Original Message -----
From: jan cooper
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 5:42 PM
Subject: GENINFO: USDA meeting with canine 'farmers' in PA
FYI....I just got this in........some scary thoughts, we have
permission to forward. .....I have done no editing, the following
letter is as I received it.........jan
At 06:27 PM 7/9/2006, you wrote:
>I recently attented a meeting with the Pennsylvania Department of
>Agticulture - Department of Animal Control.
>I listened intently for about 90 minutes regarding how the
>enforcement of current laws regarding existing puppy mills would
>have a disatrous effect on the the Mennonite and Amish communities,
>that had given up their primary agricultural crop of tobacco to
>become successful breeders of all types of dogs.
>During this discussion the subject of TAILED ROTTWEILERS came
>up...the oponion is that this NEW BREED of Rottweiler should not be
>declared a VICIOUS dog - because there has been so little time to do
>any research into THIS NEW BREED...
>The farmers are claiming that since they speak the same language as
>that of the FCI - that should be allowed to import fresh bloodlines
>from Europe and attempt to determine if the NEW BREED is as vicous
>as the existing breed - that has been here in America for almost 60
>years and has been turned from the loving family dogs that they
>raise to that of uncontrollable vicous dogs that are now so largely
>bred by irresponsible breeders outside of their communities.
>After a bit of uncontrollable laughing from the gallery the lawyer,
>thats right the lawyer for the farmers asked why we were laughing -
>I got up and with the permission of the chairman, i tried to with a
>straight face explain that the NEW BREED AND OLD BREED were one int the same.
>And the idea that the farmers were raising loveing puppies who were
>allegdedly raised in the home was about as truthful as Clinton not
>having had sex with woman.
>Given all of the BSL legisaltion that is overcrowding the courts the
>lawyer for the farmers pointed out that recently the parent club of
>Rottweilers in this country have not been successful in introducing
>an alternative breed standard that coincided with that of the FCI in
>that a Rottweiler had a tail...the chairman had asked as to the
>interpatation of the new FCI bill and the attorney said that
>ROTTWEILERS must have tails in order to be judged in Europe and most
>of the world - but here in the United States that we held ourselves
>above the rest of the world and decreed that Rottweilers need not
>have a Tail as their cousin from across the pond...
>The chairman asked if i was a Rottweiler breeder...I stated that in
>the past while being a member of the Colonial Rottweiler Club that
>yes i had bred my
>bitches in accordance with the Code of Ethics that was at the time
>the standard to which we maintained our breed...and, at that time
>there was only the standard that Rottweilers did not have a
>tail...He then asked if I was still a member of the Colonial or the
>American Rottweiler Club and if I still had Rottweilers....At this
>time - I took a deep breath - thought for a moment - and said that -
>yes I still have Rottweilers (2) but that I was no longer a member
>of the CRC or The ARC...that I thought that a rottweiler is given
>the right upbringing and proper socialization a natural addition to
>the family as both a companion and friend that its owner could count
>on in the time of trouble...I stated that whether the Rottweiler had
>a tail or not has nothing to do with the quality of the breed,
>however i also stated that farmers turned puppy mills were more
>concerned with producing as many rottweiler puppies as they could &
>has much forethought about genetics as they did about the way they
>allow brothers and sister to marry within their own communities as
>opposed to the way that breeders who belong to Code of Ethics clubs,
>are more concerned about bettering the breed through research and
>progeny produced than by making a living from the indiscrimnate sale
>of puppies through pet shops and over the web.
>I explained that for the majority of code of ethic clubs, that we
>care where are progeny go, that we do extensive research into the
>background of the potential parents and are akin to seeing what they
>have produced in the past, so that we may better the future...
>The attorney for the farmers interjected that they do the same, I
>said the same what....I said in your communities you allow brothers
>and sisters to marry, that you allow 1st cousins to marry, that you
>already know what will be produced because you have your own book of
>past marriages, but you do not concern yourselves as to what will
>happen to your progeny because they very rarely leave
>home.... Whereas we on the outside world are concerned about
>genetics an the adverse effects of doing line breedings and are
>concerned regading where our progeny go because we as a rule do not
>keep them all at home.
>The chairman asked what is the position of the ARC & CRC regarding
>the tail controversay ...I explained that the membership was split
>and that the parent club during its last national had in on its list
>of topics to discuss, but managed to sidestep the discussion when a
>report of a false tornadoe warning was conveniently issued. an as to
>my knowledge it has not been at that time decided one way or the other....
>I was asked if I was still an active member of either club - my
>answer was a short and to the point NO! the question was as to why...
>I said that given the fact that the current board of
>governors(directors) were more concerned about whether or not the
>Rottweiler had a tail and less concerned as to the fighting of the
>attempts to ban our breed or limit it right to survive as we know it
>- goes to show me that like Republicans and Democrats they can not
>ever agree on anything other than what is deemed petty to the public
>but of extreme importance to themselves....
>I also expressed the fact that given the increasing amount of BSL
>legislation that is creeping up around this country that the primary
>target for all clubs is to first protect the breed and then settle
>the petty bullshizzle later....
>I also stated that I have other breeds and that in addition to
>making sure that have the right to own them as I maintain my right
>to own Rottweilers that
>when I see goverment officals attempting to deny me this right then
>it is time to stand and fight for the right to own dogs, as many as
>I want as long as they are properly cared for and not likely to have
>an adverse effect on the community at large!
>I was the only rottweiler owner there..there were owners of pit
>bull, amstaff, german shepherds, dobermans & danes - but no one else
>from the world of Rotts!
>OUR BREED is going to get banned...
>ALL OF YOU WHO ARE SITTING ON YOUR ASSES WAITING FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO
>STAND UP FOR YOU, WILL NOT HAVE A SECOND CHANCE AT TRYING TO CHANGE
>THE GOVERMENTS MIND AFTER THEY BAN OUR BREED!
>Either stand and fight or bury your heads deeper into the ground.
>and get the hell out of the way for those of who want to keep our Breed alive
Name removed by jan
(jan cooper) firstname.lastname@example.org
The OLDEST BSL site in the world
and home of BSL BROADCASTS
Rottweiler database manager on PAW VILLAGE http://www.pawvillage.com
The Lord will never give us more than he knows we can bear..