Linnea Shirley

Home of the Educational Rottweiler Videos

  •   Does this look like a dog that's going to bite someone?  
    Do you really think banning breeds of dog is going to eliminate dog bites?
    Why not put the blame where the blame lies?  Irresponsible ownership, is people who do not train, socialize, or understand dog behaviors or get certain breeds of dogs for guarding, and fail to train or socialize that dog and get them to make the person look tough.
    Say NO to Breed Specific Legislation!! 

Discrimination Against Rottweilers

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


The History of the Rottweiler

 

STATEWIDE BSL ALERT FOR TEXAS

Senator Ellis has introduced SB 349, which applies to counties with population 3.3 million or more (basically, Harris County / Houston). It reads in part, "The commissioners court of a county by order may prohibit or otherwise regulate in the county the keeping of pets the court determines are dangerous."

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.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00349I.htm

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.state.tx.us/, create an account, and add this bill (and any other bills you may be interested in) to your personal Email Alert list.  Then you will receive an email any time your bill is acted upon by the legislature.  This is a very useful tool for monitoring the progress of a bill like SB 349.

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.


Senath, Missour PASSES BSL

Council approves dangerous dog ordinance

Tuesday, February 13, 2007
 
SENATH, Mo. -- After being tabled at last month's meeting, the board passed the city's proposed dangerous dog ordinance. Last month Alderman Bud Brooks declined to vote in favor of the ordinance, claiming it wasn't tough enough.
 
After discussing the idea of banning pit-bull dogs within the city limits, the council decided to move forward on passing the ordinance as written.
 
"The problem with banning pit-bull dogs totally is if an owner wants to dispute the matter, claiming his dog is not pit-bull," Johnny Dalton, city attorney said. "Then it would be up to the city to prove the dog is in fact a pit-bull dog."
 
The ordinance which was passed by the council defines a dangerous dog as:
 
* Any dog which, according to the records of the appropriate authority, has inflicted severe injury on a human being without provocation on public or private property.
 
* Any dog which, according to the records of the appropriate authority, has killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner's property.
 
* Any dog owned or harbored primarily or in part for the purposes of dog fighting or any dog trained for fighting.
 
* Any dog, not owned by a governmental or law enforcement unit, used primarily to guard public or private property.
 
* Any dog with a known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack unprovoked, to cause injury, or to otherwise threaten the safety of human beings or domestic animals.
 
* Any dog which, when unprovoked, chases or approaches a person upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public or private property in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack.
 
* Or, any pit bull dog, being defined to mean:
 
* The bull terrier breed of dog, the Staffordshire bull terrier breed of dog, the American pit bull terrier breed of dog, the American Staffordshire terrier breed of dog, or any dogs of mixed breed or other breeds than above listed which breed or mixed breed is known as pit bulls, pit bull dogs or pit bull terrier, or any dog which has the appearance and characteristics of being predominantly of the breeds of bull terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, or the American pit bull.
 
* Proper confinement consists of providing the dog with a pen or structure, which is required to have dimensions of five feet, by ten feet and must be at least five feet high with posts anchored in the ground at least two feet, and must have secure sides and a secure top.
 
* The animal must be chained inside the enclosure unless under direct physical supervision of a responsible person. If the enclosure has no bottom secured to the sides, the sides must be embedded into the ground, no less than two-feet.
 
* The enclosure must also be provide protection from the elements for the dog. The owner or keeper may obtain the approval of the city animal control officer if the owner or keeper is in doubt as to the enclosure's compliance with this section.
 
The next regular meeting of the board of aldermen is scheduled for 7 p.m., Monday, March 12, at the municipal building.
 
 


Gattis files 'Lillian's Law'

State Rep. Dan Gattis filed legislation that aims to send a strong message to irresponsible owners whose dogs cause serious bodily injury or death.

“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.cameronherald.com/articles/2007/02/15/news/news03.txt


More dog troubles for councilwoman

Attack on man's pet is the seventh reported in the past two years.

Wes Johnson
News-Leader



Springfield resident Eric Dawson says his dog, Lucky, is lucky to be alive.
 
Dawson said his dachshund-Pekingese mix was attacked by City Councilwoman Shelia Wright's Alaskan malamute Wednesday morning right in his own back yard.
 

 
Lucky was unharmed after Dawson, who recently underwent surgery, used a wooden cane to beat the animal off his pet.
 
According to city records, it was the seventh reported attack on neighborhood dogs by Wright's dogs in the past two years. The last incident resulted in a vicious-dog charge, but the case was never prosecuted.
 
Wright, up for re-election to the Zone 2 council seat, said late Wednesday she and her husband didn't know for sure how Zeke escaped from their fenced yard.
 
"We think someone came by in the night and let our dog out," Wright said. "Our gate was open this morning when we got up."
 
She said Zeke wears an electric shock collar that's triggered by a perimeter wire around the property if the dog tries to escape.
 
The system was working, and Wright said Zeke wouldn't have crossed the barrier. Asked how Zeke got out, Wright offered a theory.
 
"I don't know how it happened," she said. "Maybe someone took the collar off and put it back on him."
Short stint in pound
 
Dawson, on his way out to get the morning newspaper, said Lucky had walked around the corner of his garage at 1344 E. Walnut St. and immediately encountered the 120-pound malamute.
 
"I came around the corner, and my little dachshund was just yelping in pain and fear," Dawson said. "I saw her dog snapping its jaws and attempting to bite Lucky. I whacked it on the nose with my wooden cane and stood there yelling at it. It finally backed off and ran away."
 
Animal control officers managed to capture Zeke about a block away and take him to the animal shelter north of town.
Wednesday afternoon, Andy Wright picked up the animal from the pound.
 
Dawson said it was "absolutely ludicrous" that Wright's dog had escaped and attacked a neighborhood dog again.
 
"I am very upset," he said. "I have 2- and 4-year-old children, and I'm very concerned about them being in the front yard if this dog can get loose.
 
"This has happened repeatedly. I don't feel safe, even in my back yard."
 
Dawson tried to call Wright to complain about the attack, with no luck. He wants her to build a fence that will prevent her animals from escaping.
 
The Wrights live a half block from Dawson at 1303 E. Walnut St.
 
The Wrights' home is surrounded by a low, wrought-iron fence and an invisible electric fence to contain their three dogs.
Prosecutor decides
 
According to city records, the last reported incident involving the Wrights' dogs occurred in July.
 
Chris Carson told authorities that a malamute escaped from the Wrights' property and attacked his 6-month-old golden retriever.
 
Carson was walking Finley on a sidewalk near the Wrights' home when their dog dashed out a side gate and attacked Carson's pet.
 
Finley's right leg was injured. The Wrights paid the nearly $1,000 veterinary bill.
 
Ron Boyer, assistant director of the Springfield-Greene County Health Department, said it would be up to the city prosecutor to decide whether to pursue a vicious-dog case against the Wrights.
 
"Under the ordinance, if a dog has attacked a domestic animal or a human, or if it has shown the propensity to do that, by growling, barking or acting aggressively, then it could be considered a vicious dog," Boyer said.
 
If a dog is found to be vicious, a judge can order the animal euthanized or require its owners to meet various requirements, such as constructing a secure fence or carrying special insurance.
 
"We provide the information about the case," Boyer said. "It's up to the city prosecutor to decide whether to file charges."
 
Municipal Court Administrator David Yancey said the case never went to trial.
 
"All I know is that it wasn't prosecuted in November," he said.
 
Wright said the case was dropped when the city prosecutor failed to show up.
 
"We went to court four times on this," she said. "He didn't show up for the first two hearings, then he did show up for the third hearing. The fourth time he didn't, and the judge dropped the case."
 
Carson said he remembered signing two vicious dog injunctions against Andy and Shelia Wright and thought it was on its way to court.
 
When he learned Wednesday the case had been dropped, Carson said he was not surprised.
 
"It does bother me, but I'm not surprised," he said. "I imagine no one wanted to take her on."
 
Municipal Court Prosecutor Johnnie Burgess didn't return calls.
 
 
 
Prosecutor Johnnie Burgess
(417) 864-1892
 
Springfield City Council:
 

City Manager
Bob Cumley

City Manager's Office
Busch Municipal Building
840 Boonville
Springfield, Missouri 65802
417-864-1001 or Contact by email.

Sponsors

Anti-animal fighting enforcement bill

The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act would properly penalize and hopefully deter people from engaging in these brutal “blood sports.” Dogs used in dog fighting often die of blood loss, shock, dehydration, exhaustion and infection. Some trainers train their dogs to fight using smaller animals, such as cats, rabbits or smaller dogs as bait. The presence of animal fighting in communities has been known to lead to other crimes, such as illegal gambling, carrying of illegal weapons and drug sales.
  What You Can Do
Please sign our web-letter, which will be sent to your senators and representative urging them to support the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007. You may also visit our website to read about this legislation in greater depth.
  We deeply thank you for your help and support!
  
  https://secure2.convio.net/aspca/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2097


Petition for pitbull service dog denied access to Walmart

Dear Friends,

I have just read and signed the petition: "Chloe the Service Dog and Owner are
Denied Access to Wal Mart" Chloe has a wonderful website too with the details of the incident.
  You can view it here: http://www.freewebs.com/chloethepitbull/

Please take a moment to read about this important issue, and join me in signing
the petition. It takes just 30 seconds, but can truly make a difference. We are
trying to reach 10,000 signatures - please sign here:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/207615248

Once you have signed, you can help even more by asking your friends and family
to sign as well.

Petition: Prosecute John Hornaday- Felony Animal and Domestic Abuser

Hi Friends,

I have just created and signed the petition: "Prosecute John Hornaday - Felony Animal and Domestic Abuser".

There is a strong link between animal cruelty and violence toward children and women (See http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/abuse_connection.php). This is an opportunity for us to protect our communities from a very dangerous man and to send a message that cruelty toward animals and domestic abuse will not be tolerated.

Please take a moment to read about an important case, and join me in signing this petition to keep a violent abuser in jail. It takes just 30 seconds, but can truly make a difference. You can make an even stronger impact by writing the courts involved (information below).

Please sign here: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/370862664

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-abuse.com/cases/10363/IN/US/#UPDATES

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/confinement
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-0038

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


Kentucky Bill aims to Protect Rights of Breeders and Owners

[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. 

The American Kennel Club strongly endorses the right to own, keep and breed dogs in a responsible and humane manner. The AKC opposes unreasonable limitations on pet ownership and we support fair, enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously.  HB 375 will protect responsible pet owners and breeders. 

If adopted, the proposal would ban local governments from:

  • Prohibiting or regulating the ownership, breeding, transportation, or training of dogs used for hunting and/or field trials
  • Prohibiting or limiting dogs in public parks
  • Prohibiting or regulating service dogs in public parks or other locations
  • Requiring the spaying or neutering of any animal
  • Requiring a higher fee for licensure or ownership of an intact dog
  • Providing for a lower fee or tax for licensure or ownership of a dog that is spayed or neutered. 

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:
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/whoswho/whoswho.htm.

For more information, contact AKC's Canine Legislation Department at (919) 816-3720 or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.

Around the Nation: Legislation that affects YOU

Around the Nation:
Legislation That Affects You January / February 2007

CALIFORNIA - The Sacramento County Board of
Supervisors will meet at 2:30pm February 27th discuss
adoption of the "Animal Overpopulation Ordinance." It
is imperative that fanciers, breeders and concerned
dog owners attend the meeting. The measure includes a
$150 intact animal fee, a reduced $50 intact animal
permit for those who meet certain conditions, a $10
fee to transfer an animal over the age of four months,
and requires all dogs and cats to wear a suitable
collar or harness with the license tag attached. For
further information, please contact the Sacramento
Council of Dog Clubs at jgrcorgis@aol. com.

- The Kern County Animal Control Commission is set to
propose a new breeder
license. Anyone offering for sale more than 1 litter
per year would be required
to purchase the $150 permit, which would include
licensing for 2 intact
animals. Animal control would have the right to
inspect the premises of any
breeder. The commission is also considering increasing
fees including the fee to
license intact animals and the fee to redeem intact
animals from the shelter. A
low cost spay/neuter program and the possibility of
requiring an animal to be
sterilized if it is picked up three times are also
under consideration.
- The San Jose Animal Advisory Committee is proposing
changes to the animal
control ordinance that would require all dogs and cats
to be spayed or neutered
and to restrict where animals can be sold. A copy of
the draft proposal has
not yet been made available to the public, although
the San Jose Animal Care
and Services division states that the mandatory
spay/neuter provisions will not
apply to qualified competition animals. The Canine
Legislation Department has
sent materials to concerned dog owners and will be
working with the city
council members once a draft is available. Local
fanciers and dog owners are
encouraged to contact their representative on the city
council and educate them
about the rights and benefits of responsible breeding
programs. The measure is
expected to go before the San Jose City Council in
March or April.
- The City of Hesperia was considering legislation to
ban certain breeds or
require that certain breeds be spayed or neutered. The
Canine Legislation
Department worked with local dog owners to educate
legislators about the
ineffectiveness of breed specific measures and the
city is now investigating other ways to improve animal
control.

FLORIDA - HB 317, introduced by Rep. Culp, is under
consideration by the
House Safety and Security Council. It amends the
current animal cruelty law by
providing that a first-time offender convicted of
cruelty to animals will be
subject to the following mandatory minimums: $500
fine, incarceration period of 30 consecutive days, and
100 hours of community service.
- SB 14, introduced by Sen. Bullard, has been referred
to the Senate
Committees on Agriculture; Regulated Industries; and
General Government
Appropriations. Major provisions of the bill include:
requiring that any cat or dog offered for sale be
accompanied by an "animal-purchase disclosure";
prohibiting pet dealer who is not breeder of an animal
from possessing dog or cat younger than 8 weeks of
age; providing that proper veterinary care of animal
returned due to illness or disease may include
euthanasia; provides for refund to purchaser
if pedigree documents are not received within six
months of purchase.
For more information on legislative activity in
Florida, please contact the
Florida Association of Kennel Clubs at dja0218@aol.
com.

HAWAII - HB 358, introduced by Rep. Lee, is currently
held in the House
Committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce. The
bill would prohibit homeowner's insurers from raising
rates or refusing coverage to homeowners who own or
harbor a dog, unless the dog has been found to have
unjustifiably bitten a human being on at least two
separate occasions.

- SB 18 is under consideration by the Senate Committee
on Intergovernmental
and Military Affairs. Introduced by Sen. Sakamoto, the
legislation would
require counties that license dogs pursuant to state
law to maintain a registry of
animals determined to be dangerous.

ILLINOIS - HB 203, known and the Retail Sale of Dogs
and Cats Act, is
sponsored by Representative Froehlich and has been
referred to the House Committee on Agriculture and
Conservation. The bill, if passed and signed into law,
will impose various requirements on pet dealers
(defined as anyone who sells more than 25 dogs per
year), including that an animal must be examined by a
licensed veterinarian before being placed with other
animals by the pet dealer. Pet dealers will also be
required to give the purchaser of a dog a written
statement
containing certain information about the animal
purchased, and must maintain a
record of that information. Pet dealers must also
provide remedies for a
purchaser if an animal becomes ill or dies as a result
of an illness that existed
in the animal at the time of purchase.

For more information on legislative activity in
Illinois, please contact the
Illinois Dog Clubs and Breeders Association at
MAJWIZ@aol.com or
lotzadots101@ aol.com.

INDIANA - St. Joseph County has adopted changes to
their animal control
ordinance including adoption of a license fee
structure as well as minor and major
breeders permits. The council rejected proposed
breed-specific provisions that
would have deemed "pit bulls," defined as American Pit
Bull Terriers,
American Staffordshire Terriers or Staffordshire Bull
Terriers, to be dangerous
animals. AKC worked with local fanciers to oppose the
changes.
- On Wednesday, February 7, sponsoring Rep. Van
Haaften confirmed that HB
1607 would not move forward in its present form. The
bill sought to establish
regulation of pet dealers by the State Board of Animal
Health. If passed, it
would have created the pet dealer fund, and would have
given the board the
authority to set fees related to the licensure of pet
dealers. The bill would also
have established guidelines for the regulation of the
sale of dogs and made it a
deceptive sales practice for a pet dealer to sell a
dog if the pet dealer did
not follow the procedures established by the board.
Additionally, it would
have given the board and the Division of Consumer
Protection authority to
oversee the sale of dogs. For more information on this
new law, please read our
Legislative Alert.
- HB 1719 has been introduced by Rep. Bardon and
referred to the House
Committee on Rules and Legislative Procedures. If
passed, it will require that dogs be implanted with a
microchip that contains an identification number and
can
be read with a standard scanner. All data will be
registered with a state-run
agency. It also requires that the owners of dogs that
are not neutered or
spayed to pay a $50 annual fee and to post "Beware of
Dog" signs on the premises
where the dog is kept. Further, the bill establishes
penalties for noncompliance, and allows a county,
city, or town, to adopt a dog control ordinance that
is more restrictive than state law. For more
information on this proposal,
please read our Legislative Alert.

KANSAS - The Manhattan City Commission is forming a
task force to investigate
remedies to their dangerous dog problems. The city had
been considering a
breed-specific ordinance that would regulate the
ownership of certain breeds
including American Staffordshire Terriers, Bull
Terriers, Staffordshire Bull
Terriers, Rottweilers, Dobermans, and Chow Chows. The
American Kennel Club sent a letter opposing
breed-specific legislation to the city council
members. The
Manhattan Kansas Kennel Club distributed copies of the
dangerous dog packet to
city council members and will continue to work toward
a non-breed-specific
solution. For more information please contact the
Manhattan Kansas Kennel Club at
agilitydog1@ netzero.net.

KENTUCKY - The Louisville Metro Council has enacted
major changes to their
animal control ordinance, including a pet limit,
severe restrictions on the
keeping of intact animals, licensing of in-home
kennels, extreme differential
licensing and vague definitions. The Canine
Legislation Department has been
working to assist the Louisville Kennel Club in
opposing this measure since late
2005. For more information on this new law, please
read our Legislative Alert.

MINNESOTA -Senate File 121, known as the Dog & Cat
Breeders Act, has been
introduced by Senators Betzold, Koering, and Sieben,
and has been assigned to the Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Veterans. Any breeder with six or more

intact adult females ("adult" defined as any dog over
20 weeks of age) will be
forced to comply with the provisions of SF 121. The
bill provides for
licensing of breeders, including payment of an annual
fee and facility inspection. A
veterinarian, as part of an inspection team, can
determine that there is a
substantial risk to the health and welfare of an
animal, including, but not
limited to, disease or pain, and may unilaterally and
immediately euthanize the
animal. SF 121 also prescribes extensive strict
mandatory standards of kennel
operations and care.

MISSOURI - The Raytown City Council voted to table a
proposed breed specific
ordinance and is now reviewing other methods to
improve animal control in
their community. The Canine Legislation Department
worked with local dog owners to educate council
members about the ineffectiveness of breed-specific
ordinances and we thank all who worked on this
important issue. Residents are
encouraged to continue to monitor the city council
agenda for the announcement of other possible changes.

NEW HAMPSHIRE - Rep. Gillick introduced HB 71, a
measure to exclude a
municipality's list of registered dogs from the
right-to-know law. The measure will be eligible for
consideration in the 2007 session.

- HB142, introduced by Reps. O'Connell and Beaulieu
and under consideration
by the House Committee on the Environment and
Agriculture, proposes to expand license requirements
for sellers of domestic animals and requires that all
out-of-state cats and dogs sold in New Hampshire be
accompanied by an official
health certificate.

NEW JERSEY - Asm. Van Drew is sponsoring A3542, a bill
to require animals
returned to their owners from shelters be sterilized,
even on a first offense
unless the owner can prove they have been active in
AKC activities. The bill also
increases the surcharge for an unsterilized dog from
$3 to $20, eliminates
the range for dog licenses fees established by
municipal ordinance provided
under current law, and increases the dog license fee
to $10 (whether set by
ordinance or if no ordinance exists). The effect of
these increases is that
licensing an unsterilized dog would cost $30 per year
and the license would have to be applied for each
year, while the license for a sterilized dog would be
$10
per year and could be issued once every two years.
Monies raised would be put in
to a "Cat and Dog Sterilization Fund" to fund the
sterilizations required by
the bill. A3542 has been referred to the Assembly
Committee on Agriculture
and Natural Resources.
- Sen. Lance is sponsoring S2246, a bill that will
require the court to issue
an animal protective order against persons found
guilty of abusing animals.
S2246 has been referred to the Senate Committee on
Economic Growth.
To find out how you can get involved in legislation in
New Jersey, please
contact the New Jersey Federation of Dog Clubs at
taborgsp@verizon. net.

NEW MEXICO - SB 559, introduced by Sen. Garcia, is
currently under
consideration by the Senate Conservation Committee. It
seeks to create the Commission on the Welfare of
Animals, which will administer the operation of
federal programs related to the welfare of animals,
except those already designated by law to another
state agency. The Commission will also recommend
methods of improving conditions at both public and
private animal shelters and sanctuaries in the state,
and promote methods of limiting the number of homeless
domestic animals.

NEW YORK - Asm. Peralta has introduced A1677, which
seeks to require all dogs
over four months of age to be microchipped and
registered with a new state-run registry.
Additionally, all microchips and information stored in
them must
be compatible with scanners used by the New York State
Department of
Agriculture and Markets. If passed and signed into
law, violators of the provisions of A1677 will be
subject to fines of up to $100. For further
information, please
read our Legislative Alert.
- A1896, introduced by Asm. Glick, would prohibit
insurance companies from
refusing to issue or renew an insurance policy,
canceling a policy, or charging
higher premiums, based on ownership of a particular
breed of dog. However,
when there is a `dangerous dog` finding under the
Agriculture and Markets law,
the refusal to issue or renew a policy, or imposition
of higher premiums would
still be permitted as long as such a determination is
based upon sound
underwriting and actuarial principles reasonably
related to actual or anticipated
loss. This bill is currently assigned to the Committee
on Insurance.

Please contact the Long Island Coalition of Dog
Fanciers at cia456@optonline. net for more information
about how you assist with canine legislation in New
York.

NORTH CAROLINA - The Davidson County Board of
Commissioners voted 5-2 against a proposal to require
all dogs over the age of six months to be spayed or
neutered unless their owner purchases a $100 intact
animal permit. The North
Carolina Federation of Dog Clubs working with local
concerned dog owners made a
strong appeal to the Board of Commissioners and we
congratulate them on their
successful efforts. For further information, please
read our Legislative Alert.

Please contact the North Carolina Federation of Dog
Clubs at ncdogclubs@msn. com for more information
about how you assist with canine legislation in North
Carolina.

OHIO - HB 606 died at the end of the 2006 session. The
bill proposed the
creation of a commercial dog kennel control authority
to license and inspect the
facilities of dog breeders. The Canine Legislation
Department will monitor the
Ohio State Legislature and will update fanciers and
breeders if a similar bill
is introduced in 2007.

OKLAHOMA - HB1082, authored by Representative
Wesselhoft, most significantly lifts the prohibition
on localities from enacting breed-specific ordinances.
It also provides for the collection of information
regarding animal attacks by the Oklahoma State Board
of Health. This bill is similar to the
Wesselhoft-sponsore d HB2657 and HB2658 from last
session, which were defeated in favor of stronger
dangerous dog laws. The Canine Legislation Department
will work with Oklahoma fanciers to oppose this
measure.

OREGON - Malhuer County has adopted an ordinance which
deems the following
breeds to be dangerous; American Pit Bull Terrier,
American Staffordshire
Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Bulldog,
Dogo Argentino, Canary Dog, Presa Mallorquin, Tosa,
Cane Corsa, Brazilian Mastiff. The new ordinance
requires that these breeds be contained in a pen or
kennel while on the owner's
property and requires them to be muzzled in public.
The Canine Legislation
Department has sent a letter to county officials
asking that they repeal this
breed-specific ordinance in favor of a dangerous dog
ordinance which judges all dogs based on their
actions, not their breed.

PENNSYLVANIA - Governor Ed Rendell has established a
new Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement within the
Department of Agriculture. In addition, he is
proposing a series of regulatory changes that will
negatively impact breeders. For
detailed information about the proposal and how you
can help, please read our
Legislative Alert.

RHODE ISLAND - HB 5177, introduced by Reps. Fellela,
Serpa, Melo, Giannini,
and Ucci, is currently under consideration by the
House Health, Education and
Welfare Committee. The bill proposes to create
extensive rules concerning the
sale of dogs, including requirements concerning
warranties, remedies and
notices. It will apply only to those who sell fewer
than 20 dogs or 3 litters in a
single calendar year, whichever is greater.

SOUTH CAROLINA - SB 234 will prohibit the denial,
cancellation, or
non-renewal of homeowners' insurance based solely on
the presence of one or more dogs, unless a specific
dog on the premises has a documented history of
causing significant damage to real or personal
property or serious bodily injury to a person. The
bill was introduced by Sen. Reese and has been
assigned to the Senate Committee on Banking and
Insurance.

TEXAS - The De Soto City Council rejected the idea of
banning certain dogs
from the city limits based on either breed or weight.
The council is going to
move forward with better enforcement of the leash law
and is working with
citizens to develop effective animal control
strategies. The Canine Legislation
Department sent materials to local fanciers and sent a
letter to the city council
opposing adoption of a breed-specific ordinance. We
thank all concerned dog
owners who worked to educate officials about the
ineffectiveness of breed bans.
VERMONT -- H 67 has been assigned to the House
Committee on Commerce.
Introduced by Reps. Dostis and Minter, the bill will
prohibit the presence of dogs as a factor in the
business of homeowner's insurance, except when a
specific dog
is documented to have caused significant damage to
real or personal property
or bodily injury to a person.

Please contact the Vermont Federation of Dog Clubs at
rpoa@texas.net or
Jgrcorgis@aol. com for more information about how you
assist with canine legislation in Vermont.

VIRGINIA - HB 2098 seeks to prohibit tethering an
animal that is less than
six months old or an animal that has not been spayed
or neutered. Additionally,
it prohibits using a tether that weighs more than what
an animal can
reasonably bear. Introduced by Del. Howell, the bill
has been referred to the House Committee on
Agriculture, Chesapeake, and Natural Resources.
- Similarly, HB 2242 seeks to make it a misdemeanor to
tether, fasten, chain,
or tie a dog to a doghouse, tree, fence, or other
stationary object, with
exceptions, amongst others, for running line, pulley,
or trolley systems; or when
dog is assisting in an activity conducted pursuance to
a valid license. This
bill was introduced by Del. Alexander and has been
referred to the House
Committee on Agriculture, Chesapeake, and Natural
Resources.
- HB 3091, introduced by Del. Wright and referred to
the House Committee on
Agriculture, Chesapeake, and Natural Resources, will
exempt the occasional
breeder, buyer, and seller of companion animals from
being treated as a dealer.
The occasional breeder, buyer, or seller is defined in
the bill as any person
who makes only occasional sales, trades, or transfers
of companion animals for
the enhancement or preservation of a breed, as a
hobby, or for a showing or
other competition; and as any person who sells all or
part of a litter bred for
the purpose of obtaining a pet, a hunting dog, or a
service animal.
To find out how you can get involved in legislation in
Virginia, please
contact the VA Federation of Dog Clubs & Breeders a
luvwelsh@aol. com.

WASHINGTON - The City of Tacoma hosted a public
hearing December 12th on
changes to the animal control ordinance including
possible mandatory spay/neuter of dogs. The proposal
would require owners of intact animals to purchase a
breeder's permit, regardless of whether they intend to
breed the animal or not, in
addition to the existing $55 intact animal license
fee. The cost of the
breeder's permit has not been established. The measure
would also require any
animal at-large to be spayed or neutered, even on a
first offense. At this time,
the city is only collecting information. The proposal
has not been finalized and
city officials have indicated they will host further
public hearings on the
issue. The Canine Legislation Department will post
updates as they become
available.
- Royal City has enacted a breed-specific dangerous
dog ordinance that deems
Rottweilers and "pit bulls," defined as American pit
bull terriers, American
Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers,
and American Bulldog to
be dangerous dogs. The Canine Legislation Department
became aware of the
measure after its adoption and has sent a letter
asking the council to repeal the
ordinance in favor of a reasonable, enforceable
dangerous dog ordinance.
- HB 1105, sponsored by Reps. Campbell, Kirby, and
Appleton, provides that an
insurer may not deny a homeowner's insurance policy
application, or cancel,
refuse to renew, or modify an existing homeowner's
insurance policy, on the
basis that the applicant or insured owns or harbors a
specific breed of dog on
the property, unless the dog is a dangerous dog. The
bill was approved by the
House Committee on Insurance, Financial Services, and
Consumer Protection, and is now under consideration by
the House Rules Committee.

WISCONSIN - The City of Manitowoc is considering an
ordinance that would
limit residents to three dogs. There is a special
permit available for up to four
dogs, but it is based solely on the approval of the
local police chief.
Further, the measure prohibits ownership of "pit
bulls," defined as American
Staffordshire Terriers unless approval is granted by
the police chief. The Canine
Legislation Department is working with local dog
owners to oppose this proposal.
The proposed ordinance has been assigned to the Public
Property and Safety
Committee and a vote is expected in February.

WYOMING - HB 261 seeks to establish a task force to
study animal abuse and
animal welfare. The bill provides for membership,
study requirements, reporting
requirements, and appropriation for the task force.
Sponsored by Reps. Berger,
Samuelson, and Zwonitzer, the bill has passed both the
House Committee on
Agriculture, Public Lands, and Water Resources, and
the House Committee on
Appropriations.

Sponsors

This article came out of Trumann Democrat Online from Trumann, AR.


To ban or not to ban

By CARIN MCCLUNG, Democrat News Staff

It 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.



Dog ban criticism unleashed
FALL RIVER - While the City Council mulls over its attorney's decision that its proposed breed-specific dog ordinance is unconstitutional, a one-year-old dangerous dog ordinance in New Bedford is getting the job done.

"It's been good for New Bedford. Our incidences have dropped dramatically," said Manuel Maciel, director of Animal Control in New Bedford and president of the Massachusetts Office of Animal Control.

New Bedford in 2005 considered breed-specific legislation similar to what Fall River has been proposing for several months. When deemed unconstitutional, that city formed a committee to study the issue and came up with a new and much tougher dangerous dog ordinance that punishes offenders with steep fines.

Maciel said New Bedford city officials, police personnel and dog officers worked together to create the ordinance. He said the same must happen in Fall River for a successful proposal.

"Fall River residents, city councilors and Animal Control [officers] need to be a part of this," Maciel said. The current proposal "doesn't have the bite it needs. There's a lot of loopholes."

The city's proposal would have regulated pit bulls and Rottweilers only and would have been an amendment to the current dangerous dog law. The ordinance would have banned the dogs from city streets, mandating that they be confined inside homes or behind a 6-foot fence and not allowed off the property except for veterinary visits. Further, it would have banned the sale of those breeds within city limits.

"[Councilors are] looking at public safety. I understand where they're coming from," Maciel said. "But it's not fair to responsible dog owners."

When the breed-specific ordinance was deemed unconstitutional and returned to the City Council's Committee on Ordinances on Tuesday, Maciel said, it was due to the great response of the public on this issue.

"The numbers, I think, spoke," Maciel said. "The amount of Fall River residents that turned out helped a lot."

The next step is up to Committee on Ordinances, which will reassess the issue. No date for that meeting has been set. Maciel said he's offered his help, as have other people involved in animal control.

"I hope I get a call," Maciel said.

In New Bedford, the new dangerous dog ordinance mandates that owners of dogs deemed dangerous or vicious have the animals spayed or neutered, have a microchip implanted in their dogs for easy identification, seek behavioral training, and have the dogs be up to date on all vaccinations.

Owners of dangerous dogs must purchase an insurance policy worth at least $100,000 per incident, insuring victims against loss or injury.

Also, owners of those dogs must keep the animals behind a fence and securely chained. They cannot take the dog out of confinement unless chained and muzzled. Dogs deemed dangerous or vicious are not allowed within 500 feet of any city parks or playgrounds. When the dogs are inside the house, windows and screen doors must be closed.

Licensing a dangerous dog in New Bedford costs an additional $50.

Owners of dangerous dogs who do not comply with the provisions are subject to fines of $300 per day.

Maciel said the ordinance has gone a long way in preventing attacks and has cut down on the number of offenses by drug-dealing dog owners. It also doesn't penalize specific dog breeds.

"That's what the ordinance is for - protecting everyone," Maciel said.

In following a new ordinance, Maciel said, it takes time for the law to work, but eventually it does. It takes a fair ordinance, he said, and also the commitment of police and animal control officers to enforce the ordinance.

"Slowly, we'll hopefully get rid of all the vicious dogs in the city," Maciel said. "Fall River does need a new dog ordinance, but a fair one that covers all breeds."


( 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?
By Nick Van Duren
Aug 11, 2006, 21:03

A disturbing trend is sweeping America: Costly and destructive animal ordinances. The reason stems from an all-out effort by Animal Rightist organizations to lobby every single city in the U.S. They are searching out lawmakers to exploit and further their twisted agenda.

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:

  • Denver has over 1,000 kills to its credit in only the last year. Many of these dogs perfectly healthy before being confiscated, starved into ill health, and then killed.
  • Kansas City has concocted a process that it terms an "amnesty program". It goal is to make the slaughter of these innocent pets more convenient and less costly for animal control to enforce.
  • Long Beach forces residents to spay/neuter their pets, placing dogs (especially certain breeds) at physical risk by mandating surgery. We wouldn’t tolerate a municipality strapping down and sterilizing our children? Why should animal control be allowed to do this to our pets? Our private property? One begins to wonder.
  • Animal Control in Vermont has been going door-to-door conducting sting operations on average people; all to enforce a licensing pet tax.
  • Under the influence of Animal Rightists, some council members have even gone so far as to introduce legislation that governs everything down to what kind of food, containment, and even toys, are legal and illegal for our pets.

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 .


Who the Hell do YOU think YOU are?

We Wonder, Michael Bryant....
Who The Hell Do You Think You Are?
Bill 132 and other breed-specific anti-dog laws, ban entire breeds of dogs based solely on reputation or bad public image, ignoring the fact that the majority of dogs within the breed are upstanding citizens. This law persecutes innocent dogs and their owners in order to pacify the fears of a hysterical, blood thirsty public. If you take the time to look into the facts, any rational human being will realize that this is a misguided piece of legislation. Laws that are enacted to protect the public should be based on behaviour, not specific breeds. In actuality, this type of law is only useful as an instrument for breed extermination. Period.

People have to understand that animals are members of our families, not just “property”. Dogs are living, breathing, feeling, loving, devoted creatures who deserve the appropriate respect. We need to be the voice for our beloved pets who's voices can't be heard.

We here at Kill Bill 132.com are supportive of amending the Dog Owner's Liability Act to punish abusive, irresponsible, and negligent dog owners of any breed, but are absolutely opposed to any Breed Specific Legislation (BSL). This proposed bill by Attorney General, Michael Bryant in it's current form goes against the fundamental principle of law in our society; that being that you are innocent until proven guilty. This applies to both the owner and dog - if you own an unregistered dog of any breed with a large head in proportion to it's body (like Bryant) and your neighbour from hell calls the Pit Bull police, you will lose your dog and your dog may very well lose it's life. Sound far-fetched? Try taking the Find the Pit Bull Test.

Whether you own a Pit Bull or not is completely irrelevant here. Even if you don't own a dog at all, you should still be very concerned. Perhaps next time it will be something you love that the media will launch a baseless fear campaign against, and it will be your family members that will suffer the government's problem-reaction-solution-take away your rights nightmare that responsible Pit Bull owners are suffering with now. We cannot allow this law to devastate countless numbers of human lives and needlessly cause the genocide of innocent dogs.

All of us here at Kill Bill 132.com are lifetime dog owners. As well, some of us have worked or still do work with dogs in some professional capacity. Yes, we take the responsibility of dog ownership very seriously and realize that it is a privilege, not a given right to care for any one of Mother Nature's creatures until death do us part. Please know that the vast majority of Pit Bull owners do not fit the "typical pit bull owner" stereotype that the media and the Liberal government perpetuate. Don't fall victim to their lies! Those whom own "muscle" breeds for all the wrong reasons, or simply dog owners who haven't got a clue what serious ownership entails, need to be punished to the full extent of the law when laws are broken.

We need to band together and show the AG that his media induced fear-mongering does not phase us and we will knock down his exaggerated statistics and out-and-out lies! Punish the deed, not the breed!

We are going to need everybody to bring their A-Game if this provision is to be defeated. Go forth and multiply!

Get angry, get involved and tell Ontarians why BSL is BS!!


    Want your own free site like this? Try Freewebs.com