Saturday, June 20, 2009

NY Assemblywoman Amy Paulin: Pet Killer

Clueless in Westchester

In her mad rush to comply with the wishes of her animal extremist masters, Amy Paulin (D-Westchester) betrayed both the civil rights of her constituents and the well-being of the pets they love.

Here's how she did it:

Criminalization of animal ownership

On March 27, 2009 Paulin introduced
A 7285, a proposal making it illegal to own, or have custody of, well-cared for, healthy, happy dogs or cats. It's all about the numbers. Paulin's bill makes it illegal to own "too many" animals, unless the animals have been subjected to surgical sterilization.

Paulin's intent is to halt the breeding of dogs and cats in New York, and her best buddies at the
Humane Society of the United States support her every step of the way.

Amy Paulin: Kill "extra" dogs and cats

Halting responsible and humane breeding is bad enough. But Paulin's nightmare proposal goes one step further: A 7285 will take healthy pet animals away from their owners and kill them.

Under Paulin's proposal, if an owner is accused of having "too many" dogs and or cats, the animals are subject to forfeiture. The impounding organization can kill the forfeited animals, at their discretion, if the owner is unable to post a security bond promptly.

Paulin: No due process, no right to privacy

Incredibly, forfeiture takes place long, long before dog and cat owners are allowed their day in court. The impounding organization may sell off, or kill, seized dogs and cats months before court proceedings are concluded.

Faced with prosecution and seizure of their dogs and cats if accused of exceeding Paulin's arbitrary limit, owners could even be forced to put down healthy animals themselves.

A 7285's many, many defects were carefully analyzed by the
Dog Federation of New York, and the New York Farm Bureau opposes Paulin's bill.

Paulin's other really stupid mistake: warrantless searches of private homes, records

A 7983 is a proposal that will drive every single hobby cat and dog breeder out of the state of New York. A 7983 makes people who occasionally breed dogs and cats in their homes subject to the same extensive regulation that pet dealers must now comply with.

And then Paulin added a laundry list of additional inappropriate, expensive and unrealistic regulations.
In a shocking assault on their right to privacy, hobby pet breeders will be forced to open their homes to inspection by New York State or its agents at any time. Pet breeders must also authorize their vet and their breed registries to hand over records to New York State, without a warrant, or face prosecution.

New York pet lovers wedged between a rock and a hard place

The message is clear: Paulin wants small home and hobby breeders gone.

Paulin wants moderate-to-larger kennels and breeding facilities gone too, regardless of how well they care for their animals.

Where are New Yorkers supposed to find pet dogs and cats, Assemblywoman Paulin?

The Paulin solution

Paulin does not support well-managed, humane and lawful dog and cat breeders of any size or type.

That much is abundantly clear.

Does Amy Paulin really want to force New Yorkers into buying miserable pups and kittens

smuggled here from Mexico and other distant places and sold out of the trunks of cars at flea markets?

Amy Paulin: Bad for pets. Bad for the people that love them.


  1. Paulin’s bills will seriously affect the ability of New York families to purchase local home-raised puppies and kittens.
    Imagine this scenario, Ms. Paulin. Five or ten years from now, when you have agreed to watch your little granddaughter for an hour or two, you get an important phone call relating to some pending legislative matter designed to strip away more of the rights of your constituents. You take your eyes off of her for only a moment, but when you look for her again she is gone. Where are you going to get the dog to help you find her in the woods behind your house before night falls? Certainly not your local police. Their bloodhound was retired two years ago and they have not been able to find a replacement because none are being bred. And why not? Because of all the animal rights legislation you have sponsored and/or voted for in the last ten years.
    Or how about this scenario? Your neighbor, who was paralyzed fighting for his country and your rights in Afghanistan, has had an assistance dog for years. But his dog died last year and he has been unable to find a replacement because none are being bred. Sound familiar? This is your thanks for his service and sacrifice.
    Your legislation has denied your neighbor his independence. Your vote has killed your granddaughter.
    Do you think this is a gross exaggeration of the effects of this ill-advised legislation? Not really. The bill defines anyone who possesses more than four intact female dogs or sells more than nine puppies a year as a "commercial dealer." This definition would be devastating to almost all hobby breeders in New York, as well as possibly impacting professional trainers, boarding kennels, veterinarians and many others who simply love dogs and cats, including pet owners with intact animals. Anyone who fits into this definition would be subject to intense regulation, tough (and constitutionally suspect) inspections, and huge fines and penalties.
    I would like to ask you, what is the problem this law is purported to address? Is it truly a problem or is this just part of a hidden agenda by the people pulling your strings? Is this problem, if it even exists, already addressed by laws currently in existence? If so, why are these laws not working? And an even more basic question, assuming that this law is supposed to address an existing problem (and I have grave doubts that this is truly the case), will this law actually fix the problem? How do you know? Are you taking some lobbyist's word for it that there is a problem and this will fix it? Have you seen unbiased studies on the effects of similar laws on similar problems in other areas? Is there a better way of addressing this supposed problem?
    And a final question - what are the unintended consequences of this law? I personally believe that legislators should be required to take an oath similar to the Hippocratic oath - FIRST DO NO HARM. If you have taken an oath like that, it is obvious your word is no good.

  2. continuing the comment above:

    Harking back to the original scenario above, I remember the last weekend I spent at bloodhound trailing trials here in New York. Bloodhound handlers come from states all around to have their dogs assessed. Of the 8 dogs tested on that weekend, 4 were handled by active search and rescue personnel who are either currently using the dogs or are training them to replace dogs who are getting older. Of the three judges, two are active on search teams and the other has just recently retired from active searches now that she is in her 80's. One of the judges handles the only dog who has ever been awarded the lifesaving award by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Another handles a dog who has been given an award of merit from AKC for search and rescue activities. The search team based in Pennsylvania had 58 callouts in 2007, both missing persons and tracking for police agencies. Of the missing person cases, they had successful finds in more than 80% of the cases, mostly Alzheimers patients. Where would those people and their families be now without that dog?

    Search and rescue personnel typically do not breed their own dogs, they buy from breeders with established reputations who do the required health testing and temperament testing on the parents, who work and train with the parents to assure themselves that the dogs they produce will have the required work ethic, etc. etc. These are exactly the breeders your law will force out of existence. One litter of bloodhounds can often be 10 or 12 puppies or more. If the breeder sells 9 they are automatically a pet dealer under these proposed laws. And when your animal control officer, who unfortunately way too often nowadays is an animal rights activist (have you apprised yourself of the FBI's opinion of animal rights groups and their connection to domestic terrorism?), comes to "inspect" under this law, that will be the end of their breeding program. And the end of your granddaughter, or your neighbor's son lost in the woods on a hunting trip, or your husband carjacked by the escaped felon that one of those dogs that was never bred would have tracked for the police officers pursuing him.

  3. continuing comment from above:

    And this is only one scenario for one breed. What about the Australian Shepherd that could have rounded up the escaped herd of cows before they caused a train derailment? What about the drowning victim the Newfoundland was not there to save? Or the fluffy little lapdog that goes to hospitals and nursing homes and enriches the lives of the desperately ill people he visits? And so on and so on.

    Where will your children and your friends' children get the puppy with the stable temperament and known health history and the lifetime backing of the caring breeder willing to help with any problems? Not in New York, that's for sure.

    For all those constituents of Ms. Paulin and her ilk – let her know how you feel. Tell her now in letters and faxes. And tell her at the ballot box!

  4. If the Assemblywoman is trying to address the non-existent "overpopulation"problem by denying breedeng, why is North Shore Animal League importing and selling dogs from other countries, at least one dog was found later found to have rabies, and people exposed had to undergo the post-exposure vaccination.

    Maybe you need to address the shelters selling (YES< SELLING) animals, not "adopting"

    Bring on them sick animals from Puerto Rico (oops my bad, that's not importing), and other countries (yanno those pathetic little things rake in the donations) Anyway, that's where the next generation of mangy, ill-bred pets will come from. Shelters as businesses, or moonshiners breeding dogs out on the back 40 under a dilapidated lean-to.

    great job, Assemblywoman!