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 and the Humane Society of the
United States 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 the 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.

I'm seeing that scene out of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" where the pod people point and screech at humans...except they're pointing at my dog's backside. :shocked:

Things are bad when you seriously spend time thinking of ways to conceal your dog's testicles. I really have to get out of this state!

 Quote:

People who are accused of anything have no right to defend themselves or to appeal. An accusation is automatic guilt.

Now that is scary.

Shannon

From John Yates:
". . . 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. . ."

I know nothing about John Yates or the American Sporting Dog Alliance.

I am totally against legislation that places restrictions on conscientious dog owners/ownership because of the idiocy and lack of responsibility of the other owners we continually hear and read about in the news. Unfortunately, those idiots bring about this kind of reaction from another group of idiots our wonderful California lawmakers (don't get me started on them!). which ends up making it difficult for the rest of us.

On the flip side, I'm equally turned off by supporters of a position that engage in hyperbole to try to stir up support for their side. I don't have the time right this minute to read the wording of the proposed law, which, I think, is the only real way to know what it proposes. I'm fully aware of the deficiencies of our legal system, but the above statement given as an example of what can happen is certainly contrary to the normal due process(es) that attach to such legislation. I don't think you successfully defeat a proposal by exaggerating it's provisions or effects. Maybe I'll think otherwise after I read the fine print.

JMO

Mike

In its current form it is a complete mess with provisions lined out and promises to change wording to address the concerns that have been raised. Its nothing but a deperate attempt to pass anything. They can never just go away in defeat, they have to get that camels nose into the tent one way or another.

I agree with you Mike. It is so sad and ironic because "most" dog owners are so conscientious. But then there are the complete idiots out there whom the "animal rights" people have good reason to keep in check.
These laws end up punishing the wrong people however.
Where is the common sense when it comes to this kind of thing?
It seems to be absent from most everything these days.
This may be totally another subject, but when I see this kind of stuff happening I can't help but wonder instead why are the law makers not more focused on shutting down the puppy mills and trying harder to stop that type of cruelty where it is really needed?
Incidentally, I am about to move to Dallas so I am just now trying to find out just what exactly awaits me.?????

Im an independent, generally vote democratic, and will this fall so I dont fall into the "most Democrats" column. I have also worked with a couple of businesses that were threatened by animal "rights" proponents. While the AR people claimed the support of local and state legislators we found that that support was exaggerated. In each case, a horse drawn buggy business and a tropical bird trainer and dealer, the response from the legislators office was surprise. They not only did not support the proposed laws to prohibit the businesses but promised to vote against them if they came to the legislature.

Locally here in Alaska the cost to maintain the animal shelter is skyrocketing. I can see how local assemblies and councils look at passing these laws as money saving and revenue generating options. I dont think that most consider animals high on the priorty list when roads and infrastructure are their main problems. I recently put the breaks on a shelter contract and at least had the city council take a look at the conditions of the shelter and require improvements to continue the contract. If I hadn't contacted each one with the problems they would have renewed the contract as is. We as pet owners need to stay on top of our issues and present alternatives so that ridicules laws are not just waved into being. (Gee I think I just wrote my editorial!)
http://www.alasksadognews.com

I must take issue with your critique of the proposed Pa. AntiPuppy mill law. Pa, i am sorry to say is one of the 7 top states for harboring puppy mills. as an assitant DA i was foremerly responsible for prosecuting "DogLaw" and animal cruelty Violations (among other crimes, i might add.) The current pending antipuppy mill legislation requires -- among other things-- that dogs have adequately large kennels,(one in which they can 'stand up and turn around') , fresh water to drink, adequate food, heat in the winter, and so forth. The opposition argues that the 'small business' dog breeders would be 'put out of business' by the costs of adequately and humanely sheltering their breeding stock and litters. we have seen situations in which a flea market stall owner decides to run a dog operation and gets 3 or 4 litters bred simultaneously then dumps the pups for $100 each 'no shots no papers' to whomever. The parentdogs live in filth without adequate housing or vet care, and little can currently be done. IMHO changes to the DogLaw are seriously and immediately required in our state. just last month we had a repossession rescue and animal cruelty prosecution of a 3 yr old dog tether - chained beneath a porch so long that the chain had actually grown into his neck. (Don't get me started on animal abuse stories or it would be an encyclopedic email.) I ask only that you not be dismissive of efforts to change various state laws without realizing the depth of the problem that law enforcement currently faces .

Missouri is at THE top of that list for puppymills. We already have plenty of laws to control them. Just not enough people to do the job.
Make the present laws work before you add more! JMHO!

I get annoyed when I see legislation concerning mandatory spay/neuter laws concerning dogs. I can't count the number of times I have wished there was mandatory spay/neuter laws for humans, based on what I have seen and who I have had to take into the ERs, as a Firefighter/Paramedic !!! Ceritan people should lose the right to reproduce based on their continued behavior and lack of conscience. We had a child mauled by dad's fighting dogs who died. Said dogs where euthanized and parents actually stated to the news that they could always have other children but never have dogs as good as the ones killed. And that is just one of too many to count.