Page 324 - ShowSight - December 2019

Jennifer E. Embury, DVM, JD continued
They are creating their own definitions and we are allowing these radical groups who know nothing about animal care and hus- bandry to do so. If you don’t agree with their ideology they will bully and harass you and ultimately steal your ability to make a living or own animals. They are chipping away under this false pre- tense that it is cruel to exhibit an animal—where our nation has been keeping and practicing animal husbandry for centuries and these people have been lauded and revered. Now they are fighting for their very existence.
Farmers and ranchers who produce food for our nation are also being undermined by these radical animal rights groups. These groups don’t understand it’s in your best interest to take good care of your animals, otherwise you don’t have a product to sell. Legisla- tors are falling for these false accusations by animal rights organiza- tions who know absolutely nothing about animal husbandry. These ranchers who grow and raise our food should be lauded and revered for what they do but instead they’re getting thrown under the bus, pushed off their land, thrown in jail, animals stolen—is this Amer- ica? Pay attention to what’s going on in your local and state legisla- ture. These laws are being passed stealthily without citizens being aware they are being passed. It’s essential to organize your own local groups and fight back.” https://www.thecavalrygroup.com/
Finally, I would like to briefly discuss possible challenges to some of the more commonly proposed anti-breeder ordinances and legislature that may violate the Florida Constitution. I encourage all of you to attend your local city and county meetings and bring these issues up with board members before they become law. In some places, these proposals have already been enacted into legislation. In those cases I encourage people to hire an attorney to challenge the constitutional validity of these ordinances.
The first issue concerns governmental takings. Many propos- als suggest there be a maximum number of adult intact animals allowed at a breeding facility or maximum number of adult animals allowed at any time, as well as setting maximum number of animals offered for sale (such as 20 animals or two litters per year). Destruc- tion of healthy, valuable animals (either by forced sterilization, or by forcing owners to get rid of them) that pose no danger to public safety, exceeds the county’s authority. Dog owners could argue the destruction of their valuable breeding animals that they have spent a lifetime developing, constitutes a taking of their property enti- tling them to full compensation. Furthermore, limiting dog owners’ ability to make a living or establish a breeding program by limit- ing them on the number of the animals they are allowed to own, will also be considered a taking by the courts by depriving them of income and will be found unconstitutional.
The second issue deals with illegal search and seizure. The fol- lowing sections of the proposed ordinance such as retention and inspection of records, including transactions-such as personal busi- ness records; and random inspections are subject to challenge under the Florida Constitution, which guarantees the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. A court order is required for inspection of your property or private business records.
The third issue deals with access to courts. The Florida Consti- tution provides that the courts are open to every person to redress any injury. A law that prevents a person’s day in court is prohib- ited. Here, there is no rational basis to diminish an owner’s right to compensation in the courts for destruction and violation of their personal property such as forced sterilization of valuable breeding animals, warrantless inspection of real and personal property, and violation of a dog owner’s right and ability to make a living.
The fourth issue deals with equal protection laws. These pro- posals deal with such actions as prohibiting unsterilized animals without breeder permits, requiring spay/neuter of cats unless cer- tain exemptions are met for licensed breeders, regulation of intact
animals through differential licensing and a requirement to confine animals in heat.
Here the ordinance treats dog owners differently whether they are subjectively classified as a hobby, commercial, or accidental breeder. This ordinance also affords different treatment based on the amount of income derived from sales and treats dog “breeders” differently from other types of dog owners like “regular pet owners”. Thus, similarly situated people are being treated differently.
The final issue deals with due process. It pertains to the part of the proposal that deals with revocation of permits, code enforce- ment for failing to have appropriate permits or failing to meet defined standards and injunctions to require breeders to comply with a Breeder’s License program or cease breeding/sale of animals.
Similar to the due process provisions in the Fourteenth Amend- ment, the Florida Constitution provides that the government can- not take a person’s life, liberty or property without due process of law. This includes substantive due process, which prohibits arbi- trary laws. These proposed ordinances are arbitrary in that they discriminate unfairly between similarly situated groups of people such as regular pet owners and so-called dog breeders. There is no evidence that “dog breeders” impose a threat to public or human safety. If fact the majority of dog breeders go above and beyond in practicing safe and humane practices, more so than the average pet owner.
JOY ANNUNZIATO
I have always had a love of dogs at a young age. My first dog I was six and she trained me! My first breed officially at 24 was Siberian Huskies that I bred and trained for obedience. My present breed is Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retrievers.
I loved the relationship and bond that was built through train- ing and marveled at the quickness at which they learned.
My mentors in Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retrievers were the early pioneers in forming the NSDTRC (USA): LeeAnn Glea- son of Cayuga Kennels, Jean Gilroy of Shamrock Kennels, Cathy Thompson of Frog Hollow Kennels and Shelly Kurth of Hawks Nest Kennels.
There are several great things about being a breeder: watching you puppies grow and determining their special qualities structur- ally, what they love to do and personalities. Meeting all the new puppy owners and forming lasting friendships is a big plus for me.
The toughest thing for a breeder: making decision to keep a pup or not and the biggest is to medically intervene if necessary to to let cross the Rainbow Bridge.
Do I work outside of the home and is my family involved? I am retired at this point so much easier for my travels and litters. My husband does help with the care of the adults and pups.
Am I involved with a breed club or all-breed club and held posi- tions within the club(s)? I am an active member in the NSDTRC (USA) , a Regional Director within the club, Field Chair, Planned and organized a Toller National Specialty and am affiliated with three Retriever clubs.
My kennel described: pups are whelped and raised within my home. I have acreage both north and south so the outside areas are full of enrichment toys, pup agility equipment, etc.
How did I come up with my kennel name and is it registered with AKC? I am not AKC registered but being from the Saranac area I choose that as my name.
I do breed and co-own with Cyon Kennels in Davie, Florida as well as NeffHause Tollers in South Florida.
Is my breed easy to place? Most of my pups are spoken for prior to breeding. I do not advertise but word of mouth, repeat buyers,
320 • ShowSight Magazine, DeceMber 2019
Breeder Q & A