TRUTHS FROM RDOWS

Impending Bill from Pennsylvania’s Gov. Rendell and Rep. Casorio is a Constitutional Slice and Dice

rdows — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:45:31 +0000

Gov. Rendell and Rep. Casorio’s as yet unnamed and unnumbered bill which claims to be a crack down on so-called “puppy mills” is in reality an 82-page wholesale slice and dice of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights and Civil Rights which will affect not only the estimated 2,600 licensed kennels in Pennsylvania, but anyone owning a dog in Pennsylvania or anyone owning a dog transported through the state.

Of particular concern is that this bill doesn’t just water down fundamental constitutional rights like the right to be secure in one’s home and one’s person, it negates them entirely. For instance, this bill would allow any dog warden in the state of Pennsylvania access to any dog owner’s home, land, buildings, papers, effects, and even their children not only without obtaining a warrant, but even without reasonable suspicion! As John Yates of the American Sporting Dog Alliance noted,

“The legislation gives the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement the power to revoke licenses, confiscate dogs and levy penalties of up to $1,000 a day, even for someone who is later found not guilty in a court of law. The Bureau also would be given the power to levy those penalties and confiscate dogs without even filing charges against a person who is accused of a violation” (emphasis mine).

Adjudicating individuals guilty before they’ve even had a fair trial, which is what assessing penalties and confiscation of property does, is how we treat enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay (and civil libertarians even dispute that we should be treating foreigners this way!), not how we treat American citizens with the unalienable right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and due process! What happened to the presumption of innocence? What happened to the burden of proof which must necessarily be the prosecution’s alone if we are to continue to make the claim that America is a Republic where supreme power rests in the body of citizens? Mr. Yates summed this stance up thusly: “This legislation…attempts to transform the Dog Law Bureau into the judge, jury, and hangman.”

Nor is an administrative hearing the equivalent of a proper trial in a proper court of law with a proper judge and/or jury. This is a complete usurpation of the 6th amendment particularly since if this bill passes it will be a law, and the alleged breaking of a law entitles the accused to a trial. Additionally, confiscation and what is tantamount to forced severance of ownership rights (or severance of property rights under duress) of the accused’s dogs and possibly other of the owner’s property without a warrant, without just compensation, without a court ruling (or even an administrative ruling) is a grievous violation of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 14th amendments to the Constitution. And yes, depriving the accused of his/her beloved dogs as a result of what could quite possibly be trumped up charges is cruel and unusual punishment. For instance, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in 1958 in the case of Trop v Dulles that society’s idea of “cruel and unusual punishments” change as society’s “evolving sense of decency” changes. Depriving American citizens of their pets — pets that are considered by many owners to be unto their children — especially as the result of an administrative decision made beyond the rule of law by an oligarchic bureaucracy with feigned authority is inexcusable. Dogs or other animals feared to be in immediate peril could be removed in a proper fashion via an injunction. There is no excuse for anything less.

Reasons for denial of kennel licensure are likewise unreasonable. Any and all felony convictions need not exclude individuals from holding kennel licenses unless the felony conviction has some credible bearing on an individual’s ability to effectively run a kennel and properly care for animals. For instance, it is reasonable to restrict those convicted of animal cruelty from obtaining a kennel license. But if, as Mr. Yates noted, a person was prior convicted of tax evasion should this exclude them from running a kennel? What has tax evasion got to do with one’s ability to properly care for animals? In this way it is intimated that anyone convicted of a felony, no matter what kind of felony it was, could potentially be an animal abuser or animal neglecter. This is a dangerous assumption and one that could lead to excessive governmental scrutinization of not only one’s fitness for owning dogs, but perhaps even one’s fitness for raising children. Where does it end?

Likewise there is no cause to restrict someone who absent-mindedly forgot to vaccinate his/her dog(s) a time or two from obtaining a kennel license. Who among us hasn’t been guilty of this or similar administrative oversights? Should an individual who forgot to vaccinate his/her dogs once be denied a kennel license the same as a person who has repeatedly and flagrantly disregarded the rabies law? Is this reasonable?

Similarly there is no rational basis for disallowing commercial kennel owners from obtaining state licenses allowing them to vaccinate against rabies particularly as there has been no problem with rabies in any kennel anywhere in the United States for 10 years (source:CDC). This provision could however quite possibly be cost-prohibitive, which in effect could prevent commercial breeders from breeding. Other versions of the Rendell/Casorio bill contained provisions which disallowed persons from private kennels from obtaining state licenses allowing them to vaccinate their dogs against rabies, and a newer version of the bill may contain this provision again.

Likewise there is no rational basis for denying kennel owners the right to euthanize a dog via legal methods. Such a provision could in fact prolong the suffering of a dog potentially for days or longer if a veterinarian is not immediately available, a real possibility in rural areas.

Worse, according to Yates,

“The legislation …would empower dog wardens to inspect every dog in Pennsylvania, as well as the home and property of the dog’s owner, at any time, for any reason and without…probable cause to suspect that the law has been violated. This applies to anyone who owns even one dog, and not just to kennels.”

As already stated, such a provision is an egregious violation of the 4th amendment. Perhaps you’ll understand better if a real-world situation is applied. Imagine there were a catastrophe in Pennsylvania on the level of a Hurricane Katrina. The dog warden could determine that due to circumstance thousands of individuals were not able to give their dogs adequate housing and care. Would the dogs be temporarily removed until such a time as the owner could demonstrate s/he could properly care for the dog(s)? In the case of Hurricane Katrina, which happened in 2005, thousands of individuals are still displaced. Could Pennsylvanians then expect to lose their dogs for years or indefinitely in the event of a natural or other disaster?

But that’s what licensing does. A license is a temporary, revocable permit issued by a governmental licensing agency that allows the holder to have something, or to do something that is otherwise illegal. Once that owner’s right to ownership has become a privilege instead of a right, which is a consequence of licensing, then that owner’s ownership can be negated at any time for any reason. By agreeing to license their dogs, owners grant the licensing agency absolute control over their animals. Agents can come onto owners’ real property, and remove their personal property (their dogs) without due process of law. Ostensibly cities, counties, or states which require licensing could even refuse to issue further licenses, and revoke the privilege of dog ownership altogether. In the case of a Hurricane Katrina-type situation in Pennsylvania, dog wardens could simply declare that it is in the best interests of the animals to sever owners’ ownership rights since it will be determined that owners, due to circumstance, can no longer properly care for their pets as proper ownership is defined by the state.

Other provisions of the Rendell/Casorio bill violate the rule of reason. For example, via the Rendell/Casorio bill, dog wardens would be authorized to demand an inspection of a kennel within 24 hours if a kennel owner is unavailable during an initial inspection attempt. If a second attempt is unsuccessful the bureau can revoke a kennel license and seize all but 25 of the dogs. Not only is this provision unreasonable for simple logical reasons like that the kennel owner may be in the hospital or out of town and unable to meet with the dog warden, but it leaves far too wide a berth for abuse and malicious prosecution. Another extreme provision of the Rendell/Casorio bill would require dealer licenses for individuals and groups transporting dogs through the state if they originate from out-of-state shelters/rescues while commercial transporters are exempt. How would this provision affect “puppy mills” as is the stated intent of the bill? Perhaps it would better suit Governor Rendell and Rep. Casorio if they could establish check points on all major entry and exit points to the state wherein officials could stop each vehicle for inspection and demand a driver’s “papers.”

Still other provisions are too vague allowing for open interpretations of the law. For instance, a provision of the bill requires that the temperatures of the dogs’ environment be kept warmer than 50 degrees and cooler than 85 degrees. Does this refer to a run or only an indoor kennel? Another provision states that weeds, waste, and junk cannot be allowed to accumulate on an owner’s property and that the premises must be kept clean and in good repair. Are we to assume this means the immediate grounds or an owner’s entire property including farms with hundreds of acres of land?

Finally, it is unreasonable and cost-prohibitive for a bill to require that kennel owners take their dogs to a veterinarian every year or that each kennel have a formal exercise plan approved or overseen by a veterinarian. These are nanny-state tactics meant to force good breeders out of breeding and which violate the most basic of the Constitution’s tenets: the right to life, liberty, and property.

Rep. Casorio recently stated in a memo to all Pennsylvania House members that “we need to ensure that our laws allow us to adequately address [the problem of “puppy mills”].” Rep. Casorio is mistaken. Elected officials must first and foremost ensure that all that they do, every bill that they propose and pass, upholds the Constitution. After all, it is their sworn duty to do so. This bill does anything but uphold the Constitution. Indeed, it makes a mockery of some of the most fundamental freedoms — privacy, due process, property rights, the right to a trial, the right to face one’s accusers — that Americans’ hold so dear.

Read the bill proposal here.

The Lost Ideals of ‘Miss O’

rdows — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:56:09 +0000

Does anyone remember back in the eighties when the Oprah Winfrey Show addressed serious topics like AIDS and racism; when Oprah was often the only person who would touch such topics? Twenty or more years later and Oprah has devolved from the highest of journalistic integrity to become a demagogue whipping people up into an emotional frenzy about serious topics that merit a logical and well-reasoned approach, not an approach that leaves mascara running down the faces of her audience and Kleenex in short supply.

Today’s show was one of the rarer, which, instead of highlighting Oprah’s favorite t-shirt, her favorite political candidate, a book she thinks everyone should read, or giving away free stuff, had her audience’s attention directed towards puppy mills. Oprah began by saying the show should spark the interest of anyone who cares about the humane treatment of animals. Ironically, that did not include some of her guests which included Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), nor even Oprah herself who reproved herself for buying from breeders when there are supposedly so many unwanted animals in shelters who are being euthanized every day.

Oprah immediately had her audience emotional after paying tribute to her dearly-departed Cocker Spaniel Sophie via a video tribute. All I could think about while watching clips of Oprah with her beloved dog was how much I love my dogs and how because Oprah, who has long been suspected of pushing “pit bull” bans in Chicago, has such a distaste for “pit bulls” she has put the ownership of my beloved bully breeds in jeopardy. Hey Oprah, if I put a billboard next to Harpo Studios like Main Line Rescue did asking you to look into puppy mills but instead I ask you to give a fair shake to “pit bulls” would you do it?? Is that what it would take for you to stop pushing for legislation behind the scenes that puts the lives of mine and other people’s dogs in peril? Do you not think that we love our dogs with as much passion as you do yours? How would you feel if someone said your breed of choice was an inherent killing machine and highlighted the rarest of rare phenomenons — a dog mauling — and made it look like a common occurrence particular to that breed? (and by the way, “pit bull” isn’t even a breed but a slang term used by dog fighters, gang bangers, and the media which can refer to any medium- or large-sized breed of dog). You can sit there in tears watching footage of Fort Worth Animal Control euthanizing unadopted dogs but have you any care for the hundreds if not thousands of dogs mislabeled “pit bull” that get killed in Chicago and other cities across the nation thanks to the misunderstanding of people like you? You must’ve been overjoyed when Chicago Animal Care and Control stopped allowing “pit bulls” to be adopted out of their shelter. Perhaps your film crew could go to Chicago ACC and film footage of all the “pit bulls” who walk through the front door and are carried out the back in Hefty bags.

Oh but look at me digressing before I’ve even really exposed Oprah’s latest and greatest hypocrisy via her show’s emotion-driven shoddy, lacking-in-proper-research propaganda piece. There weren’t as many criticisms to lob at the ‘O’ as I thought there might be, but still, the hypocrisy of Oprah’s show today was astounding. While she showed footage of puppy mills in Pennsylvania, again sending her audience through a labyrinth of emotional highs and lows, she and her staff failed to research the animal rights group Humane Society of the United States (which was repeatedly referred to throughout the show as “the humane society” as if to liken them to local humane societies which actually run shelters, unlike the HSUS). Perhaps it would interest Miss O to know that the HSUS’ Wayne Pacelle, whom Oprah had on her show today, has said things like,

“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.” Wayne Pacelle, Humane Society of the United States, Animal People, May, 1993.

“We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States … We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state.” Wayne Pacelle, Humane Society of the United States, Full Cry Magazine, October 1, 1990.

And perhaps it would further interest Miss O to know that spokespersons from PETA, with whom Oprah was supposedly in talks with about posing nude for their anti-fur campaign, have said things like this:

“In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.” Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Newsday, 2/21/88.

“For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance.” Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), The Harper’s Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.

“Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.” Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), “Just Like Us?”, Harper’s, August 1988, p. 50.

“Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles–from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it.” John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic, Washington People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, (PETA), 1982, p. 15.

Is the agenda not clear with statements like those above? They want an end to domestic pet ownership and even animal agriculture. Do you believe in no-kill shelters Oprah because the HSUS doesn’t? Do you eat meat Oprah? Because if the HSUS and other animal rights groups have their way, you may become a vegan whether you like it or not.

Also, you might want to ask Mr. Pacelle, since it doesn’t look like your staff did, why the HSUS held on to undercover footage of what appeared to be downer cows in a beef processing plant in California for so long when that beef was allowed to enter the food supply resulting in the largest beef recall in American history. Ask him if the HSUS might have hung on to that footage just long enough for that tainted beef to enter into the food supply so that it would become as big a national topic of conversation as it has become, possibly making lobbying efforts by the HSUS easier, which could eventually lead to the end of animal agriculture as we know it. Ask him if he thought it humane to serve possible tainted beef from downer cows to school children in their school lunches.

That’s why when emotionalism is applied to topics like the suffering of animals, people whip out their checkbooks or contact their legislators (as Oprah instructed her Oprahphiles to do at the end of today’s show) and have no idea that their money isn’t going to help animals, but in the case of the HSUS, is simply going into their coffers which allows them to lobby for legislation that adversely affects pet owners’/breeders’ rights, that would end hunting, that could quite possibly make it impossible for anyone but corporations like Monsanto to farm/ranch.

Perhaps puppy mills persist because they are lucrative not only for those who profit from puppy peddling, but for those who highlight puppy peddling in order to fund-raise. And while Miss O has asked her audience to contact their legislators requesting that they change laws regarding puppy mills, what will probably happen, as so often has occurred in the past, is a crack down on responsible breeders. After all, those puppy mills don’t just turn out puppies for profit, they turn out great footage which has seen animal rights groups’ donations increase by millions of dollars.

Indeed, the HSUS does not appear to be interested in saving animals at all. In fact, the opposite appears to be true. Nathan Winograd, no-kill advocate and author of Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America, referred to the HSUS, among other groups, as “kill-oriented traditionalists” (184) noting that,

“…it was the shelter leaders themselves who doomed the [no-kill] effort from the start. In an astonishing keynote address, Roger Caras of the Humane Society of the United States who would later go on to lead the ASPCA, likened free roaming dogs and cats to ‘inhabitants of an interstellar craft…brought here with the purpose of disrupting our ecosystem.’ He described them as a threat of the highest magnitude, damaging property and decimating wildlife, and the notion of creating successful programs to save them as so impossible that it was ‘not worthy of a passing daydream’.” (22-23)

In other words, domesticated pets are non-indigenous species and are a blight on the ecosystem. This ideology is called “nativism” and it is why many animal rights (AR) groups have no interest in saving domesticated pets. In their view, domesticated pets are covered with the stink of humans since, according to the AR view, domesticated pets are products of human selective breeding and manipulation. Perhaps this is why the HSUS is also opposed to TNR (Trap-Neuter-Release) programs for feral cats and has called for the culling of feral cats as well as the arrest and prosecution of those who care for feral cats.

A mentality like the HSUS’ concerning feral cats (which are often the result of abandonment on the part of a few irresponsible pet owners) is why Winograd called pet overpopulation a myth. Indeed, these animal rights organizations need to keep pounding away at the idea that it is an irresponsible public, and only an irresponsible public, that is to blame for the supposed pet overpopulation problem in order to protect the entrenched bureaucracy in shelters that keeps the killing going. And while Winograd did not address it, many shelters in the U.S. have such low populations of pets that they must import them from across the country and around the world from places like China, Caribbean countries, and Mexico. Shelters have also been known to transport animals from shelter to shelter to pad their intake numbers in order to “prove” there is a pet overpopulation problem, serving to facilitate the passage of legislation like mandatory spay/neuter laws, which, when passed in enough cities and counties across the nation will see domestic pets becoming scarce, which not so surprisingly results in the accomplishment of the AR agenda to end domestic pet ownership. And yet Oprah maintains, without really knowing, that the reason so many animals are being put down in shelters is because people aren’t spaying or neutering their pets or because people are buying from breeders and pet shops.

It’s unfortunate too that Oprah would say out of one side of her mouth that responsible breeders always take dogs back no matter how long it’s been since the dogs were sold, which is true, and say out of the other side of her mouth that she will never buy from a breeder again. If it is true that anywhere from 33% to 50% of dogs in shelters are pure-bred, well, where do you think a lot of those dogs come from? And if a crack down on breeders is the result of Oprah’s show today, which it almost certainly will be, the targets will most likely be the quality breeders, not the puppy millers, because while as Wayne Pacelle of the HSUS stated puppy mills are a “cash crop,” they are a cash crop for both the puppy millers and the animal rights groups that likewise exploit puppy mill dogs in order to fund-raise.

So when Pacelle describes dogs/puppies at puppy mills as a “commodity” there is more than a hint of hypocrisy there. But it just wouldn’t be the HSUS if there wasn’t hypocrisy in some form in addition to some incorporation of race, religion, or creed into the mix to muddle the issue, and today’s show did not disappoint in that regard. It just so happened that the undercover footage of puppy mills shown on Oprah’s show today highlighted the Amish in Pennsylvania, many of whom are accused of being puppy millers. And, of course, the Amish make excellent fodder because as everyone knows the Amish hold archaic views, particularly as regards animals, believing they can use work horses, for gulp, work, or that cats on the farm should hunt mice, or that dogs are good for hunting, or that chickens should lay eggs. You know, preposterous ideas like those.

Indeed, the Amish, as described on Oprah’s show, hold the jaw-dropping belief that “man is to dominate animals.” This sneering insinuation of a lack of humane concern for animals is anti-Christian (and anti-Semitic, and “anti” any other religious denomination that holds the Bible, or the book of Genesis to be the gospel truth), because it refers back to the Bible and Christians’ supposed incorrect and antiquated view that man has dominion over the animals:

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth” (Gen. 1:26).

Dominion need not translate into animal cruelty or inhumane treatment of animals, and if and when it does, Christians (and many other religions) believe that there is judgment for such actions. I have had the rare privilege of being allowed a glimpse into the lifestyle of the Mennonites, of which the Amish are a sect, and I can tell you unequivocally that the Mennonites must necessarily treat their animals well because their livelihood depends on it. It is unfortunate that the things people don’t understand give way so readily to prejudice, particularly on a show that prides itself on being so open-minded.

Undoubtedly Oprah thought today’s show approached the topic of puppy mills with an open-mind given that she tried to explain the difference between a responsible breeder and a puppy mill. However, Oprah may have been duped, just like so many Americans are duped by animal rights organizations that make a buck off of the backs of suffering animals using pictures and footage of animals that are exploited and mistreated; animals who continue to suffer precisely because their suffering is so very profitable.

Given Oprah’s prominence, it behooved her to thoroughly investigate the HSUS before allowing Wayne Pacelle on her show. Additionally, given Oprah’s credentials as a journalist she should have allowed a rebuttal from those she alleges are puppy millers (and an interview with a responsible breeder would’ve been nice), particularly the Amish who so often find themselves objects of derision and excessive governmental intrusion.

But excessive governmental intrusion is precisely what will be the result of today’s Oprah show. Instead of the focus being placed on those facilities that truly do abuse animals, it will be the reputable, quality breeders who will be scrutinized. This is ironic given that the solution to puppy mills is a simple one. In fact, no more legislation is even required. The public must simply be made aware of the problem and buy their pets from a quality, reputable breeder or from a shelter. Unfortunately, all Oprah accomplished with her show today was to make it that much more easy for animal rights groups’ to fund-raise and/or lobby for legislation which will go on to negate pet owners’/breeders’ property rights, which will make the AR agenda to end domestic pet ownership and animal agriculture a reality faster than Oprah can give away a Pontiac.

-Elizabeth Pensgard
Executive Secretary and Illinois Director, Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Director, Responsible Dog Owners Group of Illinois

Letter to Toledo, Ohio Mayor and City Council Regarding Their Consideration of Mandatory Spay/Neuter Ordinance for Impounded “Pit Bulls”

rdows — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:38:59 +0000

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:

Mayor Carty Finkbeiner
Councilman Phillip Copeland
Councilman Joe McNamara
Councilman George Sarantou
Councilwoman Betty Shultz
Councilman Mark Sobczak
Councilman Frank J. Szollosi
Councilwoman Wilma Brown
Councilman D. Michael Collins
Councilman Mike Craig
Councilman Michael D. Ashford
Councilman Tom Waniewski
Councilwoman Lindsay M. Webb

Dear Mayor Finkbeiner and esteemed members of the Toledo City Council:

It was disappointing to hear that the city of Toledo is considering a breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter ordinance for impounded “pit bulls” particularly because “pit bull” is not a breed recognized by any breed registry like the AKC, UKC, or ADBA. Indeed, the slang term “pit bull” can refer and has referred to as many as 30 different breeds. One could argue that any medium- or large-sized breed could technically be called a “pit bull.” As such, what actual breeds will Toledo require to be altered?

If by “pit bull” it is meant the following breeds — American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier — then you should know that these breeds rated 84.3%, 83.4%, and 88.8% respectively on their temperament tests according to the American Temperament Test Society (atts.org). Compare these ratings to the Golden Retriever, 84.2%, which is thought to be a more mild-mannered breed.

Breed-specific legislation (BSL) is fraught with many additional complications, which Toledo well knows, and following are just a few of them:

First, making proper breed determinations is a considerable and overarching problem with breed-specific legislation. Most Animal Control officers cannot distinguish American Pit Bull Terriers (APBTs) from American Bulldogs or Boxers just as a few examples, so how will Toledo know if its ordinance is being properly enforced? Animal Controls have even labeled Labradors as “pit bulls” which is all the more reason not to leave breed determinations up to Animal Control officers. They simply lack the skill to make proper breed determinations. This is no slight on Animal Control, however. It is difficult even for experts to properly determine breed at times, particularly with mixed breeds.

Second, there is no scientific proof that any one breed is more dangerous than another only that some breeds are more popular at the time or that irresponsible owners may be disproportionately attracted to some breeds. Since it has not been proven that any one breed is inherently dangerous or vicious, there is no rational basis for restricting any one breed in any way.

Third, since it has not been established that “pit bull” is a breed or that the many breeds encompassed by the slang term “pit bull” are any more vicious than any other breeds of dog, it is a violation of “pit bull” owners’ ownership and use rights to spay/neuter their dogs should they be found free-roaming.

Fourth, if Toledo has a dog fighting problem, why not crack down on dog fighting instead of the “breed” of dog it is assumed dog fighters use for fighting? A recent bust in Chicago wherein authorities found bulldogs (by which it was assumed they meant English Bulldog-type dogs) were being fought showed that “street” dog fighters will fight any breed of dog. Ban or restrict one or several breeds of dog in an attempt to crack down on dog fighting and dog fighters will either ignore the ban/restrictions (since many of them are gang bangers or recidivist criminals anyway) or simply switch breeds. And how can a breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter ordinance be proposed as a serious attempt to keep dog fighters from breeding their fighting dogs? Do dog fighters pick up their fighting dogs from the pound when they’ve been found free-roaming and would they bother to pay the additional fee for spaying/neutering? These dogs are often found free-roaming precisely because they have been abandoned by dog fighters after losing a fight. How would a breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter ordinance solve this problem? Wouldn’t it be more effective to stop the dog fighting problem in Toledo at its source by cracking down on the dog fighters instead of the dogs they abuse?

There are effective ways to go about ending dog fighting in one’s community. It would not be terribly difficult to send out extra patrols where dog fighting is suspected. Dog fighting is often noisy and frequently draws a large number of people who are involved in prostitution, who deal drugs, or who gang bang. While dog fighting (and its accompanying criminal behavior) is an underground activity it cannot be too difficult to find and infiltrate if even undercover cameras from Inside Edition can get into a fight and record footage.

Please consider free-roaming “pit bulls” not as a problem in and of itself but indicative of a more serious problem in Toledo involving not just dog fighting but possibly gang and drug problems as well.

For your further consideration, I have herein included Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States’ position statement on mandatory spay/neuter. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you very much for your time.

Respectfully,

Elizabeth Pensgard
Executive Secretary and Illinois Director, Responsible Dog Owners of
the Western States
Director, Responsible Dog Owners Group of Illinois

http://www.povn.com/rdows
http://rdows.wordpress.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BSL56-UAOA
http://www.unitedAnimalownersalliance.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RDOWS

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

rdows — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:11:27 +0000

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:

First, making proper breed determinations is a considerable and overarching problem with breed-specific legislation since most Animal Control officers cannot distinguish American Pit Bull Terriers (APBTs) from American Bulldogs or Boxers, or Rottweilers from Coon hounds or Dobermans, just as a few examples. Animal Controls have even labeled Labradors as “pit bulls” which is all the more reason not to leave breed determinations up to Animal Control officers. They simply lack the skill to make proper breed determinations. This is no slight on Animal Control, however. It is difficult even for experts to properly determine breed at times, particularly with mixed breeds.

Second, singling out specific breeds under a ban or for some other breed-specific restriction has been ruled in some courts to be an equal protection violation under the 14th amendment. There is no scientific proof that any one breed is more dangerous than another only that some breeds are more popular at the time or that irresponsible owners may be disproportionately attracted to some breeds. Since it has not been proven that any one breed is inherently dangerous or vicious, there is no rational basis for banning any one breed. And ban one or several breeds and irresponsible owners either ignore the ban or switch to another breed. As such, restricting some owners of specific breeds while not others (all other dog breed owners) when there is no proof that any one breed is more dangerous than another violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Third, because it is at this time impossible to definitively prove breed heredity beyond a shadow of a doubt, BSL also infringes on citizens’ due process rights. Every citizen has a right under the due process clause of the 14th amendment to attempt to affect the outcome of a municipal or state-imposed deprivation of property (in this case, citizens’ dogs). When BSL is imposed and the owner is penalized yet it cannot be determined that the dog is indeed the banned breed in question, particularly in the case of mixed breed dogs, the dog owner’s due process rights are infringed upon.

Additionally, while HB 101, by Rep. Thurston’s account, was supposedly inspired by several of Thurston’s constituents’ complaints about “pit bulls,” it is of great concern that PETA has gone on record to support this bill. According to WBBH NBC 2 in Florida, PETA maintains that the bill “would prevent irresponsible dog owners from deliberately raising certain breeds to be vicious.” Following this line of thinking to its inevitable conclusion, no one would be allowed to have domesticated pets because all breeds are exploited or mistreated by a very few inhumane and unscrupulous individuals at one time or another. It should come as no surprise then that PETA spokespersons have in the past said things like,

“Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.” Ingrid Newkirk, national Director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), “Just Like Us?” Harper’s, August 1988, p. 50.

“In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.” Ingrid Newkirk, national Director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Newsday, 2/21/88.

“Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles–from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it.” John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic, Washington People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, (PETA), 1982, p. 15.

Animal rights activists and sympathizers often say that these quotes are outdated and therefore benign, but the agenda to end domestic pet ownership little by little is clearly still viable, as bills like Rep. Thurston’s PETA-backed HB 101 show.

Perhaps the one-breed-at-a-time approach to an end to domestic pet ownership is precisely why PETA has repeatedly called for “pit bull” bans. In the case of the “pit bull,” however, calls for a ban are actually a call for a ban of a handful of breeds since the slang term “pit bull” is not a breed recognized by any breed registry and actually can refer to as many as 30 breeds. It is precisely because the slang term “pit bull” can refer to so many breeds that bite stats for “pit bulls” are so high. And when Rep. Thurston cites his constituents’ complaints about not feeling safe around “pit bulls” are we to take their word for it that these complaints all refer to the same breed, the non-existent “breed” “pit bull”? Allowing for a mere “pit bull” ban alone in Florida municipalities would amount to a free-for-all to ban any medium- or large-sized breed that anyone anywhere in the state of Florida felt threatened by since technically any medium- or large-sized breed can be called a “pit bull” given how quick the media is to label any attack by a medium- or large-sized dog a “pit bull” attack. Do you own a medium- or large-sized dog? Do your constituents? Are you worried that ownership of yours or your constituents’ beloved pets is in jeopardy?

Ultimately, the greatest actual threat to the public as regards dogs is free-roaming dogs of any breed, but with proper Animal Control enforcement of existing laws, the free-roaming dog problem could be substantially reduced. To ban or restrict specific breeds, however, leaves the public with only a false sense of security since any breed can bite or attack. As such I must ask that you not vote HB 101 out of committee.

For your further consideration, enclosed herein is a copy of Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States’ position statement on breed-specific legislation which cites specific case law. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to e-mail me.

Thank you very much for your time.

Respectfully,

Elizabeth Pensgard
Executive Secretary and Illinois Director, Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Director, Responsible Dog Owners Group of Illinois

http://www.povn.com/rdows
http://rdows.wordpress.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BSL56-UAOA
http://www.unitedAnimalownersalliance.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RDOWS

Letter to Connecticut Reps Amann and Urban Regarding Formation of Task Force to Study Link Between Childhood Cruelty to Animals and Adult Violent Acts

rdows — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:26:23 +0000

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/rdowsCherie 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

March 8, 2008

Rep. James Amann, Speaker of the House
Rep. Diana Urban, Chair

Dear Mr. Speaker and Chairwoman Urban:

It was with great concern that I learned that you are in the process of forming a task force to study the link between cruelty to animals by children and violent acts by adults, particularly as there are only a handful of children under the age of 18 who are charged with animal cruelty offenses in Connecticut, and even fewer convictions. The American Sporting Dog Alliance (ASDA) fears that this task force “will have the unintended consequence of allowing extremist animal rights groups access to the state’s legal system, schools and children’s minds…” This is a legitimate concern since animal rights as a concept originated in Nazi Germany.

Though it is seemingly unknown by many, Hitler was a socialist and introduced much of his ideology under the guise of what was good for the collective. This meant singling out individuals and groups who were not thought to serve any utilitarian purpose: the handicapped, recidivists, homosexuals, and other “socially inappropriate” individuals. As we all well know, Hitler found about 11 million people who did not serve a utilitarian purpose. It is amazing how genocide can always be explained at the outset in terms of semantics. Today’s “socially inappropriate” individuals are tomorrow’s genocides.

A task force need not be convened to discover what causes children to commit acts of cruelty on animals. Animal cruelty committed by children is usually resultant of permissive parenting, a lack of parental attentiveness, and/or parental abuse. As competent adults, however, the commission of criminal acts is always a choice made by someone who is cognizant enough to know that what they are doing is wrong. Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer maintained that he began abusing animals in order to deal with his parents’ divorce, but in the end, he took full responsibility for his actions and said his brutal crimes were a choice; a choice which he paid for with his own life. Justice via the legal system (not “justice” as in the case of Dahmer who was beaten to death in prison) is the price to be paid for committing crimes, no matter how severe. You cannot, however, punish an individual for “pre-crimes” under the assumption that because they, for instance, abuse animals, they will go on to become hardened criminals. The choice to commit anything from armed robbery to serial killing is just that, a choice, and there is no way to determine who will make that choice and who will not. Worse, I worry about the kind of pre-determiners for such behavior, who would decide what the “risk factors” would be, and what actions should be taken based on such arbitrary “evidence.”

Please reconsider convening this task force as its consequences could be greater than even you know.

Respectfully,

Elizabeth Pensgard
Executive Secretary and Illinois Director, Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Director, Responsible Dog Owners Group of Illinois

http://www.povn.com/rdows
http://rdows.wordpress.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BSL56-UAOA
http://www.unitedAnimalownersalliance.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RDOWS

Letter to the Connecticut House Environment Committee Regarding HB 5827 “An Act Concerning Animal Shelters”

rdows — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:11:17 +0000

March 8, 2008

Dear esteemed members of the Environment Committee:

It was with great concern that I first learned of HB 5827. Particularly worrisome is the provision in this bill that would allow the Department of Agriculture to make warrantless inspections of any private home caring for ten or more rescued animals (of any species) over six months of age, at any time of day or night. Additionally, HB 5827 provides no clarity regarding standards of animal care to which rescuers would have to adhere, or what could constitute a violation, leaving rescuers wide open to arbitrary decision-making by the Department of Agriculture.

Rescuers who fail to purchase the required license allowing the Department of Agriculture unimpeded access to their homes, or who continue to rescue animals despite license suspension or revocation, would be subject to a fine of up to $1,000 and/or up to a year in prison. This is excessive and insures compliance only through coercion, which can hardly be reasonable or constitutional since the 4th amendment guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” which “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 person or things to be seized.”

Because of these concerns I must ask that you not vote HB 5827 out of committee. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully,

Elizabeth Pensgard
Executive Secretary and Illinois Director, Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Director, Responsible Dog Owners Group of Illinois

http://www.povn.com/rdows
http://rdows.wordpress.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BSL56-UAOA
http://www.unitedAnimalownersalliance.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RDOWS

Letter to Kentucky Senate Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources Regarding SB206

rdows — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:00:56 +0000

March 8, 2008

Sen. Tom Jensen, Chair
Sen. Vernie McGaha, Vice Chair
Sen. David E. Boswell
Sen. Ernie Harris
Sen. Dan Kelly
Sen. Bob Leeper
Sen. Joey Pendleton
Sen. Dorsey Ridley
Sen. Richie Sanders
Sen. Ernesto Scorsone
Sen. Brandon Smith
Sen. Damon Thayer

Dear Chairman Jensen, Vice Chairman McGaha, and esteemed members of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee:

It was with great concern that I learned of Sen. Buford’s bill SB206, which is now in the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. This bill would allow the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to recommend three appointees to the Animal Control Advisory Board, two of which will sit on the board. As Rob Sexton, Vice President of government affairs for the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance observed of Sen. Buford’s bill, “Sportsmen should be outraged and must take action to prevent SB 206 from allowing HSUS to influence the Board with its animal rights views.” Mr. Sexton is right. It is unthinkable that Sen. Buford would propose such a bill when it is well known that the HSUS is an animal rights group which neither has human nor animals’ interests in mind. For instance, it was recently discovered that the HSUS for months withheld undercover footage showing downer cows at a California meat processing plant which were allowed into the food supply resulting in the largest beef recall in U.S. history. These downers cows, who may have been infected with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), also known as “mad cow disease,” could have been served to children via school lunches and yet the HSUS withheld this information from the public.

It is also well known that the HSUS recommended a breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter provision for “pit bulls” to the Louisville Metro Council in 2006; a provision, which, if it had passed, would have negated the property rights of owners of specific breeds of dogs (”pit bulls”). This alone is reason enough why the HSUS should not be allowed to recommend appointees to the Animal Control Advisory Board.

If you truly care about citizens of Kentucky and you truly want to protect their constitutional rights — rights listed in the Kentucky constitution, section 1, under the heading “Rights of life, liberty, worship, pursuit of safety and happiness, free speech, acquiring and protecting property, peaceable assembly, redress of grievances, bearing arms” which states that “All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: …Fifth: The right of acquiring and protecting property” — then please do not vote this bill out of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully,

Elizabeth Pensgard
Executive Secretary and Illinois Director, Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Director, Responsible Dog Owners Group of Illinois

http://www.povn.com/rdows
http://rdows.wordpress.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BSL56-UAOA
http://www.unitedAnimalownersalliance.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RDOWS

Letter to Northwestern Law School and Alumni Association

rdows — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:29:04 +0000

Cherie Graves, Chairwoman, WA, (509) 447-2821
Judy Schreiber, Assistant to the Chair, Director at Large, GA, rdowsdirectoratlarge@gmail.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
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

Northwestern Alumni Association
1800 Sheridan Road
Evanston, IL 60208

Greetings:

Over the past few years I have received several letters from the Northwestern Alumni Association requesting donations. This has on more than one occasion made me feel extremely guilty. You see I love Northwestern and had always wanted to give back as much as the institution had given me. Over the years, however, I have come to realize that not all gifts need be monetary ones, and that while I can’t write NU a substantial check or offer you any kind of endowment, my occupation may be as much a payback as any you’ll find in check form. You see I have the great privilege of belonging to or running organizations (Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States, Responsible Dog Owners Group of Illinois) that protect not only the ownership and use rights of pet owners, but the constitutional rights of Illinoisans and indeed all Americans. It is an honor to belong to or helm these organizations and to be able to give back to my community, my state, my nation, and via this letter, hopefully Northwestern.

Feeling as I do about my alma mater and given my occupation, you can understand then how I felt when I read in several articles that Northwestern Law School was in receipt of a grant from former game show host Bob Barker which allowed for the establishment of animal law courses at NU Law. Mr. Barker, you are undoubtedly aware, was instrumental in getting mandatory spay/neuter legislation through the California assembly last year that, with few exceptions, would have required dogs and cats 6 months of age and older in California to be spayed or neutered. The bill, AB1634, called the “California Healthy Pets Act,” or the “Pet Extinction Act” by those in the know, thankfully did not have enough support in the California Senate. Mr. Barker was also involved in getting Los Angeles’ recent mandatory spay/neuter ordinance passed.

The problem with these and other animal rights-sponsored laws, besides the fact that they are overly intrusive to the point of governmental nannying, is that they are unconstitutional and adversely affect property and other fundamental, inalienable rights. Worse, instructing law school students to write, lobby for, and defend laws like mandatory spay/neuter and guardianship law is tantamount to teaching Socialism (and perhaps even Communism) on an academic level since these laws forcefully and illegally take people’s property and use rights and offer them up to the collective. History has shown that when property rights are usurped, fascism cannot be too far behind.

The animal law curriculum has never been about animal rights or even animal welfare and the laws that result from the animal rights movement were only ever about the systematic erosion of constitutional rights; rights which good men and women fought and died to defend. How can Northwestern now embrace the very threat to our Constitution and sovereign that the Holocaust survivor I interviewed for my senior thesis so vehemently warned against??? This woman, whose entire family perished in Auschwitz, told me never to forget how the Holocaust happened. The Holocaust happened when fundamental rights like life, liberty, and property were eroded or outright negated and there weren’t enough people to stand up in protest. It should come as no surprise then that the animal rights movement, which also erodes or outright negates fundamental constitutional rights, got its start in Nazi Germany.

I love Northwestern but I love the Constitution more. I just never thought I’d see the day when my alma mater would force me to choose between the two.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Pensgard (Class of ‘97)
President, Responsible Dog Owners Group of Illinois
Illinois Director and Executive Secretary, Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States

cc: Northwestern University School of Law

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

rdows — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:22:12 +0000

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. 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

RDOWS OPPOSITION STATEMENT TO WASHINGTON 2511

rdows — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:06:29 +0000

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 5^th, 14^th 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.