Does this look like a dog that's going to bite someone?
A very good article by a very good friend. Very informative information on BSL, and how it affects our lives. I encourage everyone to take a few minutes to read Discrimination Against Rottweilers.
http://vonstallog.com/ARHC/discrimination.html
Senator Ellis has introduced SB 349, which applies to counties with population 3.3 million or more (basically,
In other words, if the commissioners court determines that a particular breed of dog is "dangerous," they may ban or regulate the breed in the entire county. This appears to be a tactic designed to circumvent the current state law prohibiting BSL, reminiscent of a similar attempt by Ellis in 2005.
Please contact lawmakers in the Senate and let them know that you do not support SB 349. Since it is early in the session, a very short note is probably all that is needed right now. If this bill moves forward, we will need to turn up the heat.
Link to the full text of SB 349:
http://www.capitol.
Texans, the Texas Legislature has made it very easy for you to sign up to receive email alerts about actions on bills which interest you. Just go to their website at http://www.capitol.
Please, if you are not yet involved, now is the time to get started. The 2007 session is already chock-full of proposed dog laws that will affect us all, for better or worse, if they pass.
“Properly secure your dog or face prison time,” he notes.
If Gattis' bill passes, a death from such an attack could result in the owner being charged with a second degree felony, which upon conviction can carry a prison sentence of two to 20 years. The bill also provides for certain defenses such as for police and service dogs.
The bill is entitled “Lillian's Law” in memory of Mrs. Lillian Stiles who was mauled to death in her front yard. In connection with her death, the owner of the dogs, Jose Hernandez is set to stand trial March 19 on the charge of criminally negligent homicide.
http://www.cameronh
|
|
Please sign here: http://www.thepetit
On behalf of Lilly, the dog who he tried to kill, as well as the woman and children who have survived this man's terrible abuse, I sincerely thank you for helping to keep this man in jail.
CASE SYNOPSIS
In mid-December, 2006, a young, female pit bull was found stabbed and bleeding in an apartment complex on the Johnson/Marion County line, just south of Indianapolis. The dog's wounds were severe, including a laceration that appeared to have been an attempt to slit the dog's throat. Two very kind people found the dog, covered in blood and in shock, and delivered her to a nearby vet who was able to stop the bleeding and save this little dog's life.
Volunteers immediately began canvassing the neighborhood in search of the person or people responsible for attacking this dog. Crime Stoppers of Central Indiana offered a reward for information. Law enforcement continued the investigation until a man accused of the crime was arrested.
John Wayne Hornaday is currently in the Marion County jail, facing multiple charges in two counties of domestic abuse, battery, criminal confinement, felony intimidation as well as felony animal cruelty. Hornaday is accused of beating, kicking, torturing and stabbing the young dog and then leaving her for dead behind the apartment dumpster. Hornaday is also accused of then using the same knife with which he stabbed the dog to threaten the lives of his wife and infant child.
To read more about the story, click here http://www.pet-
We are calling on people to help us make sure that John Wayne Hornaday does not get out of jail and serves the maximum possible sentence.
Hornaday is currently in the Marion County, Indiana jail, facing charges related to domestic violence. He will be facing FELONY ANIMAL CRUELTY charges in Johnson County, Indiana.
Please contact the following courts and ask them to stop John Wayne Hornaday before he can abuse, terrorize, and torture an animal, woman or child again. It is important that both courts are contacted since charges are pending in both. Please MAIL correspondence.
Marion County Criminal Court-- domestic abuse/battery/
Honorable Carol Orbison
Court G22
City-County Building, W-343
200 E. Washington Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Cause # 49G220701FB006243
Johnson County Circuit Court -- felony intimidation and felony cruelty to animals
Johnson County Circuit Court
Honorable K. Mark Loyd
5. East Jefferson Street
Franklin, IN 46131
Cause # 41C01-0701-CM-
Please:
- Place the Cause # clearly at the bottom left hand of your envelopes.
- Include your contact information in its entirety when addressing the courts.
- Be respectful
| [Thursday, February 15, 2007] |
|
Kentucky House Bill 375, introduced by Representative Webb, has been referred to the House Committee on Local Government but has not yet been set for a hearing. It seeks to protect the rights of breeders and owners by limiting what local governments can prohibit or regulate in regards to dogs. It is vital that breeders and owners contact their representative to express their support of this measure. If adopted, the proposal would ban local governments from:
WHAT YOU CAN DO: To contact your representative and express your support of this bill call 1-800-372-7181 and request to send a green slip to your member asking that HB 375 receive hearing in the Local Government Committee. To find your Representative, click here: For more information, contact AKC's Canine Legislation Department at (919) 816-3720 or e-mail doglaw@akc.org. |
This article came out of Trumann Democrat Online from Trumann, AR.
To ban or not to ban
By CARIN MCCLUNG, Democrat News StaffIt has been documented pit bull dogs can be very viscous animals. The Trumann City Council passed an ordinance regarding pit bulls, but few of the owners follow the rules set forth in the ordinance.
According to city ordinance 499 owners of breeds considered to be vicious dogs, such as a pit bull, must keep the animal in a locked pen of at least five feet by 20 feet for each animal with a secured top attached to the sides.
The ordinance goes on to say animals should be restrained with a chain having a minimum strength of 300 pounds and be securely muzzled.
City ordinance 501 defines a vicious dog as a breed that is known to be vicious or an aggressive dog that has been determines to be vicious by the Animal Control Officer.
City ordinance 388 describes rules and regulation regarding the care and keeping of dogs within the city limits.
All dog owners who keep them outside, or when the animals are outside, must keep their animals confined in a pen or tied up. Dogs cannot be allowed to run at large within the city limits. Residents in violation of these ordinances can face criminal charges and monetary fines.
Alderman Scotty Jones proposed the council write an ordinance banning pit bull ownership in the city. The council plans to view several different ordinances from area cities to decide on what would work best for the city of Trumann.
If pit bulls were banned from the city, ones already in the city would be grandfathered in. Carlton Ballard, city animal control, said he is finished giving warnings for these violations and will start writing animal owners tickets for ignoring city ordinances and laws.
Anyone with comments regarding this issue should attend the next Trumann City Council meeting at 7 p.m. on Sept. 12 at the Trumann District Court.
This article came out of Paris, Texas from The Paris News.
Chief, lawyers to work on new pet ordinance
By Mary Madewell
The Paris News
Published August 16, 2006
The City of Paris may put a leash on pets within the city.
City Council discussed a pet ordinance at a Monday meeting and instructed Chief of Police Karl Louis to work with the city’s legal department to put together an ordinance for the council’s review.
Representatives from the Lamar County Humane Association offered assistance in developing an ordinance to address the number of pets allowed, as well as dangerous dogs and guidelines concerning pets in public places.
“Eight would be a sufficient number,” Kenda Taylor suggested of a pet limit per household. The humane association representative offered the group’s assistance and presented a Humane Society of United States model for dangerous dog ordinance.
“Eight might be a large number, but when you don’t have any ordinance, you have to start somewhere,” Taylor said.
Both Taylor and Paris Police Chief Karl Louis presented information from other cities with pet ordinances, including nearby Reno and Blossom.
“You can not limit a vicious dog to a breed,” Louis said as he explained the City of Paris has a dangerous animal ordinance that does not specifically address dogs.
Ordinances in place call for dogs to be maintained in a confined area or to be on a leash. The city’s dangerous animal ordinance, which addresses wild animals, does not consider dogs.
“We are behind the curve on that,” Louis said, adding that dangerous animal ordinances must be specific in terms defining a dangerous animal and can include a wide variety of conditions.
“We need to know the parameters of what you want to put in there,” Louis said.
City councilman Don Wilson expressed concern about the ability of the city to enforce ordinances already in place, noting “we have someone habitually a nuisance to his neighbors and we have been unsuccessful in correcting the problem.”
Louis said the case is currently on appeal in county court.
“He’s been found guilty and now has appealed,” Louis said, adding that some people have discovered entering an appeal slows down the process.
“I have asked (County Attorney) Gary Young to try to move this case up,” Louis said.
Mayor Richard Manning joined in Wilson’s concern about enforcement.
“Are we going to have an ordinance where we can enforce and the people to enforce it?” the mayor asked.
About a leash law, Taylor suggested “to walk in a park, six foot is a good length.” Louis noted under current ordinances, dogs can be in parks but must be on a leash.
The chief suggested the council might want to allow dogs on leashes in specific areas of parks but might want to ban animals from walking tracks.
|
( This article came out of Magic City Morning Star, and I'm only putting it here because I find it very disturbing that someone can have so much power over our city council on banning our beloved breeds.)
Animal Rightists: Coming to a Town Near You - Are Your Council Members Being Used as Pawns? |
A Full-Court Press
It’s hard to comprehend, but the leadership of the largest and most profitable "non-profit" lobbying Animal Rights organizations has an ambitious goal in mind: destroying all usage and ownership of domestic animals. That includes, but is not limited to, abolishing pet ownership. (See Animal Rightist Quotes Below)
Animal Rightists know full-well that they are not main-stream. However, they’ve been successful in influencing the American lexicon with politically correct words such as "over-population". With financial support from Hollywood and an ill-informed public, they spread propaganda, and inaccuracies about dog behavior. Their legislative packets are filled with phony studies, quack testimony, faulty statistics, and other materials are sent to city councils all over the country under the guise of being a reputable source. The News Press has been all too happy to oblige, publishing sensationalized stories which trump up the credibility of such a nonsensical agenda.
What is missing from these News stories is that these groups do not care one whit about animals, the welfare of animals, or the health and longevity of animals. This is proved by the fact that animal rights groups such as PeTA, claim to be helping elephants in Africa, but are simultaneously lobbying an all-out assault to destroy cats, dogs, and the family pet at home. Do you know the difference between Animal Welfare and Animal Rights?
Animal Welfare is concerned with health, safety, quality of life, and the future of animals.
Animal Rights views domestic animal ownership as "slavery" and seeks to destroy the domestic animal by whatever means necessary. The fastest and most effective way to accomplish this agenda is by using lawmakers to pass prohibitive animal laws, such as mandatory spay/neuter, or breed specific ordinances (BSL).
The relationship between man and dog goes back literally tens of thousands of years. Animal Rights seeks to destroy that relationship...one-law-at-a-time. Just as wild animals are important to this world, domestic animals and our pets are an integral part of our short time on this Earth. There is nothing good about the Animal Rightist’s agenda to eradicate the future of our beloved pets.
Once the ownership and the relationship we have to the domestic animal is destroyed, it is quite obvious that they’ll move on to the next power-seeking agenda. Just like a plague of locusts, they infect the culture, exploit lawmakers to do their bidding, corrupt shelters and law enforcement, manipulate the News Press, and profit off it at everyone’s expense.
What makes these activists tick? First, they are collectivist in nature. They obviously harbor a deep-seeded hatred for humanity. Yet, they should not be underestimated in any way, shape, or form. They are well-organized, well-connected and extremely well-funded.
Sphere of Influence
The pathology of this evil has many faces, which both the public and lawmakers should be aware of. This is crucial to avoiding its sphere of influence. No good can come of associating with these groups and individuals. I can not stress enough how important it is to know who they are and what they stand for...or what they’re capable of.
Some of these activists are hysterical, showing up to council meetings wearing blood-soaked t-shirts, screaming and crying hysterically. They give emotional testimonials and always seem to have a convenient supply of shocking and horrible photos to share. They are militant, obsessed, brain-washed activists, but are very motivated. They participate in protest rallies and don’t mind getting arrested to prove a point. However, they should be avoided as they are sometimes prone to violence.
Then there are the ones to really watch out for and be cautious of. These are the cool and calculated activists. Some portray themselves as individual civic leaders, and professionals such as Kory Nelson, Assistant DA of Denver, known all over the country and Internet as Denver’s "Dr. Death of Dogs". Then there is Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the U.S. He is polished, charismatic, and good-looking. He trained for his position at the Humane Society of the U.S. as a member of PeTA.
They are educated and well-connected and have money to burn. They carry with them titles of accomplishment and credibility, seducing their listeners by being well-spoken and charismatic. They approach lawmakers from both parties; the goal of infiltrating and corrupting the legal process from every angle. While ALF and ELF blow up buildings, their PeTA counterparts are busy screaming for attention. HSUS then comes in to consult under the guise of legitimacy. Their websites and promotional materials are phenomenally well-crafted. Their resources are unlimited. In fact, it is likely that your municipality is already using their materials to guide policy and craft new ordinances.
Once Animal Rightists are "outed", concerns are dismissed as "conspiracy theories" and the like. They do this to shut down the debate. After all, who could believe it?
However, one thing is for sure: Animal Rights is very conspiratorial in nature. The agenda has been built into multi-million dollar enterprise harboring well-paid Capital Hill lobbyists and lawyers in conjunction with violent militants on the front line.
However, the shelf-life of these organizations is limited. They are not main-stream by any stretch of the imagination. Therefore, they have only a small window of opportunity. This partially explains why much of the propaganda materials being delivered to municipal governments and lawmakers have been authored under pseudonyms and other aliases. Phony studies, pamphlets, and letters are often Animal Rightists parading propaganda incognito.
A Powerful Lesson for Lawmakers
Few lawmakers would be willing to accept advice from People for the "Ethical" Treatment of Animals, or from the Animal and Environmental Liberation Fronts respectively for good reason. These groups happen to be tracked on the FBI’s Domestic Terrorist Watch List for their violence and damage to private and public property.
They promote a completely dishonest agenda under faulty premises. For example, the origin of lobbying for mandatory spay/neuter laws comes from PeTA’s "No Birth Nation" program; which, by the way, is not intended to end with animals. No breeding or stricter laws regarding whelping of puppies ends up aiding this systematic destruction of healthy pure bred pets. As absurd as it sounds, consider how many municipalities are flirting with the idea or have actually gone so far as to pass it. Others want registration and intact animal fees. Every one of these ideas assists PeTA’s No Birth Nation program and gives it legitimacy.
However...
No lawmaker would dare be associated with such groups and their agendas providing their constituents were aware of the names behind the proposed animal ordinances.
And yet, they do.
When all is said and done, lawmakers are being manipulated and used.
Animal Rightists have no problem exploiting lawmakers and municipalities for their own aims, nor do they care if these lawmakers wind up embarrassed, recalled, or ousted from politics.
Kory Nelson, Denver’s "Dr. Death of Dogs"
According to the News Press, you’d think dog attacks are an epidemic. However, as a percentage of population, abuses, attacks, and cruelty are very rare...especially by the poster child of Animal Rightists: the so-called "Pit Bull". The deceitful information spread about this breed reaches epic proportions.
For example, Kory Nelson, Assistant City Attorney of Denver, CO joined the Colorado Douglas County Republican Party, in which the GOP has traditionally left pet ownership rights alone. Under his influence, the Town of Parker, CO introduced Breed Specific Legislation (BSL). Council members were quoted in the press, describing horror stories of Pit Bull behavior. They mistakenly used verbatim descriptions straight from the Kory Nelson "handbook". Never before had the Town witnessed such an outcry by residents.
After the facts were brought out, the Town Council unanimously voted to remove the proposed ordinance. However, the damage was done. Nelson had contributed a valuable service to the Animal Rightist’s ability to affect the language of law and put our property rights on the defensive. It was all done at the expense of honest, law abiding residents.
Did the outrage and embarrassment at the Town’s expense stop Nelson? No. He’s moved on to other cities to pursue his Breed Specific Legislation. Kory Nelson defends his war against the Pit Bull, claiming that anti-BSL forces have some kind of financial interest in dog fighting. It is obvious that Nelson lacks credibility and a personal moral code that is necessary to continue as a prominent Assistant City Attorney of a major city. If he actually believes that certain breeds of dogs are more cunning, more powerful, more intelligent than any human being is capable of owning, how can he possibly serve the best interests of the public good?
As Animal Rightist ideology does not mix with principles of individual responsibility, morality, or responsible government, it came to a shock that a conservative community had become a home base in which to spring his platform. For whatever reason, the City of Denver, however, continues to allow him to use his position as Assistant DA to promote his destructive agenda.
If his campaign isn’t against the Chow Chow, it is the American Staffordshire Terrier. If it isn’t the American Staffordshire Terrier, it is the French Mastiff...and so on and so on. Destroying ownership of one-breed-at-a-time is what Breed Specific Legislation is all about.
No one knows for certain whether Kory Nelson operates with animal rights organizations, or acts as a lone wolf, so to speak. He is ambitious, having successfully used and exploited several local governments around the U.S. to achieve his Breed Specific Legislation trademark. Even if BSL fails, Animal Rightist language often gains a foothold into the language of animal ordinances. The criminalization of dogs and cats has begun. Regardless of success or failure, he exploits one city and then moves on to adversely impact animal owners in another.
If he hasn’t contact lawmakers in your area, it is only a matter of time. Once contacted, you’ll need to decide whether you’ll allow yourself to be used for his personal agenda and those of other Animal Rightists.
The Influence of Shelters on Animal Law
Considering the phenomenally successful statistics of voluntary spay/neuter by the general public, where are all the animal shelters getting their dogs? Regardless of the facts that most shelter dogs are adult dogs, sadly displaced due to people moving to covenant-controlled homeowner associations and cities with extreme pet limits, the numbers in shelters do not add up.
Obviously, shelters should be going out of business left and right since voluntary spay/neuter is successful. Euthanization numbers have been declining for 20 years. And yet, "over-population" is the mantra still used by animal shelters for fund-raising and selling dogs to an ill-informed public.
Where is the over-population when dogs and cats are transported across state lines and from even out of the country to fill up animal shelters?
Even the numbers of irresponsible breeding are nothing like people think it is. Considering the voluntary rate of spay/neuter, it is highly unlikely that accidental and irresponsible breeding are filling up shelters to the extent that shelters claim they are.
However, a product must come from somewhere. If your job is about to disappear, often people do desperate things. Why should animal shelters be any different; especially when one considers what is happing inside these organizations. Some are so passionate that they’d do nearly anything to keep the "moral imperative" of the shelter going. This partially explains why "over-population" is used as a marketing ploy to sell dogs and cats. Tell a family that the dog they’re interested in is about to be destroyed due to "lack of space", the deal is closed. Another dog is then shipped in to take its place as product.
City Councils and the general public should be aware that Animal Rightists lobby with local Animal Shelters as cover. The cruelty and unethical practices in the shelter industry are shocking...and make no mistake, it is an industry. Many shelters have become some of the most profitable pet shops around that kill anything that does not bring top dollar; or is too much work to place in adoption programs. Pure Bred Rescue organizations have an awful time getting pure bred dogs and cats out of the shelter system, simply because shelters exploit these breeds to increase sales. Sadly, the News Press and general public have been willing to look the other way.
Why do some shelters operate in this manner? The answer is that many shelter agencies have become havens for Animal Rightists; shelters are exploited to spread propaganda, "over-population" myths, and faulty statistics for marketing purposes. Shelters naturally become a breeding ground for recruiting new members and activists. It’s a natural, albeit unhealthy, fit.
It is no wonder dubious shelter operations are becoming an ever-increasing problem. Thankfully, not all shelters are this way, but the public should be aware of what is going on. Both Animal Control and many animal shelters have had their ethics compromised, if not downright corrupted. The end-result is that generally, shelter workers and animal control agencies are not a credible source for accurate information about animal behavior and breeding of quality pets, especially when it comes to crafting pet law.
Fancy That!
The Dog and Cat Fancy, and show-breeders alike, has been aware of shelter abuses for many years. Fanciers operate their own rescue organizations and our rules about breeding are very strict. What’s more, it’s a small world. Fly-by-nights never last long. Unethical practices are not tolerated. You would never see a Fancier cross-breeding a "mutt". Ethics are the cornerstone of show-breeding; incredible knowledge and experience is required, as is mentorship. The competition, the friendships, relationships, and even politics and rivalries, all steer show-breeding towards the future of healthy dogs of good conformation and temperament. You’re lucky to break even financially in this sport. You do it for the love of the breed. My love is the English Mastiff. Friends of mine show and breed Yorkshire Terriers, Afghan Hounds, Staffordshire Terriers, Dalmatians, and the Irish Setter.
We spend thousands of dollars and untold hours of time and effort to test our dogs for what is required for the future of our respective breeds. We labor for the love of our dogs and cry when we must send them up to Heaven. We build life-long friendships; spend untold hours of time putting on dog shows, educating puppy-buyers, labor 24 hours a day every time we whelp a litter of puppies, and work hard to learn, learn, learn. It’s an on-going process in an incredible effort to further a tradition which spans generations.
Rarely will you ever see our dogs wind up in an animal shelter. We govern ourselves. The only problem with the Fancy is it is guilty of not reaching out to the public and helping city councils as much as it could be...for good reason:
We’re under attack. Licensing, pet taxes, registration schemes have done incredible damage to healthy pet ownership over the years.
Animal Rightists know full well that destroying the Fancy is a major victory. That is why animal ordinances and restrictive measures such as licensing, registration, mandatory spay/neuter, etc. have forced the most responsible and knowledgeable group of pet owners in the world nearly into hiding. And it is the general public which misses out on the benefits of our knowledge, and experience, and our passion for furthering the love of our dogs.
Fanciers residing in cities are forced to keep a low profile or move to the country. They simply stay active amongst themselves. The result is that the general public does not get to tap into this invaluable resource for educational opportunities. What has replaced it is a variety of quack training methods, political correctness, and just plain ignorance spread by opportunists and even some pet-related businesses.
We are really interested in the health and well-being of pets, and we are just as interested in the future of our breeds. If a dog is healthy, of good temperament, and has sound conformation, it should be bred. Future health and genetics depend on it!
Education...and Lack Thereof
The vast majority of the public generally does not even understand something as simple as how to approach a dog properly. First, it is polite and expedient to ask the owner if you may pet a dog. Then you offer to have the dog sniff your hand. When the dog conveys that, "It’s okay to pet me", you’ve been given permission; but always pet from underneath the head. Never on top of the head! No matter how friendly or unknown the dog is, this is the cardinal rule before petting any dog, cat, etc...
Only do you pet the dog’s head after you’ve gone underneath and worked your way around the neckline, back of the ears (which most dogs love!) and then from behind, you may go over the top. Petting the head first is aggressive! Nearly every single person that greets my dogs in public tries it; approaching without manners...this lack of proper etiquette is simply a result of ignorance. And yet this is something as remotely simple as saying: "Hi!"
Despite the fact that ignorance can be fixed, municipalities are quick to pass ordinances without considering the pet education element in their communities.
If safety is what we’re after, than creating an open and active, pet friendly community is what we should be striving for. Anything which contributes to this should be done. Anything that hinders it should be stricken from the books. Tapping into the Fancy and encouraging them to be active is the fastest way to build allies rather than enemies. Rather, further regulating pets and pet breeding into oblivion will contribute to animosity, an unsafe community, and unhealthy pet population faster than anything.
Municipal Animal Abuses and Cruelty
Animal Rightist propaganda would have us believe that animal abuses and cruelty are at epidemic levels, not to mention that attacks most certainly receive sensational press coverage. The Press is only too happy to oblige any political opportunism by politicians, animal control, shelter agencies, and municipal employees actively pursuing their own agendas. Animal Rightist ordinances have become a means to an end, exploited at the expense of the general public.
However, as a percentage of population, dog attacks, dog fighting, and even cruelty and nuisance behavior is rare. As disturbing as these incidents are, they are not even close to being the rule...they are by far the exception. Therefore, utilizing the exception to the rule as an opportunity to enact intrusive and unethical animal ordinances is distasteful and extremely dishonest. Witness the results:
And that is just the beginning of the scandal, opportunism, abuses of search and seizure, etc. The list goes on and on. Overbearing animal ordinances almost always lead to these types of abuses, especially when shelter and animal groups are given government enforcement powers. When will these local governments admit fault and stop these destructive practices? Communities become less active and open, Fanciers become less willing to help the public, ignorance and lack of socialization becomes the norm.
That is exactly what Animal Rightists are banking on.
When Animal Rightists write ordinances that sic Animal Control on breeders via licensing, pet-limits, and registration schemes, the very future of healthy well-tempered pets is compromised. No breeding. No pure-bred animals. No healthy genetic stock. Hence, no more pets. No cats. No dogs. No nothing!
The only way to prevent these horrors from taking root in your community is not to go there in the first place. Again, only an open and active pet-friendly community creates a fun and safe place to live with our pets and neighbors.
The Ends Justify the Means
These abuses are the sure result of the Animal Rightists campaign to wage death and destruction on our beloved pets. Again, the "ends justify the means".
What exactly is the end? Power. The ensuing corruption contained within the intent to influence animal ordinances aids activists in the accumulation of wielding more power. Using and exploiting lawmakers wherever they deem necessary, the Animal Rightist goal of achieving power and wealth at public expense is in full force.
Even where lawmakers pursue their own agendas, where animal ordinances are concerned, the lawmaker is still a pawn of these lobbyists.
Fighting Animal Rightist Ideology and Helping City Councils Reform Municipal Agendas, The Moral of the Story
The lesson to be learned is that by the time Animal Rightists have taken municipalities hostage and animal ordinances pass, no one knows what has hit them. Animal ordinances quickly compromise the ethics of Animal Control agencies. These ruthless and irresponsible policies are most certainly not something that should have been introduced into law; let alone, considered, passed, and enforced.
Unfortunately, reinstating honesty into the debate is not as easy as it sounds. Egos are so entrenched to the point where lawmakers are hesitant to admit fault. They know they’ve been used, but backtracking becomes difficult; if now downright political suicide. While this does not absolve lawmakers of responsibility, it does partially explain the successes of HSUS and others to control City Councils and municipal governments.
As the Dog and Cat Fancy (show-breeders) and animal welfare groups continue to mobilize and gain influence, the general public is indeed becoming aware of what is going on. The public is aghast at how their pets are being held hostage by such political exploitation. And the fury is spreading at a rapid pace. Animal Rightist ideology is incompatible with public safety and private property ownership. Therefore, lawmakers and the ordinances they pass are being tracked. When re-educating lawmakers fails, they are being voted out and replaced.
The fight has only scratched the surface. With so many pet owners and dog fanciers in the U.S. becoming aware of the fact that animal ordinances truly do pose a very real danger to pet ownership, it is likely that elections are going to become very interesting in the near future. Those who vote for intrusive animal ordinances will lose clout, influence, and promptly voted out. Those who keep hands off and ally themselves with the Fancy to promote activities and community education will be rewarded.
As pet owners continue to mobilize, the political landscape will most likely change drastically in many areas in the country. This is actually a positive development because it is a healthy democratic process that aims at preventing constitutional infringements and other assaults on our freedoms.
Ultimately, we love our pets. We love our choices. It is a healthy tradition. Anything that puts pet ownership in jeopardy is incompatible with moral principles.
It all comes down to one thing:
Will your lawmakers and your city government aid and abet this destructive agenda?
Nick Van Duren
Colorado Director, Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Local Liaison for the Colorado Federation of Dog Clubs
Contact Nick: checknick@comcast.net
If Anyone Doubts how Serious Things Have Become, Please Read the Following Quotes by the Leaders and Activists within the Animal Rightists Movement:
"Anybody who shoots a pit bull running loose is justified,'' Kory Nelson, Assistant City Attorney of Denver, CO, San Francisco Chronicle, Monday, June 27, 2005 (Known all over as Denver’s "Dr. Death of Dogs")
"We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. . . One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding." Wayne Pacelle, Senior VP of Humane Society of the US, formerly of Friends of Animals and Fund for Animals, Animal People, May, 1993
NOTE: (Wayne Pacelle’s initial training was as a PeTA activist. Today he heads HSUS under the guise of "legitimacy". It is the largest and most profitable of the animal Rightist lobbying organizations.
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." Ingrid Newkirk, national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us? Harper's, August 1988, p. 50.
"As John Bryant has written in his book Fettered Kingdoms, they [pets] are like slaves, even if well-kept slaves." PeTA's Statement on Companion Animals.
"We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals." Peter Singer, Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd ed. (New York Review of Books, 1990), Preface, p. ii.
"Our goal: to convince people to rescue and adopt instead of buying or selling animals, to disavow the language and concept of animal ownership." Eliot Katz, President In Defense of Animals, In Defense of Animals website, 2001
"It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership." Elliot Katz, President "In Defense of Animals," Spring 1997
"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist." John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982, p. 15.
"My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture." JP Goodwin, employed at the Humane Society of the US, formerly at Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade, as quoted on AR-Views, an animal rights Internet discussion group in 1996.
"Man is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish, and unethical animal on earth." Michael W. Fox, Scientific Director and former Vice President, Humane Society of the United States, as quoted in Robert James Bidinotto"
"We are not terrorists, but we are a threat. We are a threat both economically and philosophically. Our power is not in the right to vote but the power to stop production. We will break the law and destroy property until we win." Dr. Steven Best, speaking at International Animal Rights Gathering 2005. The Telegram (UK) July 17, 2005.
"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause." Alex Pacheco, Director, PETA
"Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective. We ask nicely for years and get nothing. Someone makes a threat, and it works." Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA's founder and president, US News and World Report, April 8, 2002
"I openly hope that it [hoof-and-mouth disease] comes here. It will bring economic harm only for those who profit from giving people heart attacks and giving animals a concentration camp-like existence. It would be good for animals, good for human health and good for the environment. Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA founder and president, ABC News interview April 2, 2001
American Dog Owner’s Association Wins Judgment Against City of Englewood, New Jersey To Overturn Breed Specific Law
Sun Aug 13, 8:00 AM ET
Englewood, NJ (PRWEB) August 13, 2006 -- The American Dog Owners Association (ADOA) and two of its members, Natalie Wells and Mia Rodriguez, who reside in Englewood, New Jersey, were granted an interlocutory judgment against the City Of Englewood in New Jersey Superior Court this week in the challenge to overturn the city’s illegal breed specific ordinance, Docket No. BER-L-5285-06. Judge Jonathan Harris found that the city’s aggressive dog ordinance, which defined specific breeds of dogs as dangerous, was a clear and direct violation of state law, which explicitly prohibits breed discrimination.
The American Dog Owners Association, the country’s largest independent dog owner’s organization, had asserted that the City of Englewood, New Jersey failed to provide its residents equal protection under the law by denying the residents’ applications to license their dogs and has subjected them to harassment
“Breed discrimination is illegal in New Jersey, and now all good dog owners with good dogs in Englewood can breath a sigh of relief”, said Maureen Hill-Hauch, ADOA’s Executive Director. She noted that New Jersey’s Vicious and Potentially Dangerous Dog Act is one of the strongest dangerous dog laws in the country. “The City of Englewood has a duty to protect the public health and safety of all of its citizens, as well as protect the rights of responsible dog owners, regardless of breed. We’re so pleased that the court will require the City of Englewood to comply with state law”.
Breed bans and other breed-specific measures are strongly opposed by all major animal welfare and veterinary medical organizations, as well as the Center For Disease Control, as being ineffective against the prevention of dog bites or attacks. The list of New Jersey-based organizations opposed to breed specific laws and measures includes the New Jersey Federation of Dog Clubs and the New Jersey Veterinary Medical Association.
The New Jersey Vicious and Potentially Dangerous Dog Act, N.J. S.A. S.S.4:19-36, explicitly prohibits breed discrimination, stating, “any law, ordinance, or regulation concerning vicious or potentially dangerous dogs, any specific breed of dog or any other type of dog inconsistent with this act enacted by any municipality, county or county board of health”.
The City of Englewood argued that it’s Ordinance N.99-66 did not violate N.J.S.A.S.S 4:19-26 by defining the following breeds as aggressive: Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Rottweilers, or “any dogs of mixed breed which has the appearance or characteristics of being predominately of the breeds”, and bans them from being kept within the City of Englewood.
Flora Edwards, counsel for the Plaintiffs, previously told the court that under the city’s illegal breed-specific ordinance, even Rufus, this year’s winner of Best In Show at the prestigious Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show at Madison Square Garden, would be unwelcome in the City of Englewood, and his owners would run the risk of having the world’s top dog seized and impounded. Rufus, a Colored Bull Terrier, resides with his owners in Holmdel, New Jersey.
An interlocutory judgment was granted the Plaintiffs, the American Dog Owner’s Association, Natalie Wells and Mia Rodriguez, on Monday, August 7, by the Honorable Jonathan Harris in Bergen Country Superior Court against the City of Englewood. The order prevents the city from enforcing or implementing any section of the city’s dangerous dog ordinance. In his ruling, Judge Harris called Englewood’s Ordinance 66-99, “outright contradictory”.
Judge Harris cited numerous issues with the Englewood dog ordinance, stating that Ordinance N.66-99 shifts the burden of proof to the pet owner, changes the process by which a dog can be declared dangerous, and provides a different array of sanctions in conflict with state law. Furthermore, he stated that t not granting the judgment would subject the dogs to immediate seizure and cause the Plaintiff’s irreparable harm.
The Plaintiffs, Ms. Wells, a stock analyst, and the owner of Sentry, a twelve-year old American Pit Bull Terrier, and Ms. Rodriguez, a respected artist and owner of Cyrus, also a rescued American Pit Bull Terrier, say they both lived in fear that their dogs will be seized by the City of Englewood, and have been subjected to a pattern of harassment by the city’s Department of Health since trying to obtain licenses for their dogs. Both dogs are well cared for and well socialized, and pose no threat to the public.
“Now I can walk Cyrus in public and not worry the police will stop me”, said Ms. Rodriguez. Ms Rodriguez rescued her dog, Cyrus, as a puppy and helped nurse him back to health from a near-fatal bout with parvovirus with the help of donated services from a local veterinarian.
Ms. Wells, who suffers from lupus, is looking forward to visiting Englewood’s City Hall to obtain a license for Sentry. Ms. Wells bought a home in Englewood late last year and was unaware of the town’s breed specific ordinance. “Now I don’t have to worry the city will take my dog away”.
Barbara Haywood, ADOA’s volunteer communications coordinator, said that the American Dog Owner’s Association lawsuit has received tremendous support from dog organizations throughout the country as well as letters of official endorsement from dog clubs, notably the Bull Terrier Club of America, the parent club for the world’s top dog, Rufus, the colored Bull Terrier. The ADOA filed suit on behalf of its members, and actively sought other resident dog owners in Englewood with the breeds or mixes of breeds of dogs banned by the city to join the lawsuit free of charge.
The American Dog Owners Association, ADOA, founded in 1970, is the country’s largest independent dog owner organization representing individual dog owners, breeders, handlers, and dog clubs of all breeds, mixes and backgrounds. The American Dog Owners Association recognizes the special relationship between dogs and humans, and advocates for the protection and preservation of responsible dog ownership and education of the public about responsible dog ownership and strong dangerous dog legislation.
When I read this it really pissed me off, so I thought I would share it with you about a radio host in Canada saying "they" should exterminate Pitbulls, Dobermans and Rottweilers... Ugh... I hate ignorance!!
I had the unfortunate experience of having the radio tuned to 88.9 fm Saint John, NB this am when the talk show host, Andrew Crystal, announced that we should "exterminate all aggressive breeds like Pitbulls, Dobermans and Rottweilers" in the Maritimes. He stated that Ontario had banned pitbulls and so should the Maritimes.His talk show the next hour was dedicated to this. He himself is from Toronto, surprise. He had a fellow by the name of Fred Patterson call from Ontario to back him up. Fred from Ontario said, "all those aggressive breeds should be taken out of the picture", "pitbulls are more susceptible to turn on you", "in Toronto we are seeing constant pitbull attacks", and "people with bigger brains than you and I have decided these dogs are different". He also stated, "anyone who gets a pitbull should see an analyst" and that if a pitbull attacked his kid the dog would be "shot on site and hung up on a tree" "shot on site and hung up on a tree" he repeated the statement. Fred also stated that "all pitbull owners are imbeciles" , and actually called a caller "an idiot" who needed "psychological evaluation".He repeatedly stated, " this breed is dangerous and can go at any minute", and "you never see a normal guy with one of these dogs' and"they are gutless just like their owners".The talk show host, Andrew Crystal had this to say when a caller told him breed specific legislation was racist, " I'm calling your dog a nigger then" and "you're an imbecile". He brought up the holocaust, saying that dog owners are "so blind they compare protecting children from pit bulls to the holocaust". The caller had merely said BSL was dog racism. Andrew said that if a pit bull bites a person, "the owner should have hot sauce poured all over him and I would hire 2 Dobermans to bite his ass". He refused to believe a caller who informed him that 2 Greyhounds recently killed a Jack Russell in the Maritimes. (I am not familiar with this incident). Andrew kept asking why anyone would want to walk near "Godzilla the Rottweiler". During the breaks he played "a song about "psycho killers". He repeatedly stated we need to "exterminate all aggressive breeds" The guy was a real hate mongerer. Some guy from "the insurance industry" called and said pitbulls were # 1 on their list of dangerous dogs but that GSD, Rottweiler, Dobermans, Akitas and Siberian Husky were also listed. I was sitting on the side of the road by this time, frantically taking notes on the back of a cigarette package but the quotes are direct. I was not able to get to a phone but I got the number. 877- 801-8255. The show was "Maritime Morning" at 11 am. I can see this guy spreading hate and fear all over the place. He is actually the second radio announcer in this area who publicly denounces our dogs .