In 2007, the Georgia Department of Agriculture received federal grants totaling $1,264,028

Source: fedspending.org

 

Surely no one can dispute that government has a moral and political obligation to protect children from harm. At common law, before enactment of today's modern statute, it was the consistent policy of government to look after the interests of children (although the form and extent of that protection often left much to be desired). Laws protected children from their own folly and improvidence, and from abuse by adults. Indeed, as regards their protection, from birth children have been considered wards of the state. These common law principles have been enacted into law in every state in America.

Child-protection statutes reflect governmental concerns with physical and mental cruelty, neglect, food, clothing, shelter, education, vagrancy, capacity to contract, lack of capacity to consent to sexual acts, and much more. The principle which underlies all modern child-protection legislation unites the cause of children's rights with the parallel cause of Animal Rights. Government intervenes to prevent or remedy children's fear, hunger, pain, suffering, abuse and even death, because they are incapable, mentally and physically, of protecting themselves from these conditions. So, too, are animals. Like children, they are defenseless. Like children, they can experience fear, hunger, pain, suffering, abuse and death. Like children, government has a duty to protect them.

This proposition — that government has an obligation to protect animals, at least to some extent — is not novel. Already, at least somewhat in existing animal protection legislation government does recognize and implement its responsibility.

Regrettably, however, this sort of legislation is woefully inadequate.

Today, we live amidst what can fairly be characterized as animal genocide, especially of cats and dogs. Puppy mills and backyard breeders grind out dogs. American cities are rife with pet shops, selling dogs and cats. Strays, dogs and cats alike, breed indiscriminately. And the surplus — animals unwanted for any reason, or no reason at all — end up dead in the streets or countryside, or "euthanized" at shelters and humane societies. Estimates vary as to how many unwanted dogs and cats are killed annually at shelters and humane societies, but as many as ten million is probably not an exaggeration.

Today, we live amidst people who cause untold animal suffering through ignorance, irresponsibility, negligence, recklessness, and yes, even intentional cruelty.

Today, we live amidst a governmental structure which, at best, has minor animal protection services spread throughout various agencies, or which, at worst, has no such services at all. And even in those jurisdictions where private shelters or humane societies do exist, they cannot, they do not, adequately cope with the profound animal protection problems which exist today.

Those problems do not include merely the countless strays who roam our streets and countryside, the fecal matter which pollutes our environment, the genocide of millions of unwanted cats and dogs, the cruelty, the neglect. No, those problems also embrace every other aspect of the relationship between humans and animals, and the responsibility of the former to the latter. And because, taken as a whole, there are so many problems born of this interaction, what is needed governmentally is a single public entity with know-how, power, and resources, a single public entity concerned with and devoted to animal problems, a singe public entity which is empowered to take a coordinated across-the-board approach to those problems in the public interest and in the interest of animals. What is needed is a Department of Animal Affairs.

Institute For Animal Rights Law

Agriculture Livestock vs Companion Animals  

You won't find companion animals listed under the "Livestock and Poultry" link nor mentioned anywhere on that part of the website.   If companion animals are indeed an "agricultural product", and historically categorized with "livestock" animals, why aren't they listed in this section?

Come to think about it, why are companion animal ads not listed in the infamous "Market Bulletin" that the Doa has published faithfully since 1917.  Why? Because companion animals are NOT livestock, that's why.   

And because of that hard fact, why does the Ga Department of Agriculture still have their finger$ wrapped around the Animal Protection Division?   The Doa receives yearly license fees from anyone that breeds, trains, sells, grooms, boards, rescues or houses birds, companion animals, or other animal species.  The Ga Doa is responsible for the licensing of these same establishments.  They are also the agency that inspects these establishments to determine if the licensee can continue being licensed. 

Um, can you say conflict of interest? That's akin to the fox watching the hen house.

Below, is what the Ga. Doa has listed on their website regarding the animal species categorization. And by their own admission they list 'companion animals' separately from livestock - This, alone, proves that companion animals are not 'livestock' nor an 'agricultural' product. 

 

For Companion Animals (e.g., dogs, cats, exotic birds, pet rabbits, pot–bellied pigs)

• Report those persons holding an Animal Protection License issued by the Georgia Department of Agriculture (or those that should be licensed) to the Animal Protection Section at 1-800-282-5852, ext. 4914 or 404-656-4914, Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m.

Livestock (e.g., cattle, swine, goats, sheep, poultry, llamas)

• Report to the Georgia Department of Agriculture Livestock Poultry Field Forces at 1-800-282-5852, ext. 3665 or 404-656-3665, Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m.

 

 

On the Animal Protection Division's main website it reads:

Office of Animal Protection

Mary Greene, Ag. Mgr. III
Tele: (404) 656-4914
Fax: (404) 463-8195
Email: Animal Protection Section

Georgia's companion animal industry is a rapidly growing segment of Georgia´s economy.  The Animal Protection Section was created in 1986 to regulate this industry.  This Section enforces the humane care of animals and regulates anyone who produces, sells, boards, grooms, offers for adoption, or exchanges pet animals, including birds.  The Animal Protection Section monitors the spread of disease in the companion animal industry.

The Animal Protection Section inspects licensed establishments and investigates complaints of people and/or facilities required to be in compliance with the Animal Protection Act, the Bird Dealers Licensing Act, the Animal Protection Rules and Regulations, and the Bird Dealers Licensing Rules and Regulations.  The Animal Protection Section program is funded  by license fees collected.

Twelve full time animal protection inspectors and two field supervisors ensure that the 3,000 licensed establishments remain in compliance statewide.  In order to accomplish compliance, inspectors also work in conjunction with various local, state and federal agencies to assist them with investigating complaints of animal cruelty and dog fighting.

 

The Animal Protection Division's duties, according to this summary, is to regulate, enforce, monitor, inspect, investigate and ensure.  They state that they "enforce" which is a key descriptive word. 'Key' meaning if they claim to, or are responsible for doing it,  then they should be.  And if they are not, then they should be held accountable for not fulfilling their job responsibilities.     

I remember one back yard breeder of chihuahuas, in Ellijay, that we received a complaint for the conditions the dogs were being housed in.  We drove there and my supervisor began explaining to the woman how much money he could fine her for each charge, but if she would relinquish ownership of some, the Doa wouldn't fine her.  I can't remember how many she ended up relinquishing that day, but I think she had around 42 dogs.  My supervisor told her that he 'could' fine her up to $1000 per dog/per violation which would be $42,000.  This woman lived in a trailer, and was dragging around an oxygen tank to breathe with.  Of course she agreed to relinguish some of her dogs to him. 

I remember us loading up the state car with crates of chihauhuas,  and then meeting an Animal Control officer in a parking lot, in Cobb County,  to turn them over to him.  I think his name was Curtis if I'm not mistaken, and it was either the City of Atlanta animal control or Fulton County, I can't remember which. 

My supervisor told me that usually, when he would quote such an outrageous fine amount, the person would always comply. 

During this 'complaint' investigation, my supervisor gave the woman the necessary paperwork to fill out so she could obtain a license from Animal Protection.   She made a few repairs and improvements to her 'mill' and was issued an Animal Protection license.  

My problem with this particular breeder was the breed she "specialized" in, was  chihuahuas.  These tiny dogs are simply not conditioned to live outside when the temperatures drop in the winter season.  I remember taking photos, per my supervisor,  with a state bought (disposable) camera of rusted water pans that were filled with ice, as the water had frozen solid.  The woman had a shed built for the dogs to go in if they wanted to, and there were heat lamps hanging down in the runs.  There were a few lamps that were clearly broken and not functioning so she had to replace those before she could be licensed.  But she eventually was licensed. 

 

(k) Shelter from rain, snow or cold: Pets maintained in outdoor housing establishments must be provided with access to suitable shelter to remain dry during rain or snow and protect them from wind and excessive heat or cold.   Sufficient and clean bedding material or other reasonable means of protection from the weather elements must be provided. 

  

 

 APHIS Animal Welfare Regulations

Subpart A_Specifications for the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment, and
                   Transportation of Dogs and Cats 1

Sec. 3.4  Outdoor housing facilities.

    (a) Restrictions. (1) The following categories of dogs or cats must
not be kept in outdoor facilities, unless that practice is specifically
approved by the attending veterinarian:
    (i) Dogs or cats that are not acclimated to the temperatures
prevalent in the area or region where they are maintained;
    (ii) Breeds of dogs or cats that cannot tolerate the prevalent
temperatures of the area without stress or discomfort (such as short-
haired breeds in cold climates); and
    (iii) Sick, infirm, aged or young dogs or cats.
    (2) When their acclimation status is unknown, dogs and cats must not
be kept in outdoor facilities when the ambient temperature is less than
50 [deg]F (10 [deg]C).

 

So my question is, why were, and are,  some pet dealers allowed to continue housing dogs outside with no heat to "protect them from ....excessive cold".  These particular breeds are small breeds that are not 'acclimated' to cold temperatures. 

In one licensee's whelping building, she had a space heater but the times I arrived to inspect, during the cold weather, this heater was never on.  But in all honesty? I felt this heater was more of a fire hazard than anything - due to the amount of dirt and filth observed on the heater itself.  I would have been afraid to turn it on and leave it on all night, which might be why she didn't, I'm not sure.  

But her outside housed dogs had no heat.  Protection from the elements? Some of them did, but there were single stand alone cages that weren't covered and even if they were covered, a chihuahua is not acclimated to be in such cold weather anyhow. And according to the "Rules and Regulations", the animals must (m-u-s-t) be protected from "excessive heat and cold". 

This 'restriction' is one that must be enforced, not to just ignore.   Esepcially given the fact that most puppy millers choose these breeds (chihuahuas, dachshunds, maltese, designer dogs) because they are smaller, less food/maintenance, and bring more money for them when they sell them to pet shops. 

I'd say it's time that the Animal Protection Division is placed in the hands of not only competent persons -  but an agency that is more suitable for animal welfare responsibilities.  Companion animals simply do not belong in the authoritive hands of any agricultural agency.    I.e. If the Doa isn't going to "regulate" their  rules and restrictions like they are supposed to, then this state agency needs to be placed within an agency that is willing to. 

There are licensees/establishments that have been sued,  civilly, by several people, for selling them sick puppies, as well as for other problems.  There was one puppy purchaser that came to Ga from Connecticut to sue  one licensee.   

Now, with that being said, let me post what the Doa Animal Protection Division says:  

(10) The Commissioner may refuse to issue or renew or may suspend or revoke a license on any one or more of the following grounds:

(a) material misstatement in the application for the original license or in the application for the renewal license under this chapter;

(b) willful disregard or violation of any rule or regulation of this chapter;

(c) willful aiding or abetting another in any violation of this chapter;

(d) allowing a license issued under this chapter to be used by an unlicensed person;

(e) violation of any law of this state or any rule of the Commissioner related to the disposition of,dealing in, or handling of dogs, cats, equine, and other pets;

(f) making substantial misrepresentations or false promises in connection with the business or activity of a licensee under this chapter;

 In my opinion, the Doa should be more responsible for ensuring that their licensees are not knowingly selling sick animals, intentionally misrepresenting a puppy's condition just to make a sale, or for taking so long to receive any pedigree paperwork on their purchase.

 

AVOC

 

October 14, 2002

 

Ag Commissioner Criticized for Campaign Funds Spending

 

By Wendell Dawson, Editor, AVOC, Inc.

 

The Gainesville Times (12-15-02) was highly critical of Agriculture Commissioner Tommy Irvin.

 

Commissioner Irvin is a tireless public official who does a good job and is very likable.   His campaign spending habits need to be "cleaned up".   He is part of the "old school" of Georgia Politics.   However, he has changed with the times and is a very active support of conservation and Greenspace efforts.   He is an efficient Commissioner of Agriculture.

 

While his campaign spending is deplorable, AVOC believes he is a good Commissioner and should be reelected.

---

The Gainesville Times

http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/index.shtml

 

October 15, 2002                Our views

 

Ag commissioner's excuses for ethics lapse ring hollow

 

Shame on Tommy Irvin.

 

The longtime Georgia commissioner of agriculture and Habersham County resident got caught spending campaign money for purposes other than his Nov. 5 re-election.

 

Granted, he has repaid the money, more than $
,600, but that's not the point. Irvin, who has been a fixture in state government for nearly 34 years, should have known better. And it's disingenuous for Irvin to maintain otherwise.

 

Irvin, in defending his misuse of the money, said "a lot has changed" since he took office more than three decades ago. We have no doubt that's true.

 

But it's a stretch if Irvin expects us to believe he didn't know the rules after spending his adult life cultivating campaign funds and participating in elections.

 

The five-member State Ethics Commission agreed to allow Irvin to repay the money, but not without a reprimand.

 

"These are not appropriate uses of campaign funds," said Teddy Lee, executive secretary of the Ethics Commission."

 

According to the Ethics Commission, candidates for public office in Georgia may spend campaign money only on political and election expenses and the cost of holding office.

 

Irvin, a Democratic Party candidate who is facing Republican Deanna Strickland and Libertarian Doug Morton in the general election, spent the money recklessly, in our view. Among the items he purchased with campaign money:

 

-  Flowers, $
,463.

-  Sports jackets for three committeemen in the General Assembly.

-  Hotel rooms in Florida for trips not related to his campaign, $
,256.

-  Dues and assessments to a fraternal organization, the Royal Order of Jesters, $
,035.

-  Items ranging from wedding gifts to tickets, $
,417.
 

It's truly a shame that Irvin, a man whose life has been dedicated to public service, should cross such an important ethical line this late in his long career. It's a blemish on an otherwise outstanding résumé.

 

Ethics Commission secretary Lee points out that the spending for which Irvin was reprimanded was once "traditional" among Georgia politicians. We suspect that's why ethics rules and campaign spending laws were created.

 

Voters need to know that candidates are following the rules and using financial contributions for what they are intended: the legitimate costs of running a political campaign.

 

Irvin neither followed the rules nor spent the money for what it was intended. The commissioner should use his next Georgia Consumer column (which The Times publishes each Sunday) to explain in greater detail the circumstances involving his lapse in judgment.

 

It should make interesting reading.