Animal Rights wins in Dallas, CA, and PA

[kelpiegirl]

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.

[Tranquilis]

Yeah, I've been cross-posting that material in a lot of places where I normally hang out.

 

Scary, and revolting.

[kelpiegirl]

WTH is wrong with people???? People can come into your home and inspect without a warrant? You must be freakin' kidding. If this really was passed by all the democrats and not signed on by republicans, what does this say about the democratic reps? Do they not READ this stuff? I am quite tired of the popularization of animal rights. NOT welfare. Alec Baldwin, that baywatch girl with the BB- who is she? All of them. It is COOL to push this stuff ahead. Anyone who supports PETA and HSUS should be prepared to say goodbye to your animals, and events that we do with them- especially sheepdog trials.

[DTrain]

We are on a long path of decline of pet ownership. I am fully expecting communities all over North America to begin to dictate what sorts of pets we can keep and how and if these rules are adopted by states and provinces it will have an effect on rural folks as well. I have mentioned before that we moved from a western rural situation to and eastern city situation. Since being in the east I have come to discover that pets especially dogs and cats are viewed as a problem. I have heard it said by a number of communities that they would simply like to get rid of the pests. If it were not for the fact that it is our elected officials who make these decisions much of this would have been forced on us already. Here is how it starts. I was walking three dogs yesterday in a park. These dogs are well trained and love people and they were on leashes. Many people walked past the dogs and tried to ignore them. Many people walked around the dogs and gave me a dirty look. Two people stopped and asked if they could pet the dogs. I had the dogs sit and they got there dog fix BUT, four people responded harshly to the dogs. One man stopped to express to me with many bad words how those disgusting things should not be allowed in public. One lady's child began to approach the sitting dogs for a pet grabbed the kid, pulled the kid back and gave the kid hell for going near the dogs while explaining to this child that the dogs are dirty and they bite. She expressed to me that I should get the dogs out of the park and lock them up at home where they belong. I did not say anything for fear of brain damaging her child any further, that is her job. I am extremely disappointed, I have never seen this sort of stuff before but I suspect that it is this sort of thing at the bottom of all of this.

[mbc1963]

I'm not really sure how to do the "quote-reply" thing that others are so good at... so I'll just italicize what I'm responding to.

 

The author of this article is definitely putting his own spin on things:

 

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.

 

I'm thinking this is probably in response to gangs of dog-fighters and people who are misusing and misbreeding dogs for that purpose. Might also be in response to back yard breeders? I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing, in a city the size of Dallas, to raise the price of permits for unfixed dogs, who will likely be bred or accidentally produce unwanted pups. Ditto on pet ownership limits: seems to me that it could help control BYBs, dog fighters, and pet hoarders.

 

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'm not sure this is much different from the way it stands now, for most cities. If my neighbor is mistreating her dog, I can call my local dog officers or police officers. If they investigate and decide that my concern is valid, they can seek remediation for the improper treatment, and they can institute fines and other civil punishments. The bill says that the fines are only imposed "if any animal control officer agrees." That's how it is in my neighborhood now. No automatic guilt... but no freedom to do whatever you want to your dogs, no matter how it affects the dogs and/or neighborhood.

 

 

· 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.

 

I can see how this would be troubling to people who got any crop-eared dog without any kind of vet certificate. But I do take exception to the notion that this would "destroy many rescue operations." I would imagine that there's enough subtlety in the PA legilature to allow default "Came in cropped" certificates for dogs who passed through rescue operations.

 

I do understand concerns about increasing legislation in our lives... but I think it's important to look at how every news article and cross-posted opinion piece is spun. There are a whole lot of groups with a whole lot of their own particular agendas. I don't necessarily trust the American Sports Dog Alliance to tell me how I should interpret and evaluate the bills they're describing.

 

Reminds me of the "important memo" warning people about the danger of Oprah's show about puppy mills - which turned out to be an accurate and heartbreaking portrayal, as well as a huge advocacy for adopting from rescues. Consider the source... and use your brain when you evaluate the validity of people's claims.

 

Mary

[Tranquilis]

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.

 

I'm thinking this is probably in response to gangs of dog-fighters and people who are misusing and misbreeding dogs for that purpose. Might also be in response to back yard breeders? I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing, in a city the size of Dallas, to raise the price of permits for unfixed dogs, who will likely be bred or accidentally produce unwanted pups. Ditto on pet ownership limits: seems to me that it could help control BYBs, dog fighters, and pet hoarders.

It doesn't much matter how the bill is intended - Not how laudible the goal, nor how pure-hearted the intent. The fact is, this ordnance is written such that there is NO grace period. Simply driving through the city with an intact dog puts in you in violation. There is no provision for out-of-town visitors. There is no provision for dog shows. There are no exceptions or waivers from the excess-numbers provisions for professional dog show handlers. Its intent might be as pure as the driven snow, but the language of the final version is a tool from the blackest pits - It gives extra-Constitutional powers to animal enforcement in that it denies due process, and allows what are essentially warantless searches.

 

· 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.

 

I can see how this would be troubling to people who got any crop-eared dog without any kind of vet certificate. But I do take exception to the notion that this would "destroy many rescue operations." I would imagine that there's enough subtlety in the PA legilature to allow default "Came in cropped" certificates for dogs who passed through rescue operations.

You'd imagine incorrectly. That language is NOT present.

I DO NOT take exception to the proposition that this would put rescues at jeapoardy. As the language of the bill exists, the posseser of the dog is guilty until proven innocent. Never mind the sick joke on the standard theory of American justice, it puts Rescue Orgs in the position of trying to prove a negative. Considering the background of many (most, perhaps?) rescued dogs, this is simply impossible.

 

Add to this that Pennsylivania is host to many, many out-of-state hunters, whom bring their field dogs with them, and also host to dog shows, field trials, and the like - Each and every one of those visitors are also at jeopardy.

 

The law will, if passed, probably be overturned, but at what cost? Far better to kill it dead, now.

[Lewie'sMom]

I'm a big advocate for spaying and neutering but the thought of making it a law is very disturbing.

 

I agree that PETA is on the wrong track but I thought the Humane Society was a good thing.

 

Would somebody clue me in on that please?

[Laurae]

The Humane Society of the Unites States (HSUS) is in no way affiliated with local humane societies, which are independent and tax payer–supported (and often supplemented with support of private donors). The efforts of the HSUS are mainly political and are largely aligned with those of PETA.

 

The American Humane Association, a separate entity, does support many local humane societies with financial and other resources (e.g., disaster emergency personnel and educational outreach). Though I don't always agree with all of their positions, these are the good guys.

[Tranquilis]

I agree that PETA is on the wrong track but I thought the Humane Society was a good thing.

It depends on *which* "Humane Society" you mean. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is an "Animal Rights" front group. They don't run shelters. Period. They've got more than US$100 million in cash and assets, and could fund shelters and rescues in every. single. state. They don't - not one.

 

To get the back story on the HSUS, read this.

 

LOCAL Humane Societies, on the other hand, are often noble and courageous groups fighting the good fight, and deserve your praise and support. Just check, to be sure, before donating.

[JaderBug]

OMG This animal rights crap SUCKS. It's so stupid. I won't get on a rant here because it'll just eat up too much time and I'll just end up all mad and pissy. But I have to share this:

 

Penn & Teller BULLSHIT: PETA Sucks

 

You guys have to watch this. It is HILARIOUS and ACCURATE. They tell it like it is in here- unfortunately it's 15 minutes long but it is well worth the time it takes to watch it. At least watch a little bit... it's awesome.

[Lewie'sMom]

Holey moley!

 

I was not aware that we had more that one "Humane" organization.

 

Thanks for educating me.

 

Are the Humane - Animal Cops shows on Animal Planet the good guys? (please say yes!)

 

They sure seem like it and I love those shows! Those and especially the E-vet prgrams (REALLY love those!) are probably what gave me the little shove I needed to start my Vet Tech education rolling.

[Tranquilis]

Are the Humane - Animal Cops shows on Animal Planet the good guys? (please say yes!)

In general, yes.

 

There are a few enforcement officers that show up on tube now and again that are, frankly, bullies, but mostly the folks you see on those shows are the good guys.

[mbc1963]

I get what you're saying, Tranquilis, and I do understand your concerns. My main point was that there's clearly a lobby group putting out this news brief (or whatever you call it) and tagging their own editorials onto the information. I could just as easily spin it so it looks all hunky-dory - but that wouldn't mean everyone should cross-post my spin and accept it whole-heartedly.

 

This bill allows any person to act as a vigilante and report any dog owner for an unsubstantiated

violation of any animal law.

 

My opposing spin: This bill will assist understaffed animal control officers in the city by encouraging citizens to alert officials of the most troubling mistreatment of animals.

 

An accusation is automatic guilt.

 

MOS: Animal control officers will be charged with investigating reports of animal mistreatment and with determining corrective actions, which will include fines or mandatory spaying and neutering of the animal(s).

 

· 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.

 

Well... here's a whole lot of opposing spin from the opposing camp. I chose to use the ASPCA statement rather than the HSUS statement:

 

PA HB 2525 & PA HB 2532—Changes to the Dog Law and Cruelty Law

 

Sponsor(s): Rep. James Casorio and more than 90 cosponsors; Rep. Thomas Caltagirone and more than 70 cosponsors.

 

ASPCA Position: Support

 

Action Needed: Send a letter to your representative urging him or her to vote “YES” on HB 2525 and HB 2532.

 

On Thursday, June 26, the Pennsylvania State House Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs voted in favor of House Bill 2525. The same week, the Pennsylvania State House Committee on the Judiciary voted in favor of House Bill 2532. Both bills are now on the calendar for a vote by the full House of Representatives on Wednesday, July 2.

 

Now, more than ever, it is essential that your state representative hear from you!

 

Passage of HB 2525 and HB 2532 is vital if Pennsylvania is to improve conditions for dogs kept in commercial kennels and put an end to the state’s reputation as the “Puppy Mill Capital of the East.”

 

HB 2532 would make it illegal for non-veterinarian dog owners, including owners of commercial kennels, to perform surgeries on dogs. This will put a stop to many currently permitted brutalities inflicted on dogs by laypersons, including debarking, cesarean sections and tail docking on puppies older than three days.

 

HB 2525 would make critical changes for dogs over 12 weeks old housed in large commercial kennels, including doubling their cage space and mandating solid flooring and annual veterinary care.

 

It is important to note that this legislation will not regulate any hobby breeders who keep and/or transfer fewer than 26 dogs in a calendar year. Nor will it require people who show dogs or train them for sporting or hunting events to meet unreasonable standards.

 

Please use the letter below to contact your state representative now and urge him or her to vote “YES” on HB 2525 and HB 2532 and to oppose any amendments to these bills. Please keep in mind that personal comments strengthen the impact of your letter.

 

Pennsylvania’s dogs need you! Contact your representative now.

 

Both the Sports Dog group's "news brief" and the ASPCA's use language to get people emotive, in hopes that they'll vote the bill either IN or OUT. Which is whal political action groups do all the time - no harm, no foul. My worry is that people tend to believe whichever cross-posted "news brief" they're exposed to first, without considering the political motivations of the authors. My instinct is that the truth about these bills lies somewhere between the slanted writing of either camp. I wish everyone would do a quick Google search of these issues for themselves, and read the propaganda put out by BOTH sides, before they jump on the bandwagon.

 

Honestly, after living in this forum for three years and listening to people post about how and why to choose from the (tiny, tiny handful of) good breeders, and hearing about the horrors of puppy mills, my sentiments lie with the PA legislature that is trying to curb puppy milling (and cruel medical procedures) in the state. But that's just my opinion; your mileage may vary.

 

Mary

[bexie]

As for the PA law, I have a few comments.

 

Tranquilis: If the wording is bad, get pushing NOW to get it fixed and keep it from going through as-is.

 

But the concept is GOOD! I live in a country where you can't get all these things cropped without medical proof. I'm not sure how the law is worded, but they don't even cut the tails off sheep because it is considered cruel. I rarely see a sheep with a docked tail and I've gotten used to the fat tail look.

 

The attitude is that the RIGHT look for a dog is natural so they only get cut up if something goes wrong. It makes a very big difference and PA won't get hurt by some of that.

 

But they definitely need to make grandfather clauses and protect rescue. Here in DK, they only apply to dogs over a certain age when a new law goes into effect.

[Tranquilis]

I get what you're saying, Tranquilis, and I do understand your concerns. My main point was that there's clearly a lobby group putting out this news brief (or whatever you call it) and tagging their own editorials onto the information. I could just as easily spin it so it looks all hunky-dory - but that wouldn't mean everyone should cross-post my spin and accept it whole-heartedly.

Advocacy != innacuracy.

 

Simply because they use emotive terms, does not make their intepretetation false. I read your "opposite spin." In both cases. I tried to fit those into the the language that is present. Sorry. Your opposite spin simply does. not. address. all. the. facts.

Bad law is bad law, no matter what the intent. The laws, as written, do harm. You would justify that harm by the intent..?! I certainly hope not!

 

The ASPCA position is only slightly better than the HSUS position, and frankly, I take the ASPCA's position with a very jaundiced view. They operate two shelters. In New York City. They have some outreach programs, but primarily outside the state of New York, they act as a political lobby group. They do not address the flaws of the law - They only support the cover language. Until, and unless, they deal with the extra-Constitutional aspects of the law, they are also propagandists, and dishonest ones at that.

 

... my sentiments lie with the PA legislature that is trying to curb puppy milling (and cruel medical procedures) in the state.

Mine don't. This is bad law. They should know better. It is their sworn duty to know better. The committee fails. I have no sympathy whatsoever for that. None. Period.

 

Tranquilis: If the wording is bad, get pushing NOW to get it fixed and keep it from going through as-is.

Why do you think I point that kind of stuff out, where people can see it, and act? I *am* trying to get the law changed. Or frankly, killed, and re-built in the *proper* form. But I'm not a Pennsylvanian - I only visit that state. So, while I have an interest, I have no direct voice. Now, have you any better ideas for me?

 

But the concept is GOOD!

And that excuses bad law, how? The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Good concepts will NOT protect you from bad law. Fact is, this is an AR stealth law, intended to further the AR agenda. It's fundamentally flawed in execution, no matter how laudible the concept appears. Or, to be more blunt, you can't polish a turd.

Kill it. Kill it dead.

Then come back, get ALL the stakeholders in one room - Not just the AR lobyists, and build it the right way 'round.

[mbc1963]

Advocacy != innacuracy.

 

Agreed... Which is why I don't immediately discount either side's arguments until I try to figure out whether they have a dog in the fight or not. As it were.

 

Mary

[bexie]

I never said the intention justified putting a bad law into effect.

 

Even though you are not a Pennsylvania resident, you can still formulate your concerns, especially those based on your rescue experience, and send them out to the law makers involved. Haven't you been involved in rescuing dogs FROM Pennsylvania? That gives you a good reason to be contacting legislators and expressing your concerns. Write it professionally and with lots of references to real cases and it should have some effect.

 

I don't live in PA either. I just wanted to bring up the fact that living with similar laws really doesn't make anything impossible.

[blackNwhite]

This bill allows any person to act as a vigilante and report any dog owner for an unsubstantiated

violation of any animal law.

 

My opposing spin: This bill will assist understaffed animal control officers in the city by encouraging citizens to alert officials of the most troubling mistreatment of animals.

 

Except that the down side to this is that I believe TX already has a law on the books that says that if the animal is taken in an animal cruelty investigation and the judge awards custody to the HS, you, as the owner, have no right to an appeal (somebody correct me if i'm wrong but i believe this is correct).

So they've already taken away due process of appeal, now they've taken away more of your rights. How many more can you give up before you have none? Then other people have the right to decide fully how you should be taking care of your animals.

[Eileen Stein]

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'm not sure this is much different from the way it stands now, for most cities. If my neighbor is mistreating her dog, I can call my local dog officers or police officers. If they investigate and decide that my concern is valid, they can seek remediation for the improper treatment, and they can institute fines and other civil punishments. The bill says that the fines are only imposed "if any animal control officer agrees." That's how it is in my neighborhood now. No automatic guilt... but no freedom to do whatever you want to your dogs, no matter how it affects the dogs and/or neighborhood.

 

This was the ASDA's commentary on California's AB1634, not the Dallas law, and what AB1634 would mandate is VERY different from the way it stands now in most cities, although I would agree that the commentary doesn't make that as clear as it could have.

 

What AB1634 as currently written would do is mandate universal spay-neuter for all dogs in the State of California -- no exceptions. However, state and local government would not be allowed to cite you for having an intact dog unless you were the subject of a complaint, which could be oral and/or anonymous, that you had violated some other animal law provision (barking wouldn't count, but any other complaint would -- e.g., you didn't provide adequate food, water or shelter; your dog was running loose; your dog was not on a leash while walking with you; your dog was loose in the back of your pickup, etc.). The private complaint need not be valid -- it can be totally bogus and unfounded, and animal control need not proceed with it. But so long as it has been made, animal control will ask you to prove that your dog has been spayed or neutered, and if you can't, you are subject to a fine of $50 for the first such complaint (fine to be waived if you spay/neuter), $100 for the second such complaint, and spay/neuter of your dog at your expense upon the third such complaint. Again, there are no exceptions -- none for medical conditions making spay/neuter dangerous, none for working dogs, none for licensed breeders, none for law enforcement or SAR dogs or their breeders, none for seeing eye or service dogs or their breeders, etc.

 

Given the fact that many people -- including many animal control officers -- fervently believe in universal spay/neuter, this law would be a means by which such people, through the "vigilantism" described, could mobilize the power of government agencies to secure the spay or neuter of your dog against your will and at your expense.

[Bill Fosher]

The tactic that the AR groups are adopting, since they know they don't have the support to do things nationally, is to go at things in the state and local legislatures, creating a series of brush fires where they can focus resources and overwhelm local opposition. I've seen this in a few places in New England where they are trying to use the institution of town meeting to push through local ordinances that would do things like mandate neutering, ban "exhibitions" of animals (such as county fairs, circuses, and sheepdog trials), prohibit tethering of dogs, and require a doghouse for any dog living outside.

 

Of course, all of these things are just first steps. The real agenda is to end animal ownership. If they can't do it outright, they'll regulate it out of existence. It probably won't happen in any of our lifetimes, but they'll keep working away at it. And eventually, just like the cat that ate the grindstone, they will prevail. Unless we oppose them at every turn.

 

Now, let me say this about John Yates and the American Sporting Dog Alliance: NOT HELPING! Fighting a propaganda war with lies of your own is never really a winning tactic.