Letter to Florida House Committee on Agribusiness Regarding Rep. Thurston’s HB 101 Which Would Overturn State Prohibition of BSL

March 12, 2008

RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS OF THE WESTERN STATES
P.O. Box 1406 Newport, WA 99156
Web Site http://www.povn.com/rdows E-mail US rdows@povn.com
Blog http://rdows.wordpress.com E-mail List http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rdows
Cherie Graves, Chairwoman, WA, (509) 447-2821
Judy Schreiber, Assistant to the Chair,
Director at Large, rdowsdirectoratlarge@chevalier-bullterriers.com
Elizabeth Pensgard, Executive Secretary, Illinois Director, bpensgard@yahoo.com
Hermine Stover, Media Liaison, Director at Large, CA, hermine@endangeredspecies.com
Mary Schaeffer, Finance Director, finedogs@hotmail.com
Arizona Director, John Bowen, johnalldogs@sprintmail.com
California Director, Jan Dykema, bestuvall@sbcglobal.net
Indiana Director, Charles Coffman, candkcoffman@comcast.net
Iowa Director, Leisa Boysen, rdows_iowa@yahoo.com
Mississippi Director, Dan Crutchfield, farmer1@telepak.net
Nevada Director, Ken Sondej, 4winds@viawest.net
Tennessee Director, Gina Cotton, ginacotton@msn.com
Texas Director, Alvin Crow, crobx@austin.rr.com

To:

Rep. Denise Grimsley, Chair
Rep. Bryan Nelson, Vice Chair
Rep. Debbie Boyd
Rep. Bill Galvano
Rep. Bill Heller
Rep. David Martin Kiar
Rep. Carlos Lopez-Cantera
Rep. Ralph Poppell
Rep. Juan C. Zapata

Dear Chairwoman Grimsley, Vice Chair Nelson, and esteemed members of the Agribusiness Committee:

It was with great disappointment that I first learned that the state of Florida is considering overturning its prohibition of breed-specific legislation per Rep. Thurston’s HB 101, a bill which is currently in the Agribusiness Committee. Allowing municipalities to pass breed-specific legislation in Florida is fraught with many complications and following are just a few of them: Read the rest of this entry »

Posted by rdows
Filed in Animal Rights Groups, Breed Specific Legislation, Constitutional rights, property rights ·Tags: , , ,
3 Comments »

CIVIL RIGHTS THREATENED BY DANGEROUS DOG LAWS, AND BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION

January 28, 2008

We citizens of the United States of America are still engaged in a civil rights struggle. This struggle knows no racial boundaries, it knows no social status, it knows no financial status. It affects every person, from the poorest, to the most affluent, from the city dweller, to the largest land owner. It goes to our most ancient and traditional property, and to our ownership, and use rights in animals.  Dog/animal ownership is as varied, as is the human tapestry that bonds our great nation.

All domestic animal breeds were developed by human beings. The Canine Genome Project used DNA samples to prove that all domestic dog breeds have been developed using canis lupis familiaris, a sub-species of the grey wolf. Dogs have been human property for tens of thousands of years.  Dogs serve us in most every capacity from the gentle companion to service dogs, to guide dogs, to police dogs, to search, and rescue dogs, military dogs, drug sniffing dogs, hunting dogs, field dogs, herding dogs, guard dogs, show dogs, obedience dogs, dancing dogs, agility dogs, fly ball racers, the list is endless, and endlessly varied. Dogs are valuable property. 
When we site the adage, “Punish the Deed, not the Breed”, we are actually encouraging legislatures to hold animals responsible for their actions. Dangerous dog laws remove the human factor, and concentrate solely upon the dog, not taking into consideration that the dog is the responsibility of it’s owner. Lawmakers go to great lengths to describe, and to define animal behaviors, and to then punish said behaviors. It is far more reasonable to write laws that are directed at the dog owner, rather than the dog. 
Our laws must be written for we human beings. Laws must be reasonable. Animals must not be criminalized under laws that are intended to protect human rights, and to control human behaviors. It is unreasonable to write animal behavior into laws that no animal has the capacity to understand, answer to, or to function under. It is unreasonable to mete out criminal labels to animals, i.e. dangerous, or potentially dangerous.  It is unreasonable to prescribe punishments to animals under our laws.  We must bring this writing of animal behaviors into our laws to a  halt, and demand that humans be held accountable, not animals. We must stop thinking that it is a better trade off than prohibitions on dog ownership. We are wrong.  Neither is a good choice.  
No dog is capable of understanding, or answering to any law that has ever been written.    Dangerous dog laws that hold a dog to a set of written regulations that it will never respond is a perfect set up to promote animal rights, where an animal is given a legal position under the law to conform, or to behave in a proscribed manner.  Laws are not in the realm of the understanding of even the most intelligent dog.  To set forth behavioral acceptability, and punishments for animals is to elevate them to a human level under law.  This is just exactly what the animal rights movement wants.  When we accept dangerous dog laws, we are hugging the serpent.  Our laws must only be written to proscribe human behavior.  We must see dangerous dog laws that hold animals to accountability under the law for what they are. As the law elevates animals, it devalues human beings. The animal rights movement expects us to fight breed specific legislation, and to promote dangerous dog laws, and we have done just that, undermining our own civil rights. Dangerous dog laws appear on the surface to have due process, but it is the animal that is put on trial, and the owner is not allowsed any imput into the hearing. The Spokane County Superior Court found that Spokane’s dangerous dog law’s due process was flawed, and was not in reality due process.
Laws must give people the right to due process of law.  BSL in Denver, Kennewick, and many places across the United States remove animals for no reason other than breed, from responsible owners, with no charges of negligence, and no opportunity to have a case, or to have the case heard in the Courts. BSL allows warrantless searches, and seizures of private property for no reason other than the breed of dog involved. BSL violates the Constitutional right to recompense for property taken by government for public use, i.e. public safety.  New Jersey is proposing to have special licensing to own dog breeds.
A license is a temporary revocable permit that allows the licensee to have something, or to do something that would be illegal to have, or to do without the license. It makes dog ownership illegal. It turns over all ownership, and use rights to the licensing agency which can at any time, inspect, confiscate, suspend, revoke, or halt issuance of the license. Licensure is a taking by government without compensation. If you live in a city, town, municipality, county, or state that requires dog licensing, then the act of dog ownership has been made illegal without permission of government. 
Some licenses are reasonable.  To drive upon public streets, roads, and highways your drivers license is proof of proficiency.  Drivers licenses are regularly revoked, or suspended for failure to show competency.  It’s reasonable to license for the practice medicine, or law.   Licensing has been carried to the extreme in the USA.  We supposedly live in a free enterprise system, yet every business must be licensed. We must have a license to marry, to fish, to hunt, to own firearms, which is how our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms was undermined to the point of illegality. 

When we agree to license our dogs we agree to give over our ownership right to the licensing agency, which can at any time revoke our use rights.  We grant them absolute control over our animals.  They can come onto our real property, and remove our transitory property (dogs) without due process of law.  Ostensibly cities, counties, or states which require licensing could refuse to issue further licenses, and revoke the privilege of dog ownership. Mandatory dog licensing was the initial step in removing dogs from our ownership.

Those who own the target breeds are set apart,  are vilified, and made to look like criminals, so that the rest of society will not be troubled by the government’s taking of the dogs.  The owners of these targeted breeds are victims of hate crimes, initiated by government.  Communities will actually endorse the taking of  dogs, not realizing that other breeds of dogs are going to be added to the growing list of restricted, or prohibited dogs. The targeted dogs are purportedly endowed with mythical powers that no other breed of canine can match. The surrounding myth would make these dogs so omnipotent that no mere mortal could possibly outsmart, control, train, contain, or  have a normal owner relationship with them. These are exactly the self same tactics that have been historically used against any of the victims of hate crimes.
Neither should we allow prohibitions on the responsible ownership of any dog by breed.  It violates the XIV Amendment, equal treatment, equal protection. The taking of dogs by breed is only the beginning of the eventual removal of all animals from our ownership, and use. Animals are among the most ancient of our traditional property, when government decides to remove our ownership rights, it will be piecemeal, not whole hog. Think for a moment what would happen if your city, or county government stipulated that all dogs must be forfeit.  People would stand up, and put an immediate stop to that.  It would immediately be recognized as an assault on our civil rights, whereas the taking of dogs by breed doesn’t engender the same recognition.  
The secondary step was the introduction of breed specific dog laws that limit, or prohibit the ownership of dogs based solely upon their breed.  To the inexperienced, or uneducated citizen BSL appears to be a way to control dogs.  Far from that simplistic view, it is government exerting control over the rights of human beings to have the full use and enjoyment of his/her property as is granted under the US Constitution.  Breed specific dog ordinances set up the owners of the named breeds for exceptional treatment under law.  In the limited , or restricted permission to own a “dangerous breed”,  another license was brought to bear upon the dog owner, plus the added burden of having to post an exorbitant surety bond, or liability insurance that was unavailable. 
Breed specific dog laws appear on the surface to be about dogs, but upon closer examination we discover that BSL is all about we human owners of dogs. It’s about government invading the sanctity of our homes, and our property without a warrant and removing animals that we consider to be a part of our family. It is about government criminalizing the ownership of dogs by breed. It is about the taking from we, the people, all of the numerous breeds, and mixed breeds of dogs that are now named in breed specific prohibitions, or restrictions in venues across the United States at this very time.  Prohibitions on the ownership of dogs can overlap to become prohibitions on all animals. There are no stop-gaps built into breed specific legislation to prevent an overlap. 
As citizens we are guaranteed equal treatment, and equal protection.  As owners of the targeted breeds we are treated as  though we have committed a crime, again without due process of law.  We are labeled as being less responsible, less capable, of having less rights than our fellow dog owners whose breeds have temporarily escaped the restrictions, or prohibitions.  Are we not tax payers? Are we not property owners?  Do we not participate in our political processes? Are we secondary citizens?   If we do not stand up for ourselves we will all become slaves to an out of control government.

All law is based upon supporting, and upholding the rights granted to us under the Constitution. Laws must be able to stand up to the Constitutional challenge.  Local, state, and federal agencies have circumvented law by initiating “regulations, ordinances, codes,” etc., which we citizens blindly agree to abide by, thus making these regulations, codes, and ordinances enforceable.  Once we comply, we must ever comply.  Compliance is agreement.  If you have ever paid for and received a license to own a dog in your local, and you refuse to re-license at the end of the period that the license was issued you can be cited, and taken to Court.  The Court can sentence you for not continuing to abide by the agreement that you entered into with the licensing agency.

Obviously the third and final step in removing our property rights in animals is the complete ban on ownership. A retirement community in Florida has already made the proposal. It was soundly trounced.  The USA is not yet ready for an all out ban.  But the chipping away process is in full speed ahead.  Breed specific ownership ordinances have been with us for over thirty years.  It takes time for radical ideas to begin to sound reasonable.  They must be bolstered with heavy doses of propaganda. They must be propped up with legal precedent.  Most importantly they must be acquiesced to by the people.

Far more people are killed by any number of other things than by dogs.  Venomous snake bites kill an average of fifteen to twenty Americans per year. Bees kill one hundred, to three hundred persons a year on average. In 1989 fire-ant stings killed thirty two people in Texas. Lightening strikes one in every six hundred thousand persons killing one hundred, to three hundred persons annually.According to the U.S. Department of Labor there were five thousand, five hundred, and seventy-five work related fatalities in 2003. There were thirty eight thousand (38,000) fatal automobile crashes in 2003 across the U.S.  Sadly, an average of fifteen hundred (1,500) children are killed each year in the United States by a parent, or guardian. The leading cause of death among pregnant women in the U.S. is murder at the hand of the father of her unborn child.   

Given these figures, the restrictions on ownership of dogs by breed, makes no sense.  California’s SB 861 analysis quotes figures that there have been forty-seven human deaths in California that were attributable to dogs from the years 1965 through 2001. That averages to one death a year out of a population of some thirty-five million, eighty-four thousand, four hundred and fifty-three people (35,084,453). Subtract one from the figure 35,484,453 and you will see how many people did not die from dog bites in California each year…  San Francisco averages three hundred and sixty two reported dog bites per year, approximately one bite per day from a population of seven hundred fifty-one thousand,six hundred and eighty-two (751,682) people. In any given year in San Francisco 751,320 people are not bitten by dogs. Public Safety, cannot, and must not be used as an excuse to remove our civil rights. Sound, responsible dog owner legislation that is strictly enforced, is a reasonable alternative that reinforces our civil rights.
Every year approximately four million people across the United States are bitten by dogs. That number makes up about 1% of our population.   Out of that figure, the vast majority of dog bite victims are unattended children who are bitten by their family dog at home.  The rest are unattended children who are off of their family property that are bitten by a dog that is at large.  The number of fatalities resulting from dog attacks across the United States average from twelve, to twenty four in any given year. Dogs are certainly not the threat to public health, and safety that the news media would lead us all to believe.  Shocking, and horrifying as these dog related fatalities are, there are many, and far  more serious threats to human life here in the United States. 
There are a whole lot of dogs, in the United States, tens of millions. Of the 350,000,000 of us human beings ,about sixty-five percent, give or take, own dogs. If the vast majority of dog owners were not  responsible, there would be at least as many deaths attributable to dogs, as there are to automobile crashes. Dog related fatalities are very few in comparison to any other cause. Out of a population of some 350,000,000 to lose 12, to 24 people in a year to dog attacks is a strong case for, and speaks volumes to the overall safety record of dog owners
Once we realize that these laws are truly aimed at removing all of our property rights, civil rights, and Constitutional Rights  we can shed the blinders, and get down to the real business of protecting our civil rights. When we stand up for ourselves as citizens, when we refuse to have our rights, and our property stripped from us, then we will be invincible. We must demand due process of law. We must not give over our civil rights, and our property, or our property rights.  This country was founded upon the ideal of free people taking responsibility for their actions, participating actively in the political process, being citizen statesmen, and women, and being self governing. 
The following statement exerpted from the Constitution of Washington State expresses exactly what the framers  envisioned for we the people; “All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.”  The U.S. Constitution guarantees that we would be able to protect ourselves, and our property with the following words; “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”  Every household in the United States of America should openly display, and study the Constitution before we have acquiesced all of our rights and liberties away.

Posted by rdows
Filed in Animal law, Blogroll, Breed Specific Legislation, Civil Rights, Constitutional rights, politics, property rights ·Tags: , , , , , ,
4 Comments »

RDOWS OPPOSITION STATEMENT TO WASHINGTON 2511

January 24, 2008

RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS OF THE WESTERN STATES

P.O. Box 1406  Newport, WA 99156

Web Site http://www.povn.com/rdows E-mail US rdows@povn.com

Blog http://rdows.wordpress.com  E-mail List http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rdows

Cherie Graves, Chairwoman, WA, (509) 447-2821

Judy Schreiber-Dwornick, Assistant to the Chair, Director at Large, rdowsdirectoratlarge@gmail.com

Hermine Stover, Secretary, Press Liaison, CA, hermine@endangeredspecies.com

Mary Schaeffer, Finance Director, finedogs@hotmail.com

California Director, Jan Dykema bestuvall@sbcglobal.net

Illinois Director, Elizabeth Pensgard bpensgard@yahoo.com

Indiana Director, Charles Coffman candkcoffman@comcast.net

Iowa Director, Leisa Boysen rdows_iowa@yahoo.com

Mississippi Director, Dan Crutchfield farmer1@telepak.net

Nevada Director, Ken Sondej 4winds@viawest.net

Ohio Director, Tiffany Skotnicky ohdirrdows@yahoo.com

Oklahoma Director, Jade Harris aadrlegislation@yahoo.com

Tennessee Director, Gina Cotton ginacotton@msn.com

Texas Director, Alvin Crow crobx@austin.rr.com

OPPOSITION STATEMENT TO WASHINGTON HB 2511

Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States was formed October 15, 1989 to protect the rights, and interests of dog owners. 

Responsible Dog Owners is opposed to Washington HB 2511 as it violates the commerce rights of the citizen bird, cat, dog breeders of Washington. If enacted as introduced HB2511 will cause the importation of pure-bred cats and dogs bred by breeders outside of Washington in order to meet in state demand for pets. HB2511 acts to the detriment of Washington dog, and cat breeders whose ability to breed and sell pure-bred animals is curtailed by HB2511.

HB2511 unfairly allows not-for profit organizations to breed, and to sell animals unhampered by regulation. These not for profit organizations are importing animals from foreign nations to fill empty shelters.

(See, Tufts: Filling Empty Shelters

http://enews.tufts.edu/stories/020603FillingEmptyPounds.htm 

See, USA TODAY:  Dog imports raise fears of a resurgence of disease http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-21-dog-imports_N.htm )

Animal Shelters are being shut down across this nation due to diseases that are carried into the United States by animals imported by not-for Profit animal organizations, and animal shelters. (See, Outbreak of Drug-Resistant Salmonella at an Animal Shelter; http://www.animalsheltering.org/resource_library/magazine_articles/nov_dec_2004/outbreak_of_drug-resistant_salmonella.html See Animal Shelter Shuts Down Due To Parvo Virus  http://www.kmbc.com/news/8006476/detail.html?rss=kc1&psp=news See, CDC

Human Rabies — Indiana and California, 2006 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5615a1.htm 

See, Disease shuts animal shelter http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Feb-10-Sat-2007/news/12517017.html

HB 2511 violates the United States Constitution under the 5th, 14th Amendment, and the Commerce Clause.  Washington dog, bird, and cat breeders are not allowed to  sell  as many cats, birds and dogs as the fair market allows. No other part of Washington’s animal breeding industry is restricted by legislation.

Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States calls upon the Washington State Legislature to kill HB2511. It is the duty, and the responsibility of the legislature to protect, and defend the rights of the people of Washington. HB2511 is a taking of the property and use rights of Washington’s pure-bred dog and cat breeders.

Posted by rdows
Filed in Animal law, Blogroll, Civil Rights, Constitutional rights, Pet Overpopulation Myth, politics, property rights ·Tags: , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

RDOWS OPPOSITION STATEMENT TO WASHINGTON SB 6132

January 24, 2008

RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS OF THE WESTERN STATESP.O. Box 1406  Newport, WA 99156Web Site http://www.povn.com/rdows E-mail US rdows@povn.comBlog http://rdows.wordpress.com  E-mail List http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rdows Cherie Graves, Chairwoman, WA, (509) 447-2821Judy Schreiber-Dwornick, Assistant to the Chair, Director at Large, rdowsdirectoratlarge@gmail.comHermine Stover, Secretary, Press Liaison, CA, hermine@endangeredspecies.comMary Schaeffer, Finance Director, finedogs@hotmail.comCalifornia Director, Jan Dykema bestuvall@sbcglobal.netIllinois Director, Elizabeth Pensgard bpensgard@yahoo.comIndiana Director, Charles Coffman candkcoffman@comcast.netIowa Director, Leisa Boysen rdows_iowa@yahoo.comMississippi Director, Dan Crutchfield farmer1@telepak.netNevada Director, Ken Sondej 4winds@viawest.netOhio Director, Tiffany Skotnicky ohdirrdows@yahoo.comOklahoma Director, Jade Harris aadrlegislation@yahoo.comTennessee Director, Gina Cotton ginacotton@msn.comTexas Director, Alvin Crow crobx@austin.rr.com  OPPOSITION STATEMENT TO WA SB 6132 - 2007-08  Regulating the keeping of exotic animals  Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States was formed October 15, 1989 to protect the rights, and interests of dog owners.  Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States is opposed to SB 6132 Sponsored by Senator Marilyn Rasmussen, Second Legislative District,  as it is a violation of the Constitution of the United States of America and of  the Constitution of Washington State. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Washington State’s Christian, and Jewish residents believe that God created animals for human beings to own. SB 6132 violates the religious rights of the people of Washington.24 And said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind.’ And it was so. 25God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind* in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth,* and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’
27So God created humankind* in his image,
   in the image of God he created them;*
   male and female he created them.
28God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.’ 29God said, ‘See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.’ And it was so. 31God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. SB 6132 violates the property rights of the people of Washington as granted under both the U.S. Constitution and the Washington State Constitution. Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Animals are the most ancient property of human beings. It is only with the advent of the animal rights movement that was created in Nazi Germany has there been any question as to the rights of human beings to own animals. Banning, any animal sets the precedent to ban all animals.  The United States Constitution makes no mention of animals, as our founders, in their wisdom, recognized that animals were, are, and have always been the rightful property of human beings. Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States respectfully requests the Washington State Legislature to kill SB1632. 

Posted by rdows
Filed in Animal law, Blogroll, Breed Specific Legislation, Civil Rights, Constitutional rights, politics, property rights ·Tags: , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

RDOWS OPPOSITION STATEMENT TO WASHINGTON HB 2861

January 23, 2008

RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS OF THE WESTERN STATESP.O. Box 1406  Newport, WA 99156Web Site http://www.povn.com/rdows   E-mail  rdows@povn.comBlog http://rdows.wordpress.com  E-mail List http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rdows Cherie Graves, Chairwoman, WA, (509) 447-2821Judy Schreiber-Dwornick, Assistant to the Chair, Director at Large, rdowsdirectoratlarge@gmail.comHermine Stover, Secretary, Press Liaison, CA, hermine@endangeredspecies.comMary Schaeffer, Finance Director, finedogs@hotmail.comCalifornia Director, Jan Dykema bestuvall@sbcglobal.netIllinois Director, Elizabeth Pensgard bpensgard@yahoo.comIndiana Director, Charles Coffman candkcoffman@comcast.netIowa Director, Leisa Boysen rdows_iowa@yahoo.comMississippi Director, Dan Crutchfield farmer1@telepak.netNevada Director, Ken Sondej 4winds@viawest.netOhio Director, Tiffany Skotnicky ohdirrdows@yahoo.comOklahoma Director, Jade Harris aadrlegislation@yahoo.comTennessee Director, Gina Cotton ginacotton@msn.comTexas Director, Alvin Crow crobx@austin.rr.com 

OPPOSITION STATEMENT TO WASHINGTON HB 2861

Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States was formed October 15, 1989 to protect the rights, and interests of dog owners. 

 Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States stands in opposition to HB2861 - 2007-08  Including a wolf-hybrid in the definition of a “potentially dangerous wild animal.” Sponsored by Representatives Haler, Kretz, Schmick, and Blake.  The Canine Genome Project proved with DNA testing that all domestic dog breeds are derivative of  Canis Lupis Familaris, a sub-species of the Gray Wolf. In other words, all dogs are wolf-hybrids.  HB 2861 has the potential of creating the unintended consequence of  causing all dogs to be considered “potentially dangerous wild animal”(s) in Washington state. Dog ownership has been archaeologically traced back more than thirty thousand years. Tradition gives animal owners legal standing to own dogs. All animals are the ancient property of human beings. Animal husbandry is among the most ancient of professions. We, the people expect our legislators to protect our rights, and our property, not to remove those rights, and that property. Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States respectfully requests that the Represenatives sponsors withdraw HB 2861 from consideration.

Posted by rdows
Filed in Animal law, Blogroll, Breed Specific Legislation, Civil Rights, Constitutional rights, politics, property rights ·Tags: , , , ,
No Comments »

RDOWS OPPOSITION STATEMENT TO ARIZONA HB 2516

January 23, 2008

RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS OF THE WESTERN STATESP.O. Box 1406  Newport, WA 99156Web Site http://www.povn.com/rdows E-mail US rdows@povn.comBlog http://rdows.wordpress.com  E-mail List http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rdows Cherie Graves, Chairwoman, WA, (509) 447-2821Judy Schreiber-Dwornick, Assistant to the Chair, Director at Large, rdowsdirectoratlarge@gmail.comHermine Stover, Secretary, Press Liaison, CA, hermine@endangeredspecies.comMary Schaeffer, Finance Director, finedogs@hotmail.comArizona Director, John Bowen johnalldogs@sprintmail.comCalifornia Director, Jan Dykema bestuvall@sbcglobal.netIllinois Director, Elizabeth Pensgard bpensgard@yahoo.comIndiana Director, Charles Coffman candkcoffman@comcast.netIowa Director, Leisa Boysen rdows_iowa@yahoo.comMississippi Director, Dan Crutchfield farmer1@telepak.netNevada Director, Ken Sondej 4winds@viawest.netOhio Director, Tiffany Skotnicky ohdirrdows@yahoo.comOklahoma Director, Jade Harris aadrlegislation@yahoo.comTennessee Director, Gina Cotton ginacotton@msn.comTexas Director, Alvin Crow crobx@austin.rr.com OPPOSITION STATEMENT TO ARIZONA HB2516

 Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States was formed October 15, 1989 to protect the civil rights, Constitutional rights, and interests of dog owners. Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States takes the position that animals are valuable property. Animals are among the most ancient of traditional property of human beings.

 Responsible Dog Owners is opposed to Arizona HB2516  as it violates the commerce rights of the citizen  dog breeders of Arizona. If enacted as introduced HB2516 will cause the importation of pure-bred dogs bred by breeders outside of Arizona in order to meet in state demand for pets. HB2516 acts to the detriment of  Arizona’s dog, and cat breeders whose ability to breed and sell pure-bred animals is curtailed by HB2516.

 Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States calls upon the Legislature of the state of Arizona to curtail the mass importation of animals by not for profit animal shelters, and rescue organizations that flood shelters with animals from Asia, Romania, India, and elsewhere while creating a false “animal over-population crisis”  and pointing fingers of blame at responsible Arizona dog breeders.  See the evidence in the articles listed below.

 (1) TUFTS: FILLING EMPTY DOG POUNDS (FROM 02-06-03) http://enews.tufts.edu/stories/020603FillingEmptyPounds.htm Pet Underpopulation: The Pet Shortage in the US by Laura Baughanhttp://spanieljournal.com/33baughan.html(2) Dog imports raise fears of a resurgence of disease http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-21-dog-imports_N.htmOutbreak of Drug-Resistant Salmonella at an Animal Shelter http://www.animalsheltering.org/resource_library/magazine_articles/nov_dec_2004/outbreak_of_drug-resistant_salmonella.htmlDisease shuts animal shelter (Las Vegas) http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Feb-10-Sat-2007/news/12517017.html(3) Rabies Treatment Saves One, Does Not Work for All http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267191,00.htmlHuman Rabies — Indiana and California, 2006 http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5615a1.htm(4) 8 Things You (Probably) Didn’t Know About Dog Shelters http://www.toybreeds.com/animalshelters.htmABC NEWS: 300,000 Imported Puppies Prompt Rabies Scare http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3765973&page=1

  HB2516 violates the United States Constitution under the 5th, 14th Amendment, and the Commerce Clause.  The state of Arizona does not hold title to the property rights of Arizona’s citizen’s animals. Animal’s genetalia belongs to the owner of the animal. Arizona dog breeders are deprived of selling as many dogs as the fair market allows. No other part of Arizona’s animal breeding industry is restricted by legislation.  Cattle, and sheep ranchers are not restricted in their breeding, and sales

It is the duty, and the responsibility of the legislature to protect, and defend the rights of the people of Arizona. HB2516 is a taking of the property and use rights of  Arizona’s pure-bred dog  breeders. Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States calls upon the Arizona State Legislature to kill HB2516.

Posted by rdows
Filed in Animal law, Blogroll, Civil Rights, Constitutional rights, Pet Overpopulation Myth, politics, property rights ·Tags: , , , , , ,
No Comments »

RDOWS OPPOSITION STATEMENT TO VIRGINIA HB 1570

January 23, 2008

RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS OF THE WESTERN STATESP.O. Box 1406  Newport, WA 99156Web Site http://www.povn.com/rdows E-mail US rdows@povn.comBlog http://rdows.wordpress.com  E-mail List http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rdows Cherie Graves, Chairwoman, WA, (509) 447-2821Judy Schreiber-Dwornick, Assistant to the Chair, Director at Large, rdowsdirectoratlarge@gmail.comHermine Stover, Secretary, Press Liaison, CA, hermine@endangeredspecies.comMary Schaeffer, Finance Director, finedogs@hotmail.comArizona Director, John Bowen johnalldogs@sprintmail.comCalifornia Director, Jan Dykema bestuvall@sbcglobal.netIllinois Director, Elizabeth Pensgard bpensgard@yahoo.comIndiana Director, Charles Coffman candkcoffman@comcast.netIowa Director, Leisa Boysen rdows_iowa@yahoo.comMississippi Director, Dan Crutchfield farmer1@telepak.netNevada Director, Ken Sondej 4winds@viawest.netOhio Director, Tiffany Skotnicky ohdirrdows@yahoo.comOklahoma Director, Jade Harris aadrlegislation@yahoo.comTennessee Director, Gina Cotton ginacotton@msn.comTexas Director, Alvin Crow crobx@austin.rr.com 

OPPOSITION STATEMENT TO VIRGINIA HB 1570

 Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States was formed October 15, 1989 to protect the civil rights, Constitutional rights, and interests of dog owners. Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States takes the position that animals are valuable property. Animals are among the most ancient of traditional property of human beings.

Responsible Dog Owners is opposed to Virginia HB 1570 as it violates the commerce rights of the citizen  dog breeders of Virginia. If enacted as introduced HB 1570 will cause the importation of pure-bred dogs bred by breeders outside of Virginia in order to meet in state demand for pets. HB 1570 acts to the detriment of  Virginia’s dog, and cat breeders whose ability to breed and sell pure-bred animals is curtailed by HB 1570.

Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States calls upon the Legislature of the state of Virginia to curtail the mass importation of animals by not for profit animal shelters, and rescue organizations that flood shelters with animals from Asia, Romania, India, and elsewhere while creating a false “animal over-population crisis”  and pointing fingers of blame at responsible Virginia dog breeders.  See the evidence in the articles listed below.

 (1) TUFTS: FILLING EMPTY DOG POUNDS (FROM 02-06-03) http://enews.tufts.edu/stories/020603FillingEmptyPounds.htm Pet Underpopulation: The Pet Shortage in the US by Laura Baughanhttp://spanieljournal.com/33baughan.html(2) Dog imports raise fears of a resurgence of disease http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-21-dog-imports_N.htmOutbreak of Drug-Resistant Salmonella at an Animal Shelter http://www.animalsheltering.org/resource_library/magazine_articles/nov_dec_2004/outbreak_of_drug-resistant_salmonella.htmlDisease shuts animal shelter (Las Vegas) http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Feb-10-Sat-2007/news/12517017.html(3) Rabies Treatment Saves One, Does Not Work for All http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267191,00.htmlHuman Rabies — Indiana and California, 2006 http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5615a1.htm(4) 8 Things You (Probably) Didn’t Know About Dog Shelters http://www.toybreeds.com/animalshelters.htmABC NEWS: 300,000 Imported Puppies Prompt Rabies Scare http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3765973&page=1

 HB 1570 violates the United States Constitution under the 5th, 14th Amendment, and the Commerce Clause.  The state of Virginia does not hold title to the property rights of Virginia’s citizen’s animals. Animal’s genetalia belongs to the owner of the animal. Under HB 1570 Virginia dog breeders are deprived of selling as many dogs as the fair market allows. No other part of Virginia’s animal breeding industry is restricted by legislation.  Cattle, horse, and sheep ranchers are not restricted in their breeding, and sales

It is the duty, and the responsibility of the legislature to protect, and defend the rights of the people of Virginia. HB 1570 is a taking of the property and use rights of  Virginia’s pure-bred dog  breeders. Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States calls upon the Virginia Legislature to kill HB 1570

Posted by rdows
Filed in Animal law, Blogroll, Civil Rights, Constitutional rights, Pet Overpopulation Myth, politics, property rights ·Tags: , , , , , ,
No Comments »

EXPOSING DOGSBITE.ORG

January 17, 2008

 Colleen Lynn has organized another group called Families & Dogs Against FightingBreeds 

She has called a meeting for;

Tuesday, February 12th
6:45-8pm

Uptown Cafe
2504 4th Ave (4th & Wall)
206-441-1084

 ”An open meeting of Families and Dogs Against Fighting Breeds (FDAFB) will take place on February 12, 2008, in the meeting room at the Uptown Cafe from 6:45-8 pm.

Goals will be to introduce ourselves, talk about various volunteer roles and discuss the finalized legislation for a Seattle Citizen’s Initiative regarding fighting breeds.”

She says that it is an open meeting, so all of you Seattle dog owners be sure to attend. Since the name of the group includes “dogs” we wonder just how many dogs are members of her little group. Will the dogs be welcome at the meeting?

 http://www.dogsbite.org/blog/2008/01/arkansas-group-appeals-to-federal-court.html 

Having been a recent target of the Dogsbite.org blog, I decided to do a bit of research to find out who, and what is the driving power behind this radical website. It is the brainchild of Kory Nelson, Assistant District Attorney Denver Colorado who feeds biased information to Ms. Colleen Lynn of Seattle, who is a graphic designer, and website builder. Apparently Kory Nelson researches the same news articles that I, too research.

Ms. Lynn was bitten by a dog while jogging in June 2007.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/13541159/detail.html

 There was another recent article depicting Ms. Lynn’s plight http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004112928_brodeur08m.html?syndication=rss

I found a whole lot more background when researching Ms. Lynn, she is quite the self promoter, and far from being unable to work at her chosen profession, she is now the mouthpiece for “Kill ‘em All” Kory Nelson. Her business Vain Notion lists her clientele, and it is available to anyone running a search engine.

It is a tragic fact that Ms. Lynn was bitten severely while jogging. It is another fact that her bite originated from one dog, not everyone’s dog. One wonders if Ms. Lynn understands that breed specific dog laws do not prevent dog bites?

Great Britain passed nationwide BSL in 1989. The dog bite statistics remained the same. That is indicative that dog bites have nothing to do with dog breeds, but rather with negligent owners.

Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States recognizes that neither “Dangerous” Dog Laws, or Breed Specific Dog Laws protect the public. That is why RDOWS Model Dog Owner Regulations were developed. RDOWS Model Dog Owner Regulations are applied to the human factor in the human/dog equation. Of the two, only the human being has the capacity to understand, and to function to law. Only human beings have rights, and are expected to respond accordingly to the attendant responsibilities that come with those rights.

When legislators focus their legislation on animal behaviors, and mete out punishments to animals, they have taken American juris prudence back to the dark ages. Laws must be written for human beings. We look to the Constitution of the United States as being the foremost authority for laws in these United States. There isn’t one mention of animals, as our founding fathers knew then that animals were, and would always be the property, and thus the responsibility of their human owners. I will attach the letter that I sent to Kory Nelson, and cc’d to Colleen Lynn.

Cherie Graves, chairwoman

Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States

P.O. Box 1406 Newport, WA 99156

http://www.povn.com/rdows

http://www.povn.com/rdows/donations.html

http://rdows.wordpress.com

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UAOA

http://www.unitedAnimalownersalliance.com

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RDOWS

Having continued to research Colleen Lynn I’ve discovered some very interesting ommissions. The owner of the dog that allegedly bit Ms. Lynn has never been referenced in print. The dog was allegedly immediately euthanized, which is unorthodox, as most dogs that cause severe injury are held in quarantine, and then ethanized and the head sent for rabies testing. I have not yet been able to find a police report of the incident.  Ms. Lynn has not filed suit against the dog’s owner in Seattle, or King County.   Instead, Ms. Lynn would far prefer to cause harm to all of the dogs that were not involved in her alleged bite, and to all of the owners of those dogs.

——————————————————————————–

From: Cherie Graves To: kory.nelson@ci.denver.co.us ; colleen@vainnotion.com

Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:28 PM

Subject: Dogsbite.org

Kory Nelson, Assistant District Attorney, Denver Colorado

Kory Nelson,

I smell your foul stench behind Ms. Colleen Lynn’s Dogsbite.org blog. I’m sure that you directed her attention to my kennel’s website. Have you also revealed to Ms. Lynn that you are a minion of the animal rights movement whose sworn goal is the eradication of pet ownership?

Have you advised Ms. Lynn that breed specific dog ordinances set a legal precedent that allows the enacting body to add any, or all other breeds of dogs, and even all domestic species of animals?

Watch TRUTHS FROM RDOWS blog as I publicly expose your evil deeds once again. I have the courage of my convictions. I use my real name. You hide behind victims to plot against the ownership of animals, and you used your position to persuade Colleen Lynn to create her blog.

If Ms. Lynn is subpoenaed into Court, would she state that you initiated contact with her, and that you suggested that she use her computer skills to fight your war for you?

Shall we test the waters?

If Ms. Lynn were struck by a Ford truck, would you encourage her to work toward banning all Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury products? Of course not. How dare you put Ms. Lynn into such a precarious predicament, if not to appease your own ego driven obsession?

I’ve got you pegged, you are truly a pathetic piece of work.

Cherie Graves

CC: Colleen Lynn

Cherie Graves, chairwoman 

Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States

P.O. Box 1406 Newport, WA 99156

Posted by rdows
Filed in Animal Rights Groups, Animal law, Blogroll, Breed Specific Legislation, Civil Rights, Constitutional rights, hate crimes, politics, property rights ·Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
25 Comments »

Legislative Report 01-16-08

January 17, 2008

Legislative Report 01-16-08Authored by: Ken Sondej & Linda D. WitouskiKen Sondej - 4winds@viawest.netAmerican Kennel Club Legislative Liaison - Silver State Kennel Club Legislative Liaison - National Pet PressLegislative Liaison - Nevada Dog Fanciers Assc. Director Government Affairs and Legislative Advisor - Adopt A Rescue PetNevada Director – Responsible Dog Owners Western States (RDOWS)Advisor - Indiana Animal Owners AllianceAdvisor  to Clubs and groups in Southern Nevada, Arizona, CaliforniaLinda Witouski - dropfred13@aol.comAmerican Kennel Club JudgeAmerican Kennel Club Delegate - Myrtle Beach Kennel Club - SCAmerican Kennel Club Legislative Liaison - South Carolina & PennsylvaniaLegislative Liaison/Staff Writer - National Pet Press/TDPLegislative Chair/BOD - Myrtle Beach Kennel ClubLegislative Chair - Yankee Miniature Pinscher ClubLegislative Chair - Miniature Pinscher Club of America, Inc.Member: NAIA, MOF, ERPT, DSJA, DJAA, MBKC, YMPC, MPCA Handy TOLLFREE NUMBERS - Capitol Switchboard
Here are some toll-free numbers for the Capitol Switchboard:
1-866-220-0044
1-866-340-9281
1-877-851-6437
1-888-355-3588
1-800-833-6354
1-800-450-8293
1-877-762-8722
1-877-762-8762 FEDERALU.S. Senate passes Farm Bill with important Companion Animal Provision  - Last Chance for Animals (AR group)  applauds Senate for making pet theft a Federal Issue.Toledo OH -  Tellings appeal to the United States Supreme Court was filed 12-21-07http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-8545.htmSTATES - IN ALPHABETICAL ORDERALABAMAAthens - repeals pet license ordinance.  City officials said the registration was costing the city more money than it was bringing in and that it was a duplication of services with a state health law that requires dogs to be vaccinated for rabies.  12/17/07Colbert County - County’s animal control director is asking the county’s larger municipalities to consider an ordinance that would outlaw chaining dogs. Government officials in Muscle Shoals, Sheffield and Tuscumbia said they are aware of the request from county Animal Control Director Tommy Morson, but so far none of the councils has adopted the proposed ordinance.  When he presented the proposal to Sheffield council members, Morson said chaining dogs to a stake or post makes the animals more territorial and aggressive.  In addition to prohibiting tethering or chaining of dogs to stationary objects, the ordinance would mandate that dog pens must provide 100 square feet of space for each dog over 3 months old.  If dogs are confined within a fenced-in yard, the area must have sufficient space for exercise based on a dimension of 100 square feet per dog. Fences must be constructed of chain link or similar material and be tall enough to prevent the dog from escaping and each animal must have his own dog house.Dothan - new ordinance gives AC officers right of entry for the purpose to impound animal(s) and issue citations for violations (against Alabama State Law), defines regulations for “dangerous”, “vicious” and nuisance (any animal at large not spay or neutered)” dogs, prohibits urination on private property or defecate on public property, liability for damage caused by animal(s) and care of livestock.   text available upon request.ARKANSASCrossett - extended discussion involving the city’s existing animal ordinance as compared to a recommendation prepared by a committee working on the definition of a vicious dog, the council moved that City Attorney James Hamilton amend the existingordinance and prepare the committee’s suggestion in ordinance form for further discussion and review by the council.North Little Rock - new ordinance, Little Rock residents still will be allowed to have pit bulls, and new residents can move with their dogs into the city but will have to register them with Animal Services, pose for a photograph with the dog, sterilize the animal and pay an additional fee to have a dangerous breed permit.  The ordinance also limits owners to two dogs per household, would apply to American pit bull terriers, Staffordshire terriers, American Staffordshire terriers and any mix of those breeds. Text is available upon request.  NOTE: City of Little Rock was added to a lawsuit filed by Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs (ROADS) regarding breed selective legislation and banning of certain breedsCALIFORNIACity of Sacramento -  importing adoptable dogs to meet the demand at the shelters and building a new $25 million shelter where, evidently, they are planning to eventually be the only place in town to “buy” a pet.Kern County - During the months of May and June 2007, ten public workshops were conducted throughout Kern County to introduce possible Animal Ordinance amendments. As a result of public input received during those workshops, staff indicated that a number of changes would be included in further discussion with the Animal Control Commission   Commission will further discuss this matter at its Wednesday, January 16, 2008 meeting, 6:00 p.m. at the Public Services Building, 2700 M Street, Bakersfield.  It is possible that a formal recommendation on this proposal may be acted upon at the February 20, 2007 Commission meeting.COLORADOCarbondale - Town Council agreed Tuesday (12/11/07) after reviewing a draft of the new ordinance aimed at addressing aggressive animals, that it requires tweaking.   A revised version will come back to town trustees with further clarification of the penalty for neglecting a dog and a refined definition of “vicious.”  Other issues- ­ mandatory leash laws and limiting the number of dogs a single owner can have­ were also discussed.  Board members agreed the revised ordinance should include rewards for responsible owners.Edgewood - seeks to join surrounding communities in limiting the number of animals in a home.  Limits are based on the number of lots you are on, as opposed to the number of acres.  A 100-acre lot has the same limits as a person on a 1-acre lot.Parachute - ordinance that would have banned pit bulls, unless their owners followed several strict requirements, died after two motions to approve it failed for lack of seconds. One motion would have added other dog breeds, such as Dobermans and Rottweilers, to the ban.  DEAD  12/13/07Parachute - Town Council approves vicious-pet ordinance regaring dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs.  The ordinance would apply to all breeds of dogs and any kinds of pets.  A municipal judge would determine whether an animal is potentially dangerous after a hearing.  A dog designated as potentially dangerous would have to be spayed or neutered and kept indoors or in a secure pen to prevent it from escaping, according to the ordinance. A dog classified as dangerous, meaning it had violated the ordinance after being deemed potentially dangerous, would be humanely euthanized.  If the dog were taken off its owner’s property, it must wear a leash no longer than 4 feet.  The owner would also have to display a sign on his or her property to alert people that a dangerous animal was present, and obtain a special license and tag from the town. Violators of those conditions would be subject to a municipal fine.The ordinance will take effect once the Town Council gives it final approval at its next meeting.FLORIDALake Mary - City is discussing a change in the pet limit lawsMiami-Dade County - County Commission will be holding a public hearing at 9:30am on Tuesday, 12/18, to discuss a variety of changes to the animal control ordinance including limiting the number of pets a resident may own, implementing hobby breeder licensing, requiring mandatory microchipping for dog breeders and restricting rescue organizations. Commissioners voted in a non-public hearing to defer the Chapter 5 re-write in Miami-Dade   12/18/07Palm Beach - County commissioners are discussing proposed revisions to animal control ordinance.  The majority of people agreed to a non mandatory spay/neuter program offered through vet vouchers in the entire County. (health issues and other concerns not directly related to being a breeder were cited) This would remove the breeder “tax” from the legislature altogether and make it completely voluntary. The revisions were a result of the 6 MONTH waiting list to get low cost spay/neuter from Palm Beach Animal Care and Control. UPDATE: Palm Beach County officials have taken the bite out of a controversial plan intended to force residents to spay and neuter their pets. Newest version of the rules would allow all pet owners to opt out of the requirement by paying a $75 fee. Pet owners who buy the unaltered license also would be required to certify in writing that the dog or cat will not be bred. Breeders still would be required pay for the permit - $300 a year, but the county would waive the fee in many cases.GEORGIAAthens-Clarke County - Commission voted to ban tethering animals to object. The new law requires all dogs and other animals to be housed in an enclosure, such as a fenced-in area with a doghouse,
and no longer allows owners to chain or tether their pets to inanimate objects like trees.
The law came in response to complaints from animal-rights activists and Athens-Clarke Animal Control officers. Commissioners Doug Lowry, George Maxwell and Harry Sims opposed it. (PASSED)ILLINOISSpringfield - new law went into effect Tuesday (01/01/0 8) to protect pets and animals from domestic violence.  Under the new law, Illinois judges can include animals in orders of protection, just as they would a human being. The bill was passed unanimously in May 2007.Farmington - City Council heard a proposed ordinance for the first time Monday (12/17/07) that would make pit bulls a dying breed in the city.  The ordinance states that no ‘new’ pit bulls can be brought into the city and that current pit bull owners will have to apply for a special license within 60 days of the ordinance. The ordinance was read for the first time Monday and will be presented for a full vote in early 2008. The license would require proof of ownership of the pit bull, a copy of health and immunization records, a certificate of insurance for injury or damages by the dog for at least $500,000 and two photographs of the dog.  The license will cost $100.  Farmington is not a “home rule” city.  The council will vote on the ordinance at an upcoming meeting.  UPDATE: Proposed ordinance banning pit bulls in the city was not on January 7 meeting agenda.  “There has been indication of potential litigation by various organizations, and the cost of a legal defense for this type of lawsuit would not be in the best interest of the citizens of Farmington,” City Administrator Roger Woodcock said in a news release Thursday 12/20/07.KANSASBeloit - BSL was supposedly repealed however, the city council posted a new breed ban via a newspaper posting behind the people’s backs  (no further info provided)Humboldt - City Council members approved a series of sweeping new animal control ordinances that ban ownership of pit bull terriers and rottweilers within city limits.  Only those who had properly registered those types of dogs with the city by Dec. 31 will be allowed to keep the animals and restricts ownership of pit bulls and rottweilers, which the city considers “inherently dangerous” and “a significant threat to the public’s health, safety and welfare.”  Even those who have previously registered their dogs face a litany of restrictions, including: � The dogs mustt be confined indoors or in a secure pen. � Dogs are allowed outside those containnment areas only if they are restrained by a leash and muzzle. � Owners must maiintain at least $50,000 in liability insurance for bodily injury or death and have sufficient “beware of dog” signage. � Dogs must be pphotographed, and cannot be sold or have their ownership transferred to any other person within the city. � Any offspring born to a registered pit bull or rottweiler must be removed from the city within six weeks of birth. � Violators are subject to Humbooldt Municipal Court fines of up to $1,000 and a 30-day jail sentence. Passed 01/07/08Hutchinson - city has added some teeth and a little bit of bite to its updated animal control ordinances - specifically the section on dog licensing fees.  City found a good compromise in drafting the new ordinance. It allows pet owners to pay a higher fee for choosing not to spay or neuter their pets while offering a financial incentive to the owners of pets who do so.   Effective Jan. 1.Winfield - new ordinance requiring the licensing of animals whch require proof of rabies immunization.  Required to either wear the registration tag, or in lieu of that, the owner may provide proof that the animal has been injected with an under-the-skin microchip ID. The number of the chip must be provided at registration time.