Black Wednesday For Dog Owners

anne · Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:02 pm Post subject: 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 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.

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.

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/PRO
FILE.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.
· 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/rep
resentatives_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&p
n=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. Complete directions to join by mail or online are
found at the bottom left of each page.

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 the donations of our
members, and maintain strict independence.

PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS

wildlifecr13 · Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:30 am Post subject:

"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. "

I think the chance to defend yourself is constitutionally protected... so this one should have a problem when someone takes it to court.

Is it me (im new to this) or does a lot of this type of stuff start up (and get popular support) because of the negative impact that dog fighting and puppy mills have on the ethical breeders and dog owners out there? These laws seem to the uneducated eye to be aimed at those establishments, and catch a lot of the rest of us in the crossfire.

ChuckDC · Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 10:39 am Post subject: