virtually painless and also may serve an important purpose for many hunting dogs, terriers, working dogs, guard dogs and herding dogs.
To call the common and traditional practices of tail docking and dewclaw removal “torture” or “mutilation” is completely absurd. Quite frankly, anyone who describes these practices in those terms is confessing to appalling ignorance about them, and about dogs.
We are urging dog owners to join us in fighting any legislation that prohibits, criminalizes or overly restricts the responsible and conscientious choices of dog breeders.
Illinois
Current Illinois law specifically excludes tail docking and ear cropping from the crime of animal torture.
However, Senate Bill 0139, introduced by Sen. Terry Link (D-Lake County), removes those exclusions and adds tail docking and ear cropping to the list of acts that would constitute animal torture, which is a third class felony offense.
SB 0139 makes ear cropping a felony in all cases.
Tail docking would become a felony under SB0139 in almost all cases, even if it is performed by a veterinarian. A veterinarian would be allowed to dock a tail only “for a medical reason.”
Docking for any other reason, such as to assist the dog in hunting or herding, or to conform to the official standard for a particular breed, would be a felony under SB 0139.
Please read this legislation for yourself: www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=76&GA=96&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=139&GAID=10&LegID=40561&SpecSess=&Session= .
SB 0139 is awaiting its committee assignment.
However, we urge Illinois dog owners to take two actions now.
Please contact the Committee on Assignments and ask them to commit SB 0139 to the Agriculture Committee, which would be more sensitive to the concerns of animal owners. Here is contact information for the assignment committee: www.ilga.gov/senate/committees/members.asp?committeeID=760 .
Also, please contact your own state senator and ask her or him to oppose this legislation. Here is a list of links for every state senator: www.ilga.gov/senate/ .
Pennsylvania
Last year, Rep. Thomas R. Caltagirone (D-Berks County) introduced House Bill 2532, which would have restricted a person’s ability to dock tails or clip dewclaws on a litter of young puppies. This legislation died when the session ended before last Christmas. It passed the state House unanimously with 198 “yes” votes, but died in the Senate Agriculture Committee.
Rep. Caltagirone is back again with the same bill, which now is called HB 39. This bill appears to be moving quickly, as it already has been committed to the House Judiciary Committee and moved to the Appropriations Committee. Rep. Caltagirone is chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance sees HB 39 as very dangerous legislation because it is based on a series of ambiguities that do not clearly spell out a dog owner’s responsibilities or provide a clear definition of proof of innocence.
The heart of the measure is that the owner of a litter of puppies can clip dewclaws or dock tails until the puppies are five days old, after which time it legally becomes animal cruelty. The litter owner also can have a veterinarian perform the procedure.
The dangerous ambiguity comes because the bill provides no way for the owner of a litter to prove that tail docking or dewclaw removal was done legally, except if it is done by a veterinarian, who could certify it. Thus, no way is given to a litter owner who legally performs these procedures to prove her or his innocence if he or she is falsely or mistakenly charged with violating this law.
The legislation demands that a litter owner keep a record of the procedure, but does not specify what kind of record must be kept, or what kind of record will be sufficient legal evidence if the litter owner is confronted by an animal cruelty police officer or is taken to court on a charge of animal cruelty.
This alone makes it very dangerous and poorly conceived legislation.
HB 39 also says that the evidence of an unhealed wound from tail docking or dewclaw removal is “prima facie” evidence of a violation of the animal cruelty statutes. “Prima facie” means that an accused person is automatically guilty and has no defense against the charge.
This creates many gray areas. First, it may take several days for the wound to completely heal, which could be beyond the fifth day. Second, many people could not actually prove how old their puppies are in court, unless there was a witness to the whelping.
Thus, the American Sporting Dog Alliance believes that HB 39 is a backdoor attempt to require a veterinarian to perform all tail docking or dewclaw removal procedures, as there would be no other way for a litter owner to prove they were done legally in court.
HB 39 also creates a very real and very dangerous situation for anyone whose dog loses a tail accidentally. With hunting dogs that move with a merry and cracking tail, for example, broken tails are not uncommon. Sometimes the part of the tail that is above the break atrophies and falls off, leaving exposed flesh until healing is complete. This would subject the dog’s owner to a charge of animal cruelty for a purely accidental event of a dog’s tail whipping against a rock or tree.
Also, on occasion, a puppy’s tail can be broken in the womb or shortly after birth by its mother. These kinds of broken tails almost always atrophy and fall off when the puppy is several weeks or months old.
Many other dogs lose their tails accidentally by having them caught in car or house doors, stepped on, or struck by a hard and heavy object such as a falling tree limb. A legitimate accident should not be the basis for a possible animal cruelty charge.
Moreover, the entire concept of a dog owner being forced to prove her or his innocence runs against the most basic American principle of justice: That a person is presumed to be innocent unless guilt can be proven in court. It is unconstitutional and un-American to force people into a legal situation of having to prove their own innocence.
Like most animal rights-inspired legislation, HB 39 attempts to use a sensationalized issue to garner support. In the case of HB 39, the issue is “debarking.” Animal rights activists claim that some commercial kennels “debark” dogs by breaking their vocal chords with a pipe or other object.
Simply put, we have never seen or even heard of anyone doing this. Nor have we seen the slightest shred of proof to indicate that this is being done in commercial kennels or anywhere else as anything more than an isolated and rare incident.
We abhor the animal rights group tactic of using an emotionally charged but almost nonexistent problem to try to push through legislation to take away dog owners’ rights to perform common, safe and painless procedures like docking the tails of young puppies.
Comparing tail docking to “debarking” is even more far-fetched than comparing apples to oranges. It’s more like comparing apples to chainsaws.
HB 39 amends current law, which already contains similar provisions for ear cropping. Ear cropping must be done only by a veterinarian, or the work performed before the effective date of the act and certified before a county treasure, under existing law.
We believe this section of the law should be repealed, as many people buy or are given a dog that has had its ears cropped, but have no way of proving that the work was done legally. In addition, many people bring dogs with cropped ears into Pennsylvania from other states where the laws are different. It is wrong to place law-abiding people in the cruel situation of having to part with or euthanize a beloved family pet because of a poorly conceived law.
Also, the ear cropping law would do tremendous harm to rescue work and animal shelter adoptions, because few if any dogs that would come into such a program would have the required proof that ear cropping was done legally. Most of these dogs are strays or pets that have been abandoned, or dogs that have been confiscated from illegal kennels. The absence of a veterinarian’s certificate would offer only one choice under the law: Euthanize the dog or face possible animal cruelty charges.
That is not fair to the dogs that enter rescue or sheltering programs. These dogs have a tough enough time finding loving homes.
SB 39 also would give state dog wardens the legal authority to enforce animal cruelty laws in counties that have not appointed a humane society police officer. Under current law, dog wardens cannot enforce animal cruelty laws.
Many areas of Pennsylvania do not have an officially designated animal cruelty officer. Sometimes, this is because a trained officer is not available.
However, over the past year there has been much dissention within the ranks of animal cruelty police officers and the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which administers the law enforcement program. Many humane police officers have been fired or have quit over the past year, and state dog wardens have reported that many counties do not have anyone to handle cruelty cases.
We question whether the state Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement has the manpower to do this job, especially in light of last year’s complicated new kennel and dog law, which has severely strained the Bureau’s resources. It also may cause all of the conflicts and problems associated with the expression, “too many cooks in the kitchen.”
Please read this legislation for yourself: www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2009&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0039&pn=0031 .
If last year is a measure, HB 39 can be expected to garner considerable support in the state House of Representatives.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging every Pennsylvania dog owner to contact members of the Judiciary and Appropriations committees, and also his or her own representative, to voice opposition to HB 39.
Here is a link to all representatives’ home pages and contact information: www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/representatives_alpha.cfm .
Here is a link to members of the Judiciary Committee: www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/cteeInfo/cteeInfo.cfm?cde=24&body=H . Comments should include the legal problems presented by this legislation, and the lack of a clear standard of proof of guilt or innocence.
Here is a link to members of the Appropriations Committee: www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/cteeInfo/cteeInfo.cfm?cde=4&body=H . Comments should include the costs of enforcing and prosecuting this law, as this is the job of the Appropriations Committee.
HB 39 was cosponsored by Reps. Adolph, Belfanti, Beyer, Brennan, Buxton, D. Costa, Fabrizio, Frankel, Freeman, Goodman, Grucela, Hornaman, Killion, Kortz, Manderino, Mann, M. O’Brien, O’Neill, Pashinsky, Payne, Readshaw, Samuelson, Santoni, Siptroth, Sturla, Swanger, Vulakovich, Watson, White and Walco.
If your representative is a cosponsor, please ask him or her to withdraw support for HB 39.
PA Puppy Lemon Law
Senate Bill 50, introduced by Sen. Stewart Greenleaf (R-Bucks and Montgomery Counties), enhances protections both for puppy buyers and breeders under Pennsylvania’s current “Puppy Lemon Law.”
The American Sporting Dog Alliance generally supports this bill.
Here are some of the changes:
· Buyer protection: Extends the period from 10 to 14 days after the date of purchase for a puppy buyer to have a dog examined that has become clinically ill or has died from a contagious, infectious or parasitic disease.
· Buyer protection: Current law says that a breeder must reimburse the buyer for the reasonable cost of curing the disease. This bill adds treating the disease to the cost of reimbursement.
· Buyer protection: It expands the covered timeframe for a dog that has died of a genetic or congenital disease from 30 to 90 days.
· Breeder protection: Liability will not be extended for puppies that have internal or external parasites, unless the dog is clinically ill or dies from them.
· Breeder protection: A breeder is not liable for a dog that becomes sick or dies from an injury or illness likely contacted while in possession of the purchaser.
· Breeder protection: A breeder will not be liable for any medical problem that was fully disclosed to the purchaser in writing before the sale.
· Buyer protection: The time limit to report a problem to the breeder was extended from two days to five days.
Here is a link to the text of this legislation: www.legis.state.pa.us/dtsearch.asp?cmd=getdoc&DocId=192&Index=D%3a%5cProgram%20Files%5cdtSearch%20Developer%5cUserData%5c20090txt&HitCount=3&hits=657+66c+68c+&hc=5&req=kennel&mindx=20090txt&fc=2&ndoc=0&nPage=1 .
SB 50 has been introduced into the Senate Consumer Protection and Special Licensure Committee. No action has been taken to date.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web at www.americansportingdogalliance.org . Our email is asda@csonline.net .
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS