PA- Wilkes-Barre mayor wants BSL

Wilkes-Barre mayor wants BSL
A very determined young woman, Samantha Blum of Wilkes-Barre is working to try and prevent Wilkes-Barre's mayor, Thomas M. Leighton form gaining permission from Pennsylvania state legislators to ignore the statewide law disallowing municipalities in the state to enact BSL (Breed Specific Legislation). Leighton wants to create a law disallowing "vicious dogs" from roaming free in public parks.
The impetus behind Leighton's desire is because of two recent yet unrelated incidents at the county owned park known as River Common. On June 29 a man's small, leashed dog was attacked in the park by two loose dogs. The little one was injured to the point of needing euthanization.
On July 4, responding to a call of a dog running wild in River Common Park, police shot and killed a pit bull dog. With no owner in sight and the dog acting aggressively, a police officer shot the dog when it lunged at him.
This isn't the first time Leighton has attempted enacting BSL in Wilkes-Barre. In 2001, when Leighton was a member of city council, he pushed to ban pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds and Doberman Pinschers from city parks after authorities shot a pit bull during a raid at a Woodward Street home.
Again, in 2005, Leighton pushed new legislation to ban pit bulls from the entire city. At that time local police officials backed him, saying dogs were often kept by criminals, and were a danger to police officers. Both times it was Pennsylvania's law that prevented his efforts.
Blum is leading a campaign to oppose banning dog breeds from public parks stating “Breed-specific legislation is not the solution to a problem, but rather a means of punishing responsible pet owners and good dogs for the actions of a few dogs that were brought up in an inappropriate or abusive environment or improperly trained.”
She is circulating petitions asking people to support the cause. She is asking all area residents to sign her petition which states BSL is wrong and asks for alternative changes in legislation like higher accountability of dog owners, public education and stricter enforcement of leash laws.
Copies of Blum’s petition are available for the public to sign at the following area pet stores and grooming facilities:
Pet Supplies Plus, Scott Street
Tropic Pet Center, South Main Street
K9 Korner, Route 309;
Animal Buddies, East Walnut Street
Pet Wonderland, Blackman Street;
Pets-n-You, Kidder Street
Auntie Liz’s Diamond in the Ruff, North Mountain Boulevard, Mountain Top
The entire petition is quoted below.
A Petition to Oppose Breed Ban in Wilkes-Barre
We, the undersigned, respectfully urge the city of Wilkes-Barre to seek alternate changes in legislation in regard to the proposed breed ban. We feel that the breed ban is drastic and unnecessary. We believe that there are other options available to consider that would be more effective in addressing this issue of the public’s safety brought about by the recent incidents of unleashed dogs and dog attacks.
This petition is to oppose the ban of any breed of dog. The recent incidents, however, were believed to have involved Pit Bulls, a breed that is often misidentified and because of such has received a negative connotation. The label of “Pit Bull” is often used incorrectly to generalize a large group of dogs/breeds that have similar physical characteristics of “Pit Bulls” but aren’t in fact true Pit Bulls (e.g. American Bulldog, Boxer, Cane Corso, Tosa Inu etc.). The only breeds of dog to be true Pit Bulls are the American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT), American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The APBT are a breed which is historically known to be extremely loyal, obedient, and friendly. How can breed specific legislation be implemented when the line between what is a Pit Bull and what looks like a Pit Bull is blurred to so many?
Although “Pit Bulls” are infamous for being involved in dog fights and for being very violent, these dogs are not innately driven to be vicious animals. Due to their large stature and strength these dogs, among with other dogs of various breeds and similar attributes, are being victimized and exploited for the sake of greed and a sort of twisted form of entertainment by those who are supposed to protect and care for these animals. These cases have not only hurt the animal’s unfortunate enough to have been involved but have also given an unnecessarily bad reputation to the breed as a whole. Any breed of any animal can become violent if they are in an environment where they’re being mistreated or improperly trained.
As alternatives to the possible breed ban in the city of Wilkes-Barre, we propose higher accountability for not only pet owners but those interacting with these animals, as well as stricter enforcement of leash laws. It is important for the public to be educated about different breeds of dogs and to be informed and cautious if they encounter a stray, unleashed, or otherwise unaccompanied dog. People need not blindly fear any specific breed but rather have a rational understanding of possible dangers that could accompany any stray or wild animal. Better funding for local shelters can help educate the public and to control and care for the animal population. Animal shelters and rescue groups across the country are overcrowded and under funded and if this plan is put into effect it will create more problems than it solves by leaving more dogs without homes, especially those who are innocent and have been given the false label of “a bad dog” or even “killer” based solely on their breed. All dogs are unique and we believe it’s inhumane to hold such prejudice against an entire breed of dog as a basis for a proposed ban of the breed.
We live in an area (like many others) where we have had floods, drugs, murders, animal attacks, crimes against children, etc. and the public deserves to be and needs to be exposed to any threat or danger of any kind that may affect them in a way that informs not terrifies or causes panic. By affixing my signature, I would respectfully ask the city of Wilkes-Barre to review this petition, the support it shows, and consider favorably our proposal for alternative legislation.
So, any and all Wilkes-Barre residents who agree with Blum on the BSL issue please sign the petition and pass it to others. A copy of a printable form of the petition can be obtained from Blum by emailing her at Samantha.blum87@yahoo.com.
For any citizen who disagrees with BSL please contact Mayor Thomas M. Leighton at 570-208-4158 or email him at: cityhall@wilkes-barre.pa.us, letters can be addressed to him at: Wilkes-Barre City Hall, 40 East Market Street, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711
Please be respectful when contacting the mayor as anything less would negate the seriousness of your message. It is imparative the mayor hears from the public so kindly let him know if you are against BSL.
If you like what you've read from the Philadelphia Dog Advocate Examiner, consider subscribing; it's FREE and you will receive an email with every newly published article. Your privacy is fully respected and your email address and information is kept private.
Follow Philadelphia Dog Advocate Examiner on Twitter

Sources: Woman wants dogs to remain in parks
Wilkes-Barre police shoot, kill pit bull running loose on River Common
Reaction after pit bull shooting
Wilkes-Barre, PA: City to ask legislature for ability to pass BSL
Woman in favor of dog breed ban in park

Other info: Pit Bulls in America

PA- Wilkes-Barre Mayor Leighton is seeking a more stringent dog ordinance- while not enforcing regulations already in place

OUR OPINION: CITY DOG PROBLEM

July 10

Rein in owners as well as pets

IF WILKES-BARRE outlaws what society considers bully dogs, then only outlaws will own them.

The play on the gun-control cliche� applies here. Consider this: Is it realistic, practical and fair to enact and enforce an all-out ban on pets like pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds and Dobermans from the city?

Of course not. Most dogs of size do not pose a danger, and the city doesn’t have the resources to police what dogs should be banned.

The issue, raised by Mayor Thomas Leighton, was prompted by last week’s mauling of a pet dog by vicious, off-the-leash pit bulls at the newly christened River Common park off River Street. Five days later a city police officer fatally shot a pit bull near the park when the dog charged at him.

For the third time in eight years, Leighton is seeking a more stringent dog ordinance, this time calling for a change in state law that would give municipalities power to enact measures aimed at certain breeds.

One immediate and realistic remedy is for the city to increase animal enforcement patrols. Picking up loose dogs has a twofold advantage: It targets violating owners while reducing the roaming dog population.

What happened last week to the small pet was horrible and sad, but the grim reality is another ordinance would not have protected it. The free-running dogs were already in violation of city and county regulations because they weren’t leashed. The violation carries a fine of up to $1,000 set by a district judge, according to the mayor’s office.

Banning breeds is problematic. For starters, “pit bull” is a term commonly used to describe several breeds of dogs, including breeds that are rarely listed by name in legislation. And how will police make the distinction when a mutt takes on the broad and muscular appearance of a purebred that’s part of its lineage?

Compelling pet owners to act responsibly is certainly a good, pro-active measure. Owners must control their pets, keeping them clear of people and other animals.

The mayor said he will review dog fines and consider increasing the cost of breaking the law. Making irresponsibility expensive is a step in the right direction.

We applaud the mayor’s passion. We hope he will parlay it into creative enforcement and upgraded fines.

Outlawing breeds, on the other hand, is likely to breed more outlaws.

Compelling pet owners to act responsibly is certainly a good, pro-active measure. Owners must control their pets, keeping them clear of people and other animals.

The mayor said he will review dog fines and consider increasing the cost of breaking the law. Making irresponsibility expensive is a step in the right direction.

http://www.timeslea der.com/opinion/ Rein_in_owners_ as_well_as_ pets_07-10- 2009.html

OH- City of Fairborn to enforce the ban on pit bulls

Fairborn Enforces No Pit Bull Ordinance

The ordinance banning pit bulls from the city of Fairborn passed in May 2008 and now city officials have decided to enforce it. In an interview posted on the WHIOTV.com website, City Manager Deborah McDonnell said, "We are asking residents to move the dogs to other locations and find other homes for them."

The city plans to begin the enforcement process by mailing letters to residents who own pit bulls letting them know about the ordinance.

The ordinance defines a pit bull as:
A. an American Pet Bull Terrier;
B. an American Staffordshire Terrier;
C. is an Staffordshire Bull Terrier;
D. displays the majority of physical traits of any one (1) or more of the above breeds;
E. is of mixed breed or of other breed than listed above which breed or mixed breed is know as A pit bull, pit bull dog or pit bull terrier; or
F. exhibits those distinguishing charachterists which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club for pit bull dogs or pit bull teriiers.

This same city ordinance (#1171.06, I) states that 5 dogs or cats constitues a kennel and shall be regulated as permitted within the zoning districts specified. This is not 5 INTACT dogs or cats- this is 5 total!!

TX- Couple working for a national ban on pit bulls

UPDATE: Leash Law Approved for Portions of Rusk County
By BETTY WATERS
Staff Waters

HENDERSON — Rusk County Commissioners this morning adopted a leash law for portions of the county.

The meeting was packed with people calling for the county to take a tougher stance against pit bull dogs.

Last month a 10-year-old Justin Clinton was mauled to death by pit bull dogs near Leverett’s Chapel School.

Before the meeting, 60 to 70 people gathered on the steps of the Rusk County Courthouse calling for the banning of pit bull dogs.

They hope what would be called “Justin’s Law” would outlaw ownership of pit bull dogs across the nation.

Among those attending the protest was Cynthia Kent, a Tyler attorney who served for several years as a district judge in Tyler.

Serena Clinton and Kevin Clinton, parents of Justin Clinton, speak during an interview this morning in front of the Rusk County Courthouse.
Mrs. Kent called the death a “senseless and preventable tragedy.”

She and others vowed to take the fight to ban pit bull dogs to the national level. Mrs. Kent said she would speak with U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert of Tyler about the prospect of national legislation.

Commissioner adopted the leash law for the Elderville and Airport Garden areas. A public hearing on enacting restrictions had previously been held for those communities. The court agreed to look at expanding the leash law to other areas.
The court also adopted a resolution calling for the banning of pit bulls throughout the nation.

Michael Jimerson, county and district attorney, said the county is limited to what it can do to prevent pit bull dog attacks.

In another action, the court accepted $15.78 million as the maximum cost for expansion of the county jail.

Updated Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 12:20 p.m. CDT

ID - Are pit bulls getting a bad rap?

Are pit bulls getting a bad rap?By Mike Murad
Video
BOISE - Pit bulls can divide people, just like abortion, politics and religion.

There's been a string of reported attacks locally, including when an Ada County Sheriff's deputy had to shoot a pit bull last week when they say it was attacking a Meridian Police officer and a K9. The pit bull died from the gunshot.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, an average of 12 people are killed by dog attacks each year nationwide, including three from pit bulls.

But even though you're still about 20 times more likely to be killed from a lighting strike than a pit bull attack, people still have strong feelings about the breed.

Two years ago, Peter Olson told CBS 2 he was simply outside his home picking up the mail, when two pit bulls appeared from nowhere, and attacked him.

"I knew they were going to kill me," Olson said. "I knew it was a fight for my life. As soon as I looked up they came charging and they didn't stop."

According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, about 800,000 people seek medical treatment each year for a dog bite. But, are your chances of getting bitten by a pit bull greater than any other dog?

The answer is no, said Dr. Dianne Soule, a Boise veterinarian. In her 24 years of experience, Soule says she's been bitten by just about every breed, except a pit bull.

"When I talk to other veterinarians about what dogs you see that are most aggressive, pit bull is not in the top 10," she says.

It's Rottweiler, and Chows, and Chihuahuas and Daschunds.

And the science would seem to back that up. A recent study conducted by the University of Pennsylvania indicates you have a much better chance of suffering a snap at the mouth of a Dachshund, Chihuahua, or Jack Russell terrier.

But, where the pit bull did score higher was in aggression toward other dogs, a trait that may have been fostered by their history of being forced to fight, both dogs and other animals.

CBS 2 recently observed dog activity and dog owners at a Meridian dog park, and couldn't find anyone who expressed a bias against the breed in general.

"I'd be a little scared if they were a pit bull that had been in dog fighting or aggressive," said Stephanie Griswold, who owns a German shepherd, "But as a puppy, if you raise it right, I wouldn't have any trouble with it."

Over the last three decades, the American Temperament Test Society has evaluated more than 29,000 dogs. And, of the 14 most tested breeds, only the Labrador retriever scored higher than a pit bull.

ATTS awards a pass or fail to each dog coming through their program. The test is based on the animal's shyness, aggressiveness and friendliness. Since 1977, ATTS has been keeping a running tally, and in terms of overall disposition, when it comes to the most tested dogs, only labs top pit bulls.

Lisa Kauffman is the Idaho director of the Humane Society of the United States. Two years ago, she became a first time pit bull owner when she adopted Barkley, who she brings to the dog park on a regular basis.

"People ask, 'is that a pit bull?' And I say 'yes.' He plays nice, and doesn't cause problems," says Kauffman, "So I think by me taking him places he's a good ambassador for the breed itself."

A pit bull is also the pet of choice for Treasure Valley dog trainer Sandra Sartorius.

"Give them a chance," says Sartorius. "If you've never met one, give them a chance, and you won't go back to any dog," she says.

In 2000, the CDC published a special report spanning 20 years on the breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States. Pit Bulls topped the list, averaging about three deaths a year, followed by Rottweilers at two, and German shepherds at one.

"Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bulls and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates," the CDC said in its report.

But, even if other breeds tend to bite more overall, why do pit bulls instill such fear in some people?

"They look tough," says Dr. Soule. "They are a big, beefy dog."

Sartorius says overcoming preconceived notions is the hardest part when explaining the breed to people. "I've met people, and I can't change their mind," says Sartorius. "It's 'oh, pit bulls are bad, and they're going to kill you and your dogs and everything else,' and I can't change people like that."

Kauffman says the problem comes back to any breed's owner. "It's the dogs left tethered on chains 24-7, dogs that aren't made a part of the family, that have no obedience training."

Soule believes owners can bring out the best, or worst, in pit bulls. "I do think pet owners have a big influence on a dog's behavior," she says. "If you want an aggressive dog, and encourage their tendency, that's what you will get. But if you want a dog that's gentle, that's what we see, and they're great."

Last year, the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association published a study from Multnomah County, Oregon. The number of overall dog bites was analyzed, and the study found lower income neighborhoods produced more biting dogs of all breeds, and fewer dogs that were neutered, which is considered to be a biting risk factor.

The study concluded: "Dog bites continue to be a source of preventable injury. Prevention programs should target owners of sexually intact male and purebred dogs and owners who live in lower income neighborhoods."

VA Two-day trial challenges County's Policy on Euthanizing Pit Bulss

http://loudounextra.washingtonpost.com/news/2009/may/06/pitbulls/By Derek Kravitz
Wednesday, May 6, 2009

By all accounts, the three-month-old pit bull puppy at Loudoun County's animal shelter was a happy, social and gentle dog. Unlike the vicious and aggressive image that often accompanies his breed, the brown-and-white puppy regularly jumped up on shelter employees' laps, tossed around rawhide toys and loved to play. In evaluations, workers described him as "silly," "wiggly" and "very lovey."

He didn't have a name except for his county-issued identification number, 43063. And, unfortunately for him, he made a few key mistakes in two required behavioral assessments in July 2007. Most puppies would have been able to survive the gaffes, several animal rescue groups allege. But this puppy was a pit bull in Loudoun County, the only Northern Virginia jurisdiction that prohibits public adoptions of the breed. So he was euthanized.

The county's decision to put that dog to sleep, along with 213 others since January 2006, was at the center of a two-day civil trial in Loudoun County Circuit Court about whether Loudoun County violated state and local laws that give people the right to adopt the dog of their choice from a publicly funded shelter. Arguments in the case concluded yesterday.

Loudoun residents and their dogs turned out for a demonstration in front of the courthouse to protest the county's adoption policy that they say discriminates against the pit bull breed. (Erica Garman)

Owners and their dogs protest the Loudoun County adoption policy that they say leads to the euthanasia of more pit bulls and pit bull mixes than that of other breeds.
Chewy, a four-month-old pit bull mix, belongs to Lacy Warner of Middleburg.

Loudoun euthanized all abandoned pit bulls for years before changing its policy in 2007, allowing the animals to be transferred to rescue groups or shelters in other jurisdictions - so long as the dogs passed a temperament test. The change came soon after former Attorney General Robert F. McDonnell (R) issued a nonbinding opinion saying that pit bulls taken to public pounds could not be euthanized based solely on their breed.

After McDonnell's opinion came out, Montgomery, Prince William and Arlington counties approved allowing pit bulls to be adopted after they had been evaluated, joining the District and Fairfax County. Nearby Prince George's County maintains one of the strictest policies in the nation, banning pit bulls unless they were acquired before 1997.

In May 2007, after the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors rejected a proposal to allow the public to adopt pit bulls cleared by animal behavior specialists, Animal Rescue of Tidewater, a Norfolk-based animal rights group, and Ronald Litz, a Great Falls computer security consultant who inquired about adopting a pit bull from the Loudoun County shelter, filed the lawsuit.

During Tuesday's arguments, attorneys for the plaintiffs described the county shelter as a mismanaged agency that unfairly euthanizes pit bulls that could have found loving homes. Attorneys played an audio recording of Loudoun County Supervisor Jim Burton (I-Blue Ridge), who said during a November 2007 county meeting that he had a "particular problem" with pit bulls because he had "seen them in action."

"There's an absolute clear bias based on breed," said Anthony F. Troy, a lawyer for the two parties suing the county.

Loudoun County officials argue that there is no "breed bias" but a "characteristic bias" against pit bulls, a term used for a number of different breeds that have long been associated with dogfights, gangs and deadly attacks. Assistant County Attorney Zaida Thompson said shelter staffers were doing the "best job they can" to make all adoptable dogs available to Loudoun residents.

Still, the case has presented problems for the Loudoun shelter, which operates on a 13-acre property in the affluent western part of the county. For years, officials there have been navigating a fine line between following the county Board of Supervisor's rulings on the pit bull issue and openly working with other regional public pounds to develop adoption policies for the breed.

"We're moving toward placing more dogs with rescue groups but a lot of them are full," said Tom Koenig, director of Loudoun County Animal Care and Control, in an interview shortly after the trial ended yesterday afternoon. "I follow the policy direction of the county administrator and the Board of Supervisors. I have to go with their decision. Would I like it to be different? It doesn't really matter because we are consistent with county policy."

Since the county's new transfer policy started, 122 pit bulls have been euthanized at the Waterford shelter. Data culled from evidence presented at this week's trial indicates the county euthanizes 84 percent of all pit bulls, compared to 48 percent of all other dogs.

As expected, the two-day trial featured some passionate displays, including a morning protest outside the county courthouse on Tuesday and a giant photo of a three-month-old pit bull puppy, similar to the one euthanized in 2007, being shown inside the courtroom.

Despite the emotions surrounding the case, the final ruling from Judge Burke F. McCahill, which is expected in coming days, might hinge on a technical, legal issue: whether a nonbinding opinion from an attorney general is enough to dictate county law.

"Unless that [attorney general's] opinion holds water," McCahill said during closing arguments, the county "might be free" to euthanize.

But for Litz, the plaintiff who owns a pit bull named Drew, it's simpler: "I don't understand the legal arguments, really," he said. "But I do understand dogs. And dogs are being killed."

All Bark and Fiscal Bite- Are Breed-Discriminatory Laws Effective?

This article originally appeared in Vol. 18, No. 2 (Winter 2009) of PASS IT ON

All Bark and Fiscal Bite—Are Breed-Discriminatory Laws Effective?
by Ledy VanKavage A dog attacks, and city-council members want the city attorney to react—sometimes by drafting an ordinance that restricts or outlaws a specific breed of dog, most often the maligned pit bull.1 After such an ordinance is passed, authorities must then ferret out and kill any dog that slightly resembles a pit bull. Prince George’s County Maryland spends approximately $560,000 every two years enforcing its ban. Miami-Dade County impounds and kills around 800 pit bulls a year, despite a ban dating back to the 1980s, resulting in a significant fiscal impact.2

Given the tremendous costs associated with breed-discriminatory laws, are they a prudent approach to community safety or a costly red herring? With passage of such ordinances comes a host of questions such as: How do you prove in court the identity of a mixed-breed dog? What sort of training do your animal-control or law-enforcement officers have regarding breed identification? If they aren’t trained in breed identification, is a veterinarian employed to determine whether a dog is a certain breed? Now that DNA testing is available, are courts going to require the government to pay for such testing before confiscating and destroying citizens’ property (i.e., their dogs)?

Missing the Mark by Targeting Pit Bulls
Effective public lawyers counsel their clients to make decisions based on research and valid statistics, not emotion. So why the modern-day witch hunt concerning pit bulls? Karen Delise, author of “Fatal Dog Attacks” and “The Pit Bull Placebo,” examined news stories regarding dog attacks that occurred during four days in August 2007. The results are telling:
· On Aug. 18, 2007: A Labrador mix attacked a 70-year-old man, sending him to the hospital in critical condition. Police officers arrived at the scene, and the dog was shot after charging the officers. This incident was reported in one article and only in the local paper.
· On Aug. 19, 2007: A 16-month-old child received fatal head and neck injuries after being attacked by a mixed-breed dog. This attack was reported two times by the local paper.
· On Aug. 20, 2007: A 6-year-old boy was hospitalized after having his ear torn off and receiving severe bites to the head by a medium-sized mixed-breed dog. This attack was reported in one article and only in the local paper.
· On Aug. 21, 2007: A 59-year-old woman was attacked in her home while trying to break up a dog fight involving her neighbor’s Jack Russell terrier and two pit bulls. The pit bulls had broken off their chains and followed her neighbor’s Jack Russell terrier in through her dog door. She was hospitalized with severe injuries. Her dog was not injured. This attack was reported in more than 230 articles in national and international newspapers and on major television news networks, including CNN, MSNBC, and Fox.

Thus, during those four days, four dog attacks made the news—including a fatality involving a mixed-breed dog—but only the incident involving the pit bulls captured national attention.

Given the hype, it isn’t a surprise that public lawyers may be asked to research and draft ordinances to help stop dog attacks, with the focus frequently on banning pit bulls. However, a smarter approach is to examine the statistics in the community, seek citizen input and weigh the factors involved in the attacks.

Read the full story on the American Bar Association site.

TX- Monday, March 30th- 8:00am- hearing of HB 1147

From Responsible Pet Owners Alliance, Inc.

HB1147 is scheduled for a hearing at 8:00 AM, Monday, March 30, 2009 -
please call of fax NOW.
Companion bill is SB 554 which was approved by the Senate committee 7 to 0.
COMMITTEE: House Criminal Jurisprudence (see schedule here) 8:00 AM,
Monday, March 30, 2009 PLACE: JHR 120 State Capitol, Austin

Attorney Zandra Anderson has provided the following legal analysis and
talking points.

What these bills mean:

HB 1147 & SB 554 (Possession of alleged dog fighting equipment criminalized)
Frost (Criminal Jurisprudence); Whitmire (Criminal Justice)

1. Under this bill it would become a crime to possess dog fighting equipment
with the intent that the equipment be used to train a dog for fighting or is
used in the furtherance of dog fighting. This would become a Class A
misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and up to a $4000 fine.

2. Dog fighting equipment is defined to include a harness, treadmill, cage,
decoy, pen, house for keeping a fighting dog, feeding apparatus, or training
pen.

Sample Letter / Talking Points:

House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee
EXT E2.112
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768-2910

RE: OPPOSE HB1147

Dear Chairperson Gallego, Vice Chair Christian and Committee on Criminal
Jurisprudence:

SB 554 criminalizes the ownership of items that are common to many dog
owners, but especially to those who engage in activities such as hunting,
dog sports and dog shows. While I support the prosecution of the crime of
dogfighting, the language is vague and will result in people being falsely
accused. In the vast majority of dogfighting cases, the dogs are destroyed
prior to a trial or even a conviction. Owners who are falsely accused suffer
devastating financial and emotional losses and can never get their dogs
back.

a.. All dog owners possess at least some of the equipment in this bill,
and many dog owners possess most of the equipment such as a harness,
treadmill, cage for a dog, a pen for a dog, feeding apparatus (a dog bowl)
and training pens.

b.. While possession of these items to be a crime is linked to intent to
train dogs to fight or in the furtherance of dog fighting, that is very
vague. There is no definition of what constitutes intent. How do you prove
intent?

c.. Merely possessing this equipment does not mean that someone has the
intent to train a dog to fight or that the equipment is used in the
furtherance of dog fighting.

d.. Because someone has a dog bowl, does this mean they have the intent to
fight a dog? This bill would open the door for unfairly prosecuting a person
who legitimately owns American Pit Bull Terriers or other similar dogs.

e.. Legitimate dog trainers of all breeds use treadmills to exercise their
dogs particularly when the weather is bad, and in no way indicates training
of fighting dogs.

f.. If a dog fighter is convicted, then the equipment described above can
already be seized and forfeited.

Respectfully,

====CONTACT INFO======

Clerk: Andrew Cates
Phone: (512) 463-0768
EXT E2.112
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768-2910

Please phone and/or fax ALL of the members especially if you live in their
district. If you live in a member's district, please let him or her know.

Find out who represents YOUR district: http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/

Rep. Pete Gallego, Chair
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist74/welcome.htm
District: Alpine
Capitol Address
Room 4N.9, Capitol Building
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 463-0566
(512) 236-9408 Fax

Rep. Wayne Christian, Vice Chair
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist9/welcome.htm
District: Center
Capitol Office
Room CAP GN.12
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
(512) 463-0556
(512) 463-5896 Fax
(877) 839-2709 Toll Free

Rep. Allen Fletcher
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist130/fletcher.php
District: Harris County (Part)
Capitol Office
E2.804, Capitol Extension
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
(512) 463-0661
(512) 463-4130 Fax

Rep. Terri Hodge
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist100/hodge.php
District: Dallas
Capitol Address
Room E2.818, Capitol Extension
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 463-0586
(512) 463-8147 Fax

Rep. Carol Kent
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist102/kent.php
District: Dallas
Capitol Office
Room E2.814, Capitol Extension
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
(512) 463-0454
(512) 463-1121 Fax

Rep. Robert Miklos
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist101/miklos.php
District: Mesquite
Capitol Office
Room E2.816, Capitol Extension
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 463-0464
(512) 463-9295 Fax

Rep. Joseph E. Moody
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist78/moody.php
District: El Paso
Capitol Office
Room EXT E1.208
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
(512) 463-0728
(512) 463-0397 Fax

Rep. Paula Pierson
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist93/pierson.php
District: Arlington
Capitol Office
Room EXT E2.210
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
(512) 463-0562
(512) 463-2053 Fax

Rep. Debbie Riddle
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist150/riddle.php
District: Houston
Capitol Address
Room E2.306, Capitol Extension
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 463-0572
(512) 463-1908 Fax

Rep. Allen Vaught
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist107/vaught.php
District: Dallas
Capitol Address
Room E2.414, Capitol Extension
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 463-0244
(512) 463-9967 Fax

Rep. Hubert Vo
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist149/vo.php
District: Houston
Capitol Address
Room E2.208, Capitol Extension
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 463-0568
(512) 463-0548 Fax

RPOA Texas Outreach (501C4 Nonprofit)
www.rpoatexasoutreach.org
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (501C3 Nonprofit)
www.responsiblepetowners.org

900 NE Loop 410 #311-D
San Antonio, TX 78209

KS- Local Battle in Wichita

Wichita, KS – The Wichita City Council has given preliminary approval to an ordinance that would severely impact the rights of local dog owners. Anyone wishing to own more than two dogs or cats must obtain an Animal Maintenance Permit (AMP), at which time they may own up to four dogs or cats. Owners of “pit bulls” may not apply for an AMP and must sterilize their dogs. The proposal imposes several other restrictions, including banning “pit bulls” from dog parks and limiting the number of dogs a person may have at a dog park at any time. AKC has submitted a letter and memo to the City Council and is working with local dog clubs to stop this ordinance.

SD- Local Battles- Tea City Council BSL

Tea, SD – The Tea City Council enacted an ordinance which bans American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers and American Pit Bull Terriers. The Government Relations Department has sent a letter encouraging a repeal of this ordinance and is working to support local clubs in their efforts to educate city council members

CA- Local Battles- that need to be addressed on the local level

Laguna Woods, CA – The City of Laguna Woods is considering an ordinance requiring spay/neuter of all dogs over four months of age, with few exceptions. These exceptions include a dog “used to show, compete, or breed”, so long as the dog has competed in at least 3 events in a calendar year, earned a title from a purebred registry, or is registered with a purebred breed club. Service animals and dogs unable to be spayed/neutered are also exempted. The AKC wrote a letter to the Laguna Woods City Council expressing our opposition to mandatory spay/neuter laws. The ordinance will be discussed at a future meeting.

Laguna Woods, CA – The Laguna Woods City Council passed an ordinance to limit ownership to three dogs or cats per household in the community. While this is an increase on the previous limit of one dog or cat, the AKC still opposes laws that limit dog ownership, as they are difficult to enforce and do not address the issue of responsible dog ownership.

Riverside County, CA – The Riverside County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to enact an ordinance that will require an impounded dog be spayed/neutered, even on a first offense. Spaying/neutering will also be required if the owner is cited for three violations of the animal control ordinance. The ordinance further requires all dogs to be microchipped. The Government Relations Department posted a legislative alert, wrote a letter opposing these changes and worked to support local breeders, owners and fanciers in educating the Board of Supervisors on these issues.
The Board also established a committee to define “breeder” and evaluate the success of the ordinance over the next year. Responsible dog owners who are interested in serving on this committee, which will be comprised equally of supporters and opponents of the ordinance, should contact their representative on the Board of Supervisors.

Santa Barbara County, CA – In 2007, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors declined to pass a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance and created a task force to study animal control issues including shelter population issues in the county. A dedicated group of local fanciers, owners and breeders has been attending these meetings, but more help is needed! If you live in the Santa Barbara County area, please consider attending the task force meeting and speak up for the rights of responsible breeders and owners. AKC has sent a letter to the task force and a sample letter to all our constituents in the county.

Lancaster, CA – The City of Lancaster has adopted an ordinance which requires the mandatory spaying/neutering of all Rottweilers, and “pit bulls,” defined as American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, or any dog with the characteristics of these breeds. The legislation also enhances penalties for dogs deemed dangerous or vicious.

Ukiah, CA – The Ukiah City Council has passed an ordinance which will change the term “owner” to “guardian” in the city code. The AKC has sent a letter opposing the change and supporting the term “owner,” as it places responsibility on people for the care and actions of their dogs. AKC has also provided educational pamphlets to local residents to use in educating their elected officials.

OR- Pit Bull Ban will go no further, lawmaker says

Pit Bull Ban will go no further, lawmaker saysBy KATU.com Staff Video SALEM, Ore. -
Proposed pit bull legislation that drew a passionate response from people on both sides of the issue will not be pushed any further, according to the Senator who introduced the bill.

"From the outpouring of interest I have received over the past few days, I have learned that pit bulls are beloved pets, friends and family members," Sen. Bruce Starr (R-Hillsboro) said in a statement released on Monday. "Most pit bulls and their owners are caring and responsible. I have no intention of pushing legislation that would threaten pit bulls or the rights of their owners."

The bill, which would have made owning a pit bull illegal in Oregon and would have even called for the dogs to be euthanized, hadn't made it to the Senate floor. You can read the draft here.
"I introduced Senate Bill 667 on behalf of a constituent," Sen. Starr said in his statement. "As the voice of my constituents in the state legislature, I make myself and the service of bill introduction available to them so their ideas can be heard in the legislative process. I may not always agree with the bills they request, but see it as my responsibility to make sure they have an opportunity to advocate for their ideas before the legislature."

Pit bull ownership has been a controversial topic in Oregon for the past several years. On one side, those who own the dogs say they are loving animals just like any other pet. On the other side are the folks who fear the breed and believe there should be protections in place.

The lobbying of One Person can make Law Makers Make Laws

Dogged lawmaker changes his mind
Friday, Feb 27 2009, 5:11 pm
By Sharna Johnson: CNJ staff writer
A state lawmaker is pulling a proposal to classify all pit bulls and rottweilers as dangerous dogs.

State Rep. John Heaton said Friday he's been persuaded by negative public reaction.

Heaton said he will offer a substitute bill, minus the breed specification, when the bill is scheduled for a House Consumer & Public Affairs Committee hearing Saturday.

Heaton, of Carlsbad, said the bill he introduced Feb. 9 cannot legally be changed until it is presented to committee.

Heaton's proposal sought to redefine the state's Dangerous Dog Act to specifically include rottweilers and pit bulls.

Under Heaton's original proposal, pit bulls and rottweilers would have been restricted to their own property except when receiving medical care. Owners also would have been required to submit to random property inspections and maintain $250,000 liability insurance coverage.

Public outcry and a change of heart by a constituent who initially lobbied him for legislation led to the planned retraction, Heaton said.

"Not every pit bull is a dangerous dog, there are a lot that are very gentle pets," he said.

An outcry over the proposed restrictions for pit bulls and rottweilers showed him, "people are very passionate about their pets."

Heaton said the bill was originally inspired by one of his constituents whose miniature horses were mauled by a pit bull while the dog's owners looked on.

The woman spent $63,000 to rehabilitate her horses, which are still suffering from the incident, and lobbied Heaton for legislation restricting dangerous dog breeds.

"I really didn't want to put breed specifications in there but my constituent wanted to and was insisting on it. I tried to talk her out of it," he said.

"My heart was never to put it in, but because she'd been through such a traumatic event, I let her instruct the bill."

Heaton said the substitute bill will still seek to require owners of dogs deemed dangerous by existing law to maintain $250,000 liability insurance, submit to property inspections and photographs or permanent marking of their pet.

MT- BSL Legislation defeated

Friday, January 23, 2009]
Responsible dog owners won a decisive victory Thursday afternoon when the Montana House Local Government Committee voted 17-1 against a bill to ban "pit bulls" in the state.

House Bill 191 prohibited the ownership, harboring, or keeping of dogs described as "pit bulls". "Pit bulls" was defined to include Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and "any dog that has the physical characteristics that substantially conform to the standards established for those breeds by the American Kennel Club." If the bill had passed, all such dogs would have been seized and euthanized.

Approximately 100 responsible dog owners and breeders testified against House Bill 191, convincing the committee that breed bans are not an effective solution to animal control problems. In addition, the AKC sent letters of opposition to committee members and alerted tens of thousands of dog owners throughout the country about this legislation. The AKC believes the government should implement reasonable, enforceable, non-discriminatory laws to govern the ownership of dogs and impose appropriate penalties on irresponsible dog owners.

The AKC thanks all those who testified against House Bill 191 in committee yesterday, and the many more who contacted the committee and their state legislators. We also thank the Montana House Local Government Committee for making a strong statement against breed-specific legislation.

Bad laws break up families- force owners to give up dogs they otherwise would be keeping

Today I got an email from a friend that had been forwarded from someone she knew. The email was a plea for help. It was asking for help finding a home for a 5 year old "pit bull". The owner was in the military and was moving to on-base housing and there is a ban on "pit bulls" on base. The email went on to say what a great dog this is, how much the owner loved the dog, and that he really wanted to find a good home for this dog.

Imagine- this guy has had this dog for 5 years and now, because of some PERCEIVED problem, he is forced to give the dog up.

It reminded me of another situation where one of my former neighbors gave up her adult Rottweiler because (a different neighbor) kept calling the police on her every time the dog was barking. This dog was a family pet, but would bark a lot while he was outside playing with the kids. The town we lived in (I have since moved) had a "noise ordinance" and one man in the neighborhood was a real jerk. The police only knew two options, 1st- we fine you for a violation of the noise ordinance, and 2nd- the dog must go.

There was another option to the "Dog must go"- the dog could have been "bark softened" "debarked"- what ever term you call it. This very, very simple procedure could have kept an adult dog with his family.

If you have not gotten the Animal Rights message Loud and Clear- eliminate animal ownership- then you are not listening.

Right now many states, (Massachusetts and Pennsylvania to name two) are reviewing laws that would make procedures such as "debarking" illegal. Many states (Hawaii and Montana to name two) are reviewing breed specific legislation. These laws only cause families to give up dogs that were otherwise beloved pets. THEN the Animal Rights groups have the nerve to cry, "our shelters are over-flowing and we are forced to kill thousands of dogs a year"- Yeah- well it is YOUR PROPOSED LAWS that are the REASONS for many, many, many of these dogs in shelters to begin with.

The Human Society of the United States (HSUS), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal (PeTA), and some of the very liberal "local" shelters have a great circle going- fund and propose laws that cause dogs to go to shelters, raise money from people while you claim there are too many dogs, get money by adopting those dogs out-use volunteer labor, reduced or donated Veterinary care to reduce the expense of housing shelter dogs, lobby for more legislation.

Lets keep family dogs in their families. Put a stop to ill-conceived dog laws. Contact your ELECTED representive now.

HI- Breed Specific Bill In Hawaii

Hawaii Senator Colleen Hanabusa, president of the Hawaii Senate, has introduced Senate Bill 79, which seeks to prohibit the ownership, possession, or sale of "pit bulls" in the state. The bill defines pit bulls as American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the breed standards established by the American Kennel Club. The AKC vehemently opposes breed-specific legislation. All concerned dog owners in Hawaii are urged to contact their elected representatives and the members of the Senate Judiciary and Government Operations Committee, which currently has cognizance of the bill, and express their respectful yet strong opposition to this hard-to-enforce legislation.
If enacted, SB 79 will:

* Make it a misdemeanor to own, possess, or sell a pit bull.
* Define pit bulls as "any dog that is an American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one or more of those breeds, or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club for any of those breeds."
* Allow searches of a pit bull owner’s property.
* Provide for impoundment of dogs considered pit bulls.
* Allow for the forfeiture of such dogs.

To find your elected officials, please click here
Hawaii Senate Judiciary and Government Operations Committee

Sen. Brian T. Taniguchi, Chair
Hawaii State Capitol, Room 219
415 South Beretania Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
phone 808-586-6460; fax 808-586-6461
e-mail sentaniguchi@Capitol.hawaii.gov

Sen. Dwight Y. Takamine, Vice-Chair
Hawaii State Capitol, Room 204
415 South Beretania Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone 808-586-7335; Fax 808-586-7339
Email sentakamine@capitol.hawaii.gov

Sen. Robert Bunda
Hawaii State Capitol, Room 202
415 South Beretania Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
phone 808-586-6090; fax 808-586-6091
e-mail senbunda@Capitol.hawaii.gov

Sen. Mike Gabbard
Hawaii State Capitol, Room 201
415 South Beretania Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
phone 808-586-6830; fax 808-586-6679
e-mail sengabbard@Capitol.hawaii.gov

Sen. Clarence K. Nishihara
Hawaii State Capitol, Room 213
415 South Beretania Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
phone 808-586-6970
fax 808-586-6879
e-mail sennishihara@Capitol.hawaii.gov

Sen. Sam Slom
Hawaii State Capitol, Room 222
415 South Beretania Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
phone 808-586-8420; fax 808-586-8426
e-mail senslom@Capitol.hawaii.gov

MT- Breed Specific Legislation to be considered Tomorrow!

MT BSL Bill to be Considered Thursday, Jan 22!
Print This Article
[Monday, January 19, 2009]
Montana House Bill 191–which, with little exception, seeks to prohibit the ownership, harboring, or keeping of dogs described as "pit bulls"–is scheduled for consideration by the House Local Government Committee on Thursday, January 22, at 3PM, in room 172 of the capitol building, 1301 East Sixth Avenue in Helena. The American Kennel Club encourages all Montanans to contact the committee members listed below and express their respectful yet strong opposition to this draconian bill.

The bill, which prohibits the ownership, harboring, or keeping of dogs described as "pit bulls", defines "pit bulls" to include Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and "any dog that has the physical characteristics that substantially conform to the standards established for those breeds by the American Kennel Club." If the bill is passed and signed into law, all such dogs would be seized and euthanized.

The American Kennel Club strongly opposes any legislation, like HB 191, that determines a dog to be "dangerous" based on specific breeds or phenotypic classes of dogs. Instead, we support reasonable, enforceable, non-discriminatory laws to govern the ownership of dogs. We support laws that: establish a fair process by which specific dogs are identified as "dangerous" based on stated, measurable actions; impose appropriate penalties on irresponsible owners; and establish a well-defined method for dealing with dogs proven to be dangerous. AKC believes that Montana’s existing breed-neutral law should remain the effective law of the state.

RESOURCES:

For tips on contacting Montana's legislature, including an online e-mail form, click here.

For a downloadable copy of our Disagree Diplomatically brochure, click here.

For a sample customizable letter of opposition, click here.

All letters should be addressed to:

Representative ______________
Montana House of Representatives
P.O. Box 200400
Helena, MT 59620-0400

Members of the Montana House Local Government Committee:

Representative Elsie Arntzen, Chair
Representative Betsy Hands, Vice Chair
Representative Gary MacLaren, Vice Chair
Representative Arlene Becker
Representative Gerald Bennett
Representative Tom Berry
Representative Robyn Driscoll
Representative Bob Ebinger
Representative Wanda Grinde
Representative Robin Hamilton
Representative Pat Ingraham
Representative Mike Menahan
Representative Michael More
Representative Scott Reichner
Representative Michele Reinhart
Representative Diane Sands
Representative Wayne Stahl
Representative Gordon Vance

For a copy of HB 191, Click here
For a downloadable copy of our Deed, Not Breed flyer, click here.

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

What to Do When Animal Rights Legislation Comes to Your Town

What Can You Do If Spay/Neuter Mandate Comes To Your Town?

Also Breed-Specific Laws, Pet Limits, Tethering Bans
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
_http://www.american sportingdogallia nce.org_
(http://www.american sportingdogallia nce.org/)
_asda@csonline. net_ (mailto:asda@csonline. net)
This report is archived at:
_http://eaglerock814 .proboards107. com/index. cgi?action= display&board= general&thread=15_

It can be a terrifying experience for dog owners when animal rights
legislation surfaces in the municipality where they live, and it’s a pretty
sure bet that someday soon it will happen to you.

You will feel powerless. You will be very scared. You will feel like a
victim of violence, and that is precisely what you are. The law is a loaded
weapon, and you know it can be pointed at you and the animals you love. You also know that animal rights extremists want to point that gun at you and your dogs, and pull the trigger.
No dog owner can feel safe from these legal attacks. Within the past year,
animal rights ordinances have arisen in communities as diverse as affluent
Santa Barbara, rural Greene County, TN, small towns and farm country in
Ohio, and inner city Chicago. It is fair to say that proposed ordinances that will harm you and your dogs will come to your community in the very near future. There is no escaping it.

This report is meant to be a clear and concise guide to defending yourself.
Protecting your rights won’t be easy, but it can be done. I speak as a dog
owner, professional dog trainer, and as an experienced activist working to
protect dog owners’ rights.

However, I am speaking mostly from the background of 20 years as a reporter and editor on daily newspapers. During that time, I watched hundreds of local political issues rise and fall. I learned what works, and what doesn’t. I have seen how small special interest groups can impose their will on an entire community, and I have seen what people can do to stop them. I also have learned the kinds of political mistakes people have made that have allowed special interest groups, such as animal rights groups, to win. I have seen what it takes to beat them.

The first thing you must understand fully is that you will have two strikes
against you by the time you even learn about impending animal rights
legislation.

Animal rights groups are pros. They know exactly what they are doing. They have the backing of powerful, wealthy, skilled and experienced national organizations, such as the radical Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), which has nothing to do with local humane societies and exists only as a political weapon to push for the elimination of animal ownership in America. These groups are very well organized, have money to burn and have been working behind the scenes for several years in your community.

By the time you realize that something is happening, the animal rights
groups will be close to the goal line. They will have the ordinance drafted,
with guidance from HSUS. They will have formed a “citizen’s committee” that has had the ear of local officials for months, if not years. They will have
controlled relevant data that officials need to make an informed decision,
and carefully hidden any inconvenient facts. They also will have made alliances with local news reporters, and the press is likely to be against you.

While there may be only 50 or fewer animal rights activists involved in most communities, they are truly dedicated to their beliefs. They write letters. They show up at meetings. They contact elected officials. They have money set aside. They have contacts with many other groups in your state and nearby communities, and can turn out 100 people at a meeting masquerading as locals to create the illusion of public support.

In contrast, you and other dog owners are alone. Only a few of you know
about what’s happening, and many of you will be afraid to step forward. You
are not organized. You have no effective means of communication. You do not have access to facts and statistics that tell the truth. You don’t know how to reach elected officials, have been iced out of the phony “citizen’s group,” and you don’t have contacts in the news media.

If that isn’t enough, you will be portrayed as pure evil. You will be lied
about, slandered and accused of things you would never even dream of doing. While you will be innocent of all of the accusations, you will find yourself on the defensive. The most difficult thing for a person to do is to prove her or his innocence, even if the allegations against them are completely absurd.
The accuser always has the upper hand.
It sounds hopeless, doesn’t it?
But it’s not.

You have one ally that the animal rights groups will never have. The truth
is on your side. Your job is to find the truth and communicate it effectively to local officials.

Six Absolute Rules
Here are six absolute rules that I have learned from 20 years of journalism,
and an equal amount of time as an activist on animal and constitutional
issues:

* You have to do it yourself. No one else will do it for you. No
national or statewide organization can win your fight, including our
organization. We can help you. We can give you information, statistics and research findings. We can help you organize and network with other local dog owners. We can tell you about the experiences of other communities. We can give you many bullets to take to the war. But only you can do it. Our job is to stand behind you and support your efforts.

* Local officials care only about one group of people: Local
residents. They care about the people they represent and serve, and they
couldn’t care less about outsiders. They care about the people who can actually vote for or against them. In local issues, only local people count. You must stand up and be counted. You need to bring together other local dog owners who also are willing to stand up and be counted.

* To bring people together, you must completely set aside your
personal insecurities and biases about race, ethnic heritage and economic
status. Every dog owner in your community is in this together. If you don’t hang together, you will hang separately. Never forget that a key part of the
animal rights strategy is to divide dog owners from each other, so that all can be conquered. There is no room for elitism of any kind when an animal rights ordinance is introduced.

* You need friends – lots of friends. That means that people who
actually live in your community must show support, even if the issue doesn’t directly affect them. You need people who have only one or two dogs, but respect your right to raise dogs. You need people who hate dogs, but respect your decision to love them. You need local veterinarians and the owners of local feed and pet stores. You need local businesses that rely on people who travel with pets. You need people who love freedom, and know that an attack on your freedom paves the way for an attack on their own.

* Some of the best friends you can have are local and statewide
organizations for sportsmen and firearms owners, even if you don’t hunt and won’t own a gun. These groups will have dozens if not hundreds of local members, and they already have set up excellent communications channels for their members and supporters. They will be on your side. Sportsmen understand the real agenda of animal rights groups, and gun owners understand the link between animal rights and gun control. In rural areas, alliances with farm organizations also are very important.

* And you should always take the high road. There is no substitute for
honesty and integrity. Always speak the truth. Never resort to dirty tricks.
If you stay on the ethical high ground, you will quickly set yourselves
apart from the animal rights groups, which rely on lies, distortions,
secrecy and innuendos. Many political battles are won by the side that displays the most credibility, and credibility is based on honesty and integrity. If you keep those six absolute rules firmly in mind, you are well on your way to protecting your rights as dog owners in your community. In every community in America where animal rights groups have won a political battle, dog owners have broken one or more of those rules.

What To Do?
Given those rules, what should you do?
The first step is to reach out to other local dog owners, both to inform
them and also to ask for their assistance. Here’s how:

* Call everyone you know who owns a dog, used to own a dog, or who
hunts, fishes or owns firearms. Specifically ask them to help, ask them what
they are willing to do, and write it down. Don’t be shy. Get on the phone
and burn leather.

* Search the Yellow Pages and Internet for local kennels, breeders and
pet services. Contact them. Local kennel clubs and field trial clubs often
provide good contact information for officers, members, breeders and judges. Write, email or phone club secretaries and ask them for help.

* When you get a few good people committed, organize a local dog
owners association. It doesn’t have to be formal or highly organized. Simply
put together a basic structure, and invite people to join. Membership should be free. If you occasionally need a little money, “passing the hat” works fine. Organize your group quickly, without delay. A local organization will be heard more easily than individual people going off in different directions. You don’t have to incorporate or become a non-profit. This is still America, and citizens have a right to form and participate in political groups. Just do it, and do it now.

* Create a website for your association with one of the free services,
such as Yahoo Geocities or Bravenet. You don’t have to know anything about building websites. They have “paint by numbers” templates. On the website, describe the organization, write about what is happening, and add a blog or message board for breaking news. Get a free email address from Yahoo, Hotmail, Gmail or other services. Use it.

* Publicize your website by posting short articles on Internet message
boards that cover your area, dogs, hunting and guns. Ask people who read
these message boards to pass the word along to their friends who live in or
near your community, and to crosspost your announcement on other boards.

* Get the word out in the community. Create simple posters with
contact information (copy paper will do) for supportive businesses to put in
their windows. Don’t be shy about asking for help or asking people to contact your organization. Hang posters in stores and veterinarians’ offices. Hang them in every part of town, and in every neighborhood. Post them on laundromat and grocery store bulletin boards, in union halls and fraternal organizations, and in churches and libraries. If you can get some help, pass out a few hundred in the local Wal-Mart parking lot or at community events.

* Pass the hat (or dig into your own wallet) and run inexpensive
classified ads in your local newspaper or swap sheet. Ads in the pets or
announcements sections are appropriate. A fifty-dollar- bill can reach
thousands of people this way. Also, see if your community has an online classifieds board, and use it. Many are free.

* Support and work with a national and/or statewide dog owners’ rights
organization. Most importantly, ask them to help you. National organizations can be invaluable sources of advice and counsel, know what has and has not worked in other communities, have access to important documents, studies and statistics that can help you, and have a large number of contacts in every state. They can help you get the word out, gain support and locate local dog owners. Consider these organizations as valuable resources to support you. Good organizations exist for the sole purpose of helping you.

* Look specifically for local veterinarians and attorneys, especially
if they own or raise dogs. Ask veterinarians to write letters opposing the
proposed ordinance (many will refuse, but probably most will not). Ask
attorneys to offer their services without charge to review the legality of
the ordinance, and put their comments in writing. If any of you are members of the local Chamber of Commerce, formally ask for their support (remember that pet owners pour a lot of money into local businesses. It is an economic issue, too.). Tourism organizations also may be appropriate, if your community hosts visiting hunters, or dog show or field trial participants. For tourists, it is important to have the image of being a “pet-friendly” community.

* An important tool is the simple fact that a large majority of
residents of your community will be on your side. Your task is to prove it.
Informal petitions are vital, because it will give you a long list of
community residents who oppose an ordinance. These should be presented to elected officials at an opportune time. The petitions do not have to meet the legal requirements for a petition for an election. They simply will show elected officials that a large number of local (repeat, local) people are on your side. People should sign, and then print out their names and addresses.

* And your most important weapon is the truth. The animal rights
groups will lie through their teeth to paint a false picture of a community
crisis. You must respond with the truth, and have the facts and figures to
back it up. Finding and assembling accurate information is a vital part of your arsenal. At this point, you will be ready to take your case to the local
news media.

If you follow those steps, you will develop a core group of activists and a
list of hundreds if not thousands of local people who are on your side.
Local residents who support you will include dog owners, their neighbors,
veterinarians, attorneys, business people and community leaders.

What You’ll Face
The animal rights groups will have laid the foundation for a destructive
ordinance long before you ever know about it. They won’t play fair. They won’t tell the truth.

Here is what to do:
· Most likely, your community’s animal rights activists will assemble around an existing organization, and may have even taken over the
leadership of that organization. This could include local humane societies,
rescue groups, and pet disaster response groups.
Many of them also will have ties to national groups, such as HSUS, People
for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and radical vegan vegetarian groups. You must learn the identities of local animal rights activists, research their ties to national groups, and then learn about the agenda of those groups. Don’t avoid these people. Meet them.
Introduce yourself. Flat out ask them their beliefs and affiliations with
animal rights groups. Many of them are proud of these affiliations. The
profile you develop will be important to present to elected officials at the right time. Rescue and sheltering organizations also have to learn a hard lesson. Dog owners are their major source of their support, and it is unwise to bite the hand that feeds you.

· Most likely, local animal rights activists will have formed some
sort of committee or task force. People who raise dogs will not be allowed
to participate. Probably they have been working for years to manufacture a
crisis in your community, have met with elected and/or appointed municipal officials several times, have painted themselves as a concerned citizens group to conceal their real agenda, have drafted an ordinance in cooperation with HSUS as a silent partner, and have found at least one sympathetic elected official to support and introduce the ordinance. Your job will be to prove that this group does not reflect the sentiments of the vast majority of residents of your community. You also will be able to prove that this group (and the participation of municipal officials) violates the spirit if not the letter of state open meetings laws or “sunshine laws.” It is an end-run around the concept of public accountability and transparency.

· You will need to be able to counter every one of their allegations
with the truth. If they say your community is full of “puppy mills,” for
example, you will need to learn exactly how many (if any) commercial kennels really exist. You will need to know how many (if any) have ever been cited for violating any kind of kennel or animal cruelty law. All violations a re matters of public record, and the information can be readily obtained. If they claim there is a problem with “pet overpopulation” in your community, you will need to obtain complete animal control statistics for several years, which also are public record. The simple facts will reduce the animal rights allegations to shambles.

· You also need to counter their outrageous allegations with a thorough knowledge of existing animal laws in your state, county and local
municipality. For example, if a lot of loose dogs are picked up in certain
neighborhoods, they may claim that the solution is a spay/neuter mandate. In reality, your community probably already has a leash law that is not being enforced. You must clearly point out a solution that fits the problem.

· You also must be able to counter the animal rights groups’ propaganda. You need to have access to documentation that similar ordinances
in other communities always have increased shelter admissions and euthanasia rates, always have led to a decrease in license law compliance and revenues to operate animal control programs, and always have led to a decline in rabies vaccinations because veterinarians are required to turn over information about each dog to local authorities. In addition, you must be able to refute the animal rights groups’ claims that pet sterilization is completely safe. The bulk of the most recent research has shown increases in serious and sometimes fatal health conditions caused by spaying or neutering, especially at a young age, and the national association for veterinary reproductive specialists has come out firmly against spay/neuter mandates for this reason. In addition, these mandates violate the doctor/patient relationship, and also the veterinary code of ethics in many states.

· The essence of all animal rights legislation is making innocent
and law-abiding animal owners pay for the sins of the tiny minority of
people who flaunt the law. That is because their goal is not to solve a problem. Their goal is to make it difficult for you to continue to raise or own dogs. You must answer with the facts, showing how existing laws and appropriate enforcement of those laws actually will solve whatever problems your community may be experiencing.

· A very common animal rights tactic is to take an isolated bad
situation, and then try to convince elected officials that it is the norm
and all dog owners need to be intensively regulated. For example, if someone in your community has been arrested for horrible violations of animal cruelty laws, the animal rights groups will claim that this is justification for more and stricter laws for all dog owners. The truth is that the arrest and conviction prove that existing laws are working very well. This is a point you must make repeatedly, until the truth sinks in.

· They will not fight fair. Animal rights groups tend to focus on
several communities in a state at the same time. If you start seeing a lot
of news stories about alleged abuses of dogs in your state, you will know that this is a coordinated effort to “spin” reality that was probably
orchestrated by HSUS. They are trying to paint an illusory picture to cause people to think dogs are in crisis, and new laws are needed. The truth once again is that these sensationalized stories prove that existing laws are working. Arrests are made, convictions are obtained, and the animals have been rescued. The laws work. The incidents are not a justification for laws that harm law-abiding and conscientious people.

· They will lie. For example, they will claim that a large number of
dogs entering the local animal shelter are “purebreds,” and that this
justifies laws restricting the ability to raise purebred dogs. But they lie
by not telling you the full story. The full story is that most actual purebreds
enter a shelter because their owners are seeking euthanasia services for
dogs that are very ill, seriously injured or in advanced old age. They also won’t tell you that the few purebred dogs that are picked up escaped confinement and were immediately reclaimed by their owners. They won’t tell you that the few purebreds that are surrendered to the shelter are immediately taken by
rescue
groups, because of the high demand for these dogs. And they won’t tell you
that they call a dog purebred if it looks “more or less” like a recognized
breed. Many of these are labeled “pit bulls,” which is not even a recognized
breed. See for yourself. Simply walk through your local animal shelter a few
times. I can guarantee you that you will see few if any dogs that appear to
be purebreds.

· They also will talk about shelter statistics as proof of the need
for restrictions on purebred dog breeding. They are lying. Walk through your local shelter and you will find few (if any) puppies. There actually is a
serious shortage of puppies in animal shelters, because these are the most
easily adopted dogs. Sheltering organizations must expend considerable
effort trying to talk people into adopting older dogs because of the scarcity of puppies.

· Another way that they will lie is to try to hide the successes of
animal control and sheltering programs, in order to “spin” a false picture
of a crisis. They won’t tell you that national shelter admissions have fallen
almost 60% over the past 15 years, while euthanasia rates have been cut by
75-percent. They won’t tell you that 70-percent of the dogs in America
already are spayed or neutered voluntarily by their owners. They won’t tell you that most shelters in the northeast, upper Midwest and on the West Coast already are close to “no-kill” for healthy and adoptable dogs. You need to learn the truth and make the truth the centerpiece of your rebuttals. To counter these claims, make use of your local and statewide open records laws and “sunshine laws” to get the full facts. Sometimes all you have to do is walk into your local animal control office and ask for them. Other times, these reports are filed with a state agency, and you can obtain them there. We can help you find this documentation.

· They will say awful things about you. They will tar you by creating imaginary links between dog owners and dog fighters. They will link you to
the drug culture and to people who abuse animals. They will accuse serious
and conscientious dog breeders of being “puppy mills” or “backyard
breeders.” Someone who raises animals because he or she loves them will be accused of being a “hoarder.” People who sell puppies will be accused of being greedy, or exploiting animals for profit. People who buy a purebred puppy will be accused of causing the death of a shelter dog. These claims are both absurd and outrageous. We can help you learn how to answer them with the truth.

· Never forget the real agenda of the animal rights groups, which is
to eventually eliminate all animal ownership. They are trying to make people into the guardians of their animals, rather than their owners. This makes animals into wards of the state, rather than private property. This reduces you to proving to the state that you are a fit guardian, and gives the state ultimate control of your animals. Stand up for American values, including the right to honorably seek profit. Don’t buy into the socialist belief that profit equals greed or that you are responsible to “society” for problems you didn’t create, and don’t be afraid to say that many of the leaders of major animal rights groups enjoy their six-figure incomes and multi-million- dollar facilities. They are as phony as a pile of three-dollar bills.

· And spend time studying the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights,
and your state’s constitution and bill of rights. Almost all animal rights
legislation infringes on human rights by denying due process of the law,
equal protection under the law, and protections against illegal searches and
seizures. Quite simply, almost all animal rights legislation is anti-American and reflects Marxist principles of state authority. You need to say this loudly and clearly, because it is the truth. In addition, many state constitutions define a right to own and enjoy private property, and many states have laws that clearly say that animals are private property. Learn the law and educate local elected officials.

Divide and Conquer
A favorite tactic of animal rights activists is to divide dog owners so that
we won’t stand up and fight for each other’s rights. Unfortunately, many
dog owners play right into their hands through a misguided sense of elitism.

Animal rights groups try to make certain categories of dog owners into “
untouchables,” so that other dog owners will be afraid to defend them. They
also will attempt to exploit racial, ethnic, cultural and economic differences and insecurities, which keeps us apart.

Make no mistake about it, animal rights groups are utterly unscrupulous.
Racism is one of their major tools, especially in urban areas. They exploit
fears of crime by talking about dog fighters, links to the drug culture and
“gangbangers” who own “pitbulls.” What they are really doing is exploiting
racial fears and prejudices, sometimes by fanning the flames of naked hatred. The divide and conquer strategy was a major part of what happened last year in Dallas, which passed a tough spay/neuter mandate, and it is happening now in Chicago, which is considering one.

When animal rights groups say “gangbanger,” they actually mean “Black” and “Hispanic.” They say “dogfighting,” but they mean “Black” and “Hispanic.” They say “pitbulls.” They mean “Black” and “Hispanic.” The animal rights activists are using racist implications to manipulate and exploit fear of high crime urban areas, thus dividing dog owners by race and neighborhood. They reduce anyone who is not like them to “those people.”

When it comes to regulating the breeding of dogs, the animal rights groups
usually link “puppy mills” to Amish people, thus encouraging and exploiting
ethnic differences. Conservative Christians who live according to the old
ways are no longer politically correct, and their religious beliefs forbid them from fighting back or filing a defamation of character suit. Some of the
inaccurate and bigoted comments I have heard from animal rights supporters about Amish people sound exactly like what the Ku Klux Klan says about racial minorities. It is hate speech at its worst.

With tethering issues or restrictions on hunting with hounds, they paint a
picture of “redneck” white people who fit every possible stereotype of
hillbilly degenerates. “Crazy old ladies” are fair game, too, under the
label of “hoarder.”
All are reduced to “those people.” They are objectified and dehumanized,
which to the animal rights fanatic is a justification to destroy them and
their way of life.
They try to divide the world between “people like us” and “people like them.
” They know that most people won’t support people that they can’t identify
with. It’s also a dirty trick. It causes too many of us to take our eyes off the
ball, which is how the regulations or laws will affect us and everybody
else.

The animal rights groups say they are targeting dogfighting, puppy mills or
hoarders, but read the fine print. It always will come down to targeting
you. A major goal of dividing us is to make some of us show a willingness to “compromise.” By “compromise,” I mean they are encouraging us to sell out certain kinds of dog owners who fail the political correctness test.

There is no such thing as compromise with animal rights groups, because
everything they stand for requires us to make all of the sacrifices, in order to give them what they want. They have nothing to exchange.
A true compromise is when both sides give up something in order to gain more important things. Animal rights groups have nothing to trade except the gun pointed at your head. They can shoot you in the heart, shoot you in the leg or simply shoot off one of your toes.
Some compromise!

It is like an armed robber who demands your wallet, takes the cash and
offers you a “compromise” of letting you keep your credit cards.
Playing on our fears also means we are not likely to seek support from all
racial, ethnic and economic groups. This was a huge reason why Dallas dog
owners lost their fight to stop a spay/neuter mandate.

Although a majority of Dallas residents are Black or Hispanic, their
assistance was not sought in defeating this ordinance. To put it bluntly,
most of the people who fought against the ordinance were white and of well above average means. They simply were afraid to go into poor neighborhoods, or seek support from Black and Hispanic people.
A majority of the members of Dallas City Council are Black or Hispanic, and
represent districts that are predominantly Black or Hispanic.

To put it even more bluntly, the dog owners they saw at City Council
meetings were upper middle class or wealthy white people. Most of them
raised show dogs, which were portrayed by the animal rights activists as toys for the rich. In contrast, animal rights groups succeeded in portraying themselves as nice people who love animals, when exactly the opposite is true. Thus, dog owners were immediately branded as selfish elitists.
That kind of label is suicide in big city politics, and Chicago dog owners
are close to falling into this trap today.

The irony is that the label is not true. The truth is that dog owners,
including people who raise, show and compete with dogs, extend across all
racial, ethnic, cultural and economic lines. We really are all in it together. If we unite, we can defeat the animal rights extremists. If we fail to unite, we
will lose.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance recognizes that dog owners have failed to bridge ethnic and economic differences. Thus, we are taking immediate and forceful steps to reach out to and support many other groups of dog owners, and have recently added inner city, Black and Hispanic dog ownership advocates to our leadership team.

We have made a formal alliance with a newly forming group called the
National Association of Canine Experts (NICE), which is working to break
down many of the barriers that separate dog owners. NICE founder Ami Moore now is a member of our advisory board, and I am a member of the NICE board.
Ms. Moore is a professional dog trainer from inner city Chicago who has
superb credentials as an obedience and behavioral trainer. She is
articulate, exceptionally intelligent and insightful, and passionately dedicated to preserving the rights of dog owners. Moreover, she is streetwise and as a Black person fully understands how subliminal racism is being used by animal rights groups to divide dog owners, as it has been used to divide Black people from their community in many other ways.

Dog owners everywhere also owe Ms. Moore a debt of gratitude. Animal rights groups went after her personally because she uses electric collars in dog training, as do most professional and amateur trainers everywhere. The
animal rights groups took her to court, alleging that the use of electric collars is animal cruelty. She didn’t back down, fought back through the legal system and won. All charges against her were dismissed and the use of electric collars as a humane training tool was fully exonerated in Illinois.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance also has dedicated funds to advertise in
Chicago newspapers to gain support from urban dog owners to fight against
the proposed ordinance. An important part of the strategy that dog owners must learn to use is to be able to state clearly and categorically that we are the mainstream of America.

A reported 37-percent of American households own at least one dog. National polls from mainstream publications, such as Parade Magazine and MSN/NBC news, show that the vast majority of the American people oppose spay/neuter mandates. Opposition was at 91-percent in the recent Parade poll, for example.

Animal rights groups are the real minority, representing less than five
percent of any community, and probably less than one percent in most places. But they are organized and vocal, and they turn out in droves for meetings before elected officials. This has given them the appearance of being a large segment of the community, when that is purely an illusion.

That’s why local dog owners must organized and get a large turnout of their
supporters at municipal meetings.

We are the mainstream. Animal rights groups are the radical fringe.
Elected officials need to know this. So do news reporters.

Dealing With The News Media
Sooner or later (and probably sooner), every local dog owners’ organization
will have to deal with the news media. In many cases, it will not be a
pleasant experience. Animal rights groups have a well-developed strategy of identifying and cultivating friendly contacts in the news media long before an ordinance arises.

All news reporters are under intense and continual pressure on their jobs to
come up with a steady stream of news stories, and also to come up with
stories that will have high sensationalistic appeal to attract readers.
Animal rights groups have learned how to exploit this.

News reporters who are sympathetic to the animal rights groups know that
they will be given leads to many stories every year, as long as they don’t
work too hard to be fair and objective.
In addition, stories about controversial animal issues tend to cause a
strong emotional response with readers, which assures them prominent
placement in newspapers or on TV news shows. Both are important to a reporter’s job security.

The animal rights groups are pros at plucking emotional heartstrings by
their portrayals of animal abuse or euthanasia at the local animal shelter,
and then in using those horrible examples to further their own agenda against every dog owner.

The finger always gets pointed at us, and news reports often are hatchet
jobs on dog owners. Fair and balanced news coverage takes a backseat to
sensationalism and emotional response.

Our problem is that good news is inherently boring. A story about someone
who takes good care of her or his dogs usually is as dull as lukewarm milk.
It lacks drama. It lacks impact. But the news story about the one dog owner in a thousand who is abusive has plenty of drama, impact and reader appeal.

Dog owners’ first recourse should be to appeal to the sense of journalistic
professionalism in some reporters and editors. A worthy news story must be accurate, fair and balanced between opposing points of view. Any story that fails this test is poor journalism.

I strongly believe that dog owners always should take the high road, by
advocating what is right and fair. I don’t think we should use the animal
rights group strategy of trying to manipulate the news through “tame” or personally biased reporters.

Instead, we should formally object to poor reporting to the publisher,
station manager, editors and the parent company of local news outlets.
We also should state our objections in pointed letters to the editor, and
try to convince editors to give us space for an “op ed” column or an equal
time rebuttal to poor news coverage.

In dealing with reporters, it is essential for us to be armed with the
facts. We need to have the correct information, and state our case clearly
and effectively. We also have to be prepared to answer some downright nasty questions, such as: “How can you breed dogs when many dogs are euthanized by animal control.”

We have truthful and honest answers to those kinds of questions, and dog
owners have to be prepared for them. We can help.
The “news value” of a story depends on drama and conflict, which creates
high reader response.

Thus, we must learn to use drama and conflict in an effective and ethical
manner to answer the allegations of animal rights groups.
We must learn to set aside “good manners” and “call a spade a spade.”
That means confronting the lies and distortions of the animal rights groups
with the facts, and sometimes at public meetings we have to be prepared to speak bluntly.
It means objecting to the secrecy of the so-called task force
meeting, talking publicly about the real agenda of the animal rights groups
and their assault on American values, and defending freedom in a clear voice.

Dog owners definitely face a tough fight and a stacked deck when animal
rights ordinances are proposed on a local level. But we believe we have shown how these bad ordinances can be defeated by truth, honesty and integrity.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and
professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We
also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative issues affect all of us.
We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can
continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership,
participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission.
We are funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web at _http://www.american sportingdogalliace.org_
(http://www.american sportingdogallia nce.org/) . Our email is_asda@csonline. net_
(mailto:asda@csonline. net) .
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS

The American Sporting Dog Alliance
_http://www.american sportingdogallia nce.org_
(http://www.american sportingdogallia nce.org/)
Please Join Us

TX, CA, PA- Black Wednesday for Dog Owners

Black Wednesday For Dog Owners

Animal Rights Wins In Dallas, California, Pennsylvania

by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@csonline.net

Wednesday was a black day for dog owners all across America, as animal rights extremists posted legislative victories in Dallas, California and Pennsylvania.

Dog owner advocacy groups fought hard in all three contests and had clear majority support, but animal rights groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) cashed in political chips with elected officials.

PETA and HSUS have been infiltrating local and state advisory boards for many years, backed by a war chest exceeding $150 million, hundreds of paid employees and thousands of volunteers.

Apathy remains th greatest problem faced by dog ownership advocacy groups.

Wednesday's votes also highlighted what is rapidly becoming a partisan division on animal rights legislation. In general, almost all Republicans voted against the legislation, and almost all Democrats voted for the bills. The Democratic Party appears to be lining up behind the animal rights agenda in support of its presumptive presidential candidate, Barrack Obama. Obama has
expressed strong support for animal rights.

Here is a summary of the four issues decided this week:

In Dallas, City Council voted 10-3 to pass an animal control ordinance
requiring mandatory pet sterilization, expensive permits to own intact dogs and cats, mandatory microchipping and pet ownership limits. The ordinance also bans tethering of dogs and imposes strict requirements for keeping dogs outdoors.
Home inspections also are authorized.

In California, the Senate Local Government Committee voted 3-2 to approve AB1634, which now will be sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee. If this committee approves, it will be sent to the legislature for a vote. This bill allows any person to act as a vigilante and report any dog owner for an unsubstantiated violation of any animal law. If any animal control officer agrees, the accused person will have a choice between paying a fine or sterilizing
the animal. People who are accused of anything have no right to defend themselves or to appeal. An accusation is automatic guilt.

In Pennsylvania, the House Rules Committee voted Tuesday to approve HB2532, which is a de facto ban on tail docking, dewclaw removal and ear cropping. In the absence of proof that the procedure was performed by a veterinarian, the mere possession of a dog that has had one of those three procedures subjects an owner to a criminal citation for animal cruelty. This bill would destroy many rescue operations, dog shows, competitive events and field trials in
Pennsylvania and result in the deaths of thousands of dogs. This bill now goes to the full House for a vote, and then to the Senate.

Also in Pennsylvania, the House Agriculture Committee approved amendments to the state dog and kennel law that fall short of changes that were promised to dog owner advocacy groups. The actual text of this legislation was not available at this writing, and a follow-up report will be issued when the revised legislation is available. This bill now goes to the full House for a vote, and then to the Senate.

Please see below for more detailed descriptions of all four issues.

Dog ownership advocates clearly outnumbered animal rights sympathizers in public hearings on all four pieces of legislation, as well as in written comments, emails and phone calls received by elected officials. However, many of those officials chose to ignore our voices, and that is doubly true of the Democrats. We are not saying this to be partisan, as many of our officers and members are loyal Democrats. We simply are stating a fact. Democrats voted
against animal owners this week by a shocking margin, and we urge dog owners who are registered with this party to work to reverse this policy.

Advocates of dog owners rights also were hurt by the apathy of many people who support us, but who did little or nothing to voice that support to elected officials. At the Senate hearing in California, for example, only about 10 people showed up. In Dallas, about 200 dog ownership advocates attended the hearing, but that is a tiny percentage of the estimated 300,000 pet owners in the city. Attendance at the two Pennsylvania hearings was described as
moderate.

Apathy by the large but silent majority of dog owners is a major component of the animal rights strategy. While we outnumber them 100-to-one, most of us don't get involved. In contrast, animal rights groups rely on an almost religious fanaticism by their supporters to gain a high percentage of participation.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges every dog owner in America to join one or more of the several fine organizations that are fighting for your rights. Each of these organizations has its own niche, but all are excellent and deserve your support.

We welcome your membership and hope you will participate fully in our programs. Please visit us online at http://www.americansportingsdogalliance.org.

Please stand up and be counted now!

We also ask all dog owners who belong to field trial clubs, sportsmen's organizations, show specialty clubs, breed clubs and event clubs to urge those organizations to take an active political role to defeat animal rights legislation.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance also is urging dog owners to boycott all dog events in the City of Dallas for their own safety. Under the terms of the ordinance, even a visitor to the city is subject to citations, fines and dog confiscations. It is known that PETA plans a protest at a July dog show in Dallas, and we expect them to report show dog owners for alleged violations of the ordinance. Because the Dallas animal commission is dominated by PETA members, we expect that there will be a move to raid this dog show. All
professional handlers would be in violation of the possession limit of six dogs, and none of the dogs are expected to have a required Dallas breeding or intact permit.

If the Pennsylvania and California legislation becomes law, it will not be safe for anyone to attend a field trial, dog show or performance event in those states, or even to visit, pass through or take a hunting trip there.

We urge all clubs to cancel or move planned events in Dallas now, and also in Pennsylvania and California if their legislation is signed into law. We believe that clubs have an ethical obligation to protect the safety of participants and their dogs.

Continued apathy and non-involvement will doom dog ownership in America, as well as hunting, field trials and other dog events. We can't do it without you.

Here are the highlights of the four pieces of legislation that were voted on this week.

California

We support the first part of AB1634, which calls for fines for dogs that are allowed to roam and mandates sterilization after the third offense.

However, the second part of the legislation violates basic constitutional rights and human decency.

Here are the provisions of the second part of the legislation (Italics are
direct quotes, and words that are not italicized are our comments):


“The owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog that is the subject of a complaint may be cited and pay a civil penalty as provided in this section. This civil penalty shall be in addition to any fine, fee, or penalty imposed under any other provision of law or local ordinance." In the first sentence, the committee substituted “may" for “shall", which appears to leave the
issuance of a citation up to the discretion of an animal control officer.
However, the basis for this decision is not defined.

“The owner of the dog shall pay the civil penalty to the local
animal control agency within 30 business days of the citation. The local animal control agency shall waive the civil penalty if, within 14 business days of the citation, the owner of the dog presents written proof from a licensed veterinarian that the dog was spayed or neutered." There is no provision for a dog owner to defend him/herself in court or at a hearing, and no appeal is
allowed. If you are accused, you are guilty. Period. This is a violation of constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law.

“Complaint" means an oral or written complaint to a local animal control agency that alleges that the dog or the owner of the dog has violated this division, any other provision of state law that relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance. "Complaint also means the observation by an employee or officer of a local animal control agency of behavior by a dog or the owner of a dog that violates this division, any other provision of state law that relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance."An example of what this means is that a hunting or field trial dog that is in excellent health and conditioned for performance could result in a complaint of animal
cruelty if anyone believes the dog looks thin.

"Local animal control agency" means any city or county animal control agency or other entity responsible for enforcing animal-related laws or local animal control ordinances." This includes Humane Societies and other animal welfare organizations empowered to enforce animal cruelty or other dog laws. Many members of these groups support a radical animal rights agenda.

The Senate Local Government Committee approved this legislation by a party-line 3-2 vote Wednesday, with Democrats in the majority. It now goes to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, and then to the Senate floor for a final vote.

Please contact members of the Appropriations Committee immediately to voice opposition to the second half of this bill, and also individual senators.

This link gives contact information for committee members:
http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/sen/committee/STANDING/APPROP/_home1/PROFILE.HTM. The committee meets on Monday.

This link gives contact information for all senators:
http://www.senate.ca.gov/~newsen/senators/senators.htp. While Sen. Michael Machado voted for this bill on Wednesday, he expressed many concerns and might be convinced to change
his vote.

Dallas

Here is a summary of the dog ordinance passed Wednesday by the Dallas City Council by a 10-3 vote. The ordinance:

Creates a permit for a dog or cat used for breeding or competition.
The cost of the permit is $70 annually for each animal, plus the regular license fee of $30. There is no grace period or exclusion provided for new residents or people who are visiting Dallas, including participants in dog shows or other events. Visitors can be cited, and we expect that they will be cited.
It Requires all other dogs or cats to be spayed or neutered.

Limits a single household to a total of six cats and/or dogs. People owning more than a half-acre of land would be allowed eight. People who currently own a greater number of animals could apply to the city to be allowed to keep their animals without penalty, but they would not be allowed to buy a dog or breed a litter of puppies until their number of dogs drops below the limit. The ordinance applies to anyone who “harbors" more than six dogs, which includes many visitors and participants in dog shows and other events.
Almost all professional handlers would be in this category, as well as many owner/handlers.

Subjects anyone who harbors a group of dogs that exceeds the limits to unannounced inspections. This would include participants in dog shows or other events.

Mandates microchipping of all dogs and cats, including those of
visitors.

Prohibits tethering of unsupervised dogs to trees or poles except
"for a period no longer than necessary for the owner to complete a temporary
task."
Forces owners to provide at least 150 square feet of space and a building or
designed doghouse for a dog confined outdoors.
And provides for confiscation of allegedly dangerous dogs, and other
penalties.

Please contact us at asda@csonline.net if you would like to participate in legal action or boycotts related to the Dallas ordinance.

Pennsylvania

Dog owners in Pennsylvania were beset by two pieces of bad legislation this week.

HB 2525 regulates a million dog owners and owners of 2,700 licensed kennels in the state. It passed the House Agriculture Committee by a 17-12 vote Wednesday. All but one Republican (Rep. K. Boback) voted against the bill, and all Democrats (the majority party) voted in favor of it.

It appears that the final bill reflects some of the promises made to dog ownership advocacy groups during the past several months of negotiations, but that the Democrats have reneged on other promises.

Some dog owners groups have withdrawn their opposition to this legislation, but the American Sporting Dog Alliance continues to oppose it in its present form. While we support changes that affect commercial breeders, these represent only a small part of HB 2525. The rest of the bill has serious impacts on all dog and kennel owners. The text of several amendments has not been published thus far We will issue a full report on this legislation in the next couple of days.

The other legislation is HB 2532, which provides what amounts to be a de facto partial or complete ban on tail docking, ear cropping and dewclaw removal by anyone except a licensed veterinarian. Although most other dog owners' organizations have not taken a clear public stance on this bill, the American Sporting Dog Alliance categorically opposes it.

HB 2532 passed the House Judiciary Committee by a 28-1 vote Tuesday, with only Republican Rep. T. Creighton voting “no."

The bill allows owners to dock the tails of puppies until they pass three days of age, and to remove dewclaws during the first five days. However, the burden of proof is placed on a dog's owner to prove that this work was done legally before the age limits, or by a veterinarian. It would be difficult for most dog owners to prove this, and a large majority would not be able to prove it. The simple possession of a dog with a docked tail or a lack of dewclaws would be considered evidence of an animal cruelty violation, if the owner cannot prove his/her innocence.

The bill continues a total ban against ear cropping, except by a
veterinarian, and anyone who is found in possession of a dog with cropped ears is automatically guilty of criminal animal cruelty in the absence of proof.

For all of these procedures, HB 2532 struck out a provision that would have exempted dogs if their owners filed an affidavit with a county treasurer that the work was done before the bill is passed.

That means a large majority of owners of many of the most popular breeds will have no way of proving that they have complied with the law. These procedures were done legally in the past on many dogs, or legally by breeders in other states. In many cases, a dog owner has no idea who performed these procedures. Thus, they would be guilty of criminal animal cruelty for noncompliance.

This legislation will destroy rescue work for many breeds if it is signed into law. Most dogs that are assisted by rescue groups, animal shelters and private individuals either come from unknown sources, or do not come with medical records. There will be no choice except to euthanize these dogs, since it will be impossible to establish their legality.

This legislation also will have a severe impact on people who live in other states. On one level, Pennsylvanians will no longer be able to buy puppies from dozens of breeds from nonresident breeders who perform these procedures legally in their home states.

On another level, Pennsylvania professional trainers and handlers will not be able to accept many dogs from out-of-state customers, because proof will not be available.

But a larger impact will be on thousands of people who own dogs and come to Pennsylvania for a vacation, to hunt, or to compete in field trials, dog shows and other events. Anyone who brings a dog with a docked tail, missing dewclaws or cropped ears into Pennsylvania is subject to arrest for criminal animal cruelty charges.

This will affect many very popular breeds of dogs, such as almost all
Continental breeds of pointing dogs, flushing dogs, terriers and many working dogs, such as rottweilers and doberman pinchers.

The bill now moves to the full House for a vote. Please contact your own legislator and as many others as possible to express opposition to this legislation. Contact information can be found at:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/representatives_alpha.cfm.

Here is a link to the text of the legislation:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2007&sessInd=0&billBody=H
&billTyp=B&billNbr=2532&pn=4030


The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, hobby breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its
rightful place in American society and life. Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. Our email is ASDA@csonline.net.


PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO