asda@conline.net

SPRINGFIELD, IL – Legislation creating a task force designed specifically to compromise the rights of conscientious dog owners passed the Illinois State Senate handily last week and has been sent to the House.

In the strongest possible terms, the American Sporting Dog Alliance urges Illinois dog owners to oppose this devious plan to compromise our rights, ask the House to reject the task force resolution in its entirety, and to put pressure on some misled Illinois dog clubs to spurn seats on the task force and refuse to negotiate with animal rights fanatics whose sole purpose is to trample us. 

The entire premise of this task force is invalid, and there is not a single shred of evidence to justify its existence. It is a political dirty trick to force dog owners into a lose-lose compromise position.

It’s not needed. Don’t support it. Don’t join it. Get rid of it.

Under no circumstances will the American Sporting Dog Alliance support any legislation that compromise away our rights as dog owners.

It is quite accurate to call this legislation a dirty trick, and it is the latest of several since repressive and irrational legislation was introduced this year to force dog breeders to quit breeding and make tail docking a felony animal cruelty offense. The sponsors of these two pieces of legislation clearly reflect a radical animal rights agenda, and want to use all of the force and power of government to trample the rights of innocent people who raise dogs.

Senate Joint Resolution 56 was introduced when the sponsors of the bad legislation failed to get enough votes to get the bills out of committee. Rather than concede the defeat of faulty legislation, the sponsors began a series of dirty tricks: Delayed hearings, inappropriate committee assignments, passing empty “shell bills” onto the floor, dishonest backroom negotiations that failed to provide representation for 99% of Illinois dog owners, and then creating a task force that is a stacked deck against dog owners and also is based on totally fraudulent premises.

Behind it all is Rep. John A. Fritchey, a Chicagoland Democrat, who is the darling of the ultra-radical Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) in Illinois. The American Sporting Dog Alliance regards Fritchey as an inherently dishonest politician who continually supports authoritarian measures that show no respect for the Bill of Rights, and who has a long track record of cutting shady deals to advance his personal political agenda.

SJR 56 establishes a 15-member Task Force to recommend legislation to unfairly and illogically persecute people who raise dogs, and also to prohibit tail docking under most circumstances.

Dog owners cannot get a fair shake on the Task Force. It would consist of four members appointed by House and Senate leadership (two of those leaders have a track record of supporting radical animal rights legislation), a representative of the Department of Agriculture (which has a vested interest in increasing the size of its staff and budget with new laws), five members of national animal welfare organizations (most of these will be from animal rights groups or animal sheltering organizations – none of whom would be qualified to discuss the breeding of dogs, while also often holding anti-breeder viewpoints), and a representative of veterinarians (the only qualified and fair appointment of the group). There would be four more appointees that are supposed to represent dog breeders (one small breeder, one commercial breeder, one pet store representative and one for sporting dogs), but these four people would be hopelessly outnumbered on the Task Force.

It is a set-up to steal our rights.

Moreover, the entire list of premises behind SJR 56 is false and fraudulent:

* It says that dogs are not a commercial crop. However, all of the legislation was directed at small hobby breeders. Existing federal laws already cover commercial kennels and the pet trade, and existing state kennel and animal cruelty laws already fully protect all dogs owned by hobbyists and are among the toughest in the nation.

* It says that Illinois residents have the right to purchase quality purebred dogs. However, this implies that the dogs purchased now are of inferior quality, which simply is a lie. Illinois breeders produce some of the finest dogs in America.

* It says that “poorly or improperly run” breeding facilities endanger dogs. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that such kennels exist in Illinois. In fact, a review of all kennel law and animal cruelty law citations for the past three years shows that there were very few (about eight) bad situations. Moreover, in all eight cases, the dogs were rescued and the kennel owners were either successfully prosecuted under existing laws or the cases remain before the courts.

* It says that Illinois kennels are overcrowded, unsanitary and lack proper care, and fall below minimal humane standards. This is another bald-faced lie. There is no evidence that such conditions exist, except as a tiny minority, and no evidence that existing laws cannot completely deal with those few situations.

* It claims that those alleged conditions cause health hazards to humans and contaminate groundwater. This is another lie. No evidence exists to support these absurd and pandering accusations.

* It also claims that taxpayers are burdened by having to care for dogs produced by irresponsible breeders, which completely flies in the face of fact. Actual statistics show that only a tiny percentage of shelter dogs are truly purebreds, and most of these entered the shelter for the specific purpose of euthanasia because of severe illness or injury, or extreme old age. Nationwide, only 22% of the dogs owned by Americans come from breeders, pet industry research shows.

Every one of these alleged reasons for new and repressive legislation is a lie. It is a deliberate lie in order to pressure the Legislature to pass laws that are meant to drive out good breeders by creating unfair and unworkable requirements, along with frightening liabilities and penalties.

Here is a link to the actual legislation. Please read it yourself.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance is alarmed that some Illinois dog owners groups are seeking to be a part of this dangerous task force. At least four are represented by lobbyists, whose job is partly to negotiate and cut deals. Some of the groups say they want on the task force in order to stop bad legislation, but we can see no way that this can succeed because the committee is strongly stacked against dog owners.

We also offer this piece of advice: You can’t dance with the Devil without getting burned.

From the point of view of people who love dogs, Rep. Fritchey is the Devil.

If this resolution passes the House, it will become final. If this happens, the crooked and stacked task force will decide the fate of every dog in Illinois.

Please oppose SJR 56 vigorously. It will destroy your lifelong labor of love with your dogs.

Thus, we are asking all Illinois dog owners to immediately contact House leaders and ask them to assign this resolution to the House Agriculture and Conservation Committee. This committee is the only one that is qualified to understand the meaning of animal welfare and animal rights legislation.

Here is a listing of House leadership from both parties.

Also, please contact your own legislator and ask her or him to oppose SJR 56. Here is a list of each legislator, that also provides contact information for House leadership.

In addition, please contact members of the House Agriculture and Conservation Committee and ask them to request jurisdiction over SJR 56.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life. The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.

Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org . Our email is asda@csonline.net .

PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS

The American Sporting Dog Alliance

Please Join Us

Sioux City’s pit bull ban went into full swing on March 21st, the deadline for owners to register and microchip their animals. Since that date Cindy Rarrit with Animal Control says her department has impounded more than 10 pit bulls from owners who didn’t follow the rules. “They are immediately impounded, the owner has the option at that point in time to either sign the dogs over or appeal the process,” she says. The owner may also see a ticket for as much as $150.

Four of the dogs taken so far were from Tanya Zeman and Anthony Krzykowski’s Riverside home. Animal Control says it heard a complaint about the couple’s dogs and responded earlier this week. “We had no choice but to sign them over, is what they were telling me,” explains Zeman. Her fiance, Krzykowski, was at work when Animal Control arrived at her house. She says the officer said he had to take the dogs, and needed her signature acknowledging it. “On the top part, there was a signature slot for euthanasia. He told me not to sign that part,” she says. Zeman adds she didn’t sign that part, because she planned to appeal to the city, even move out of town, in order to keep the dogs. “I’m not that naive to sign something without knowing. The only thing that paper said was the breed the age the sex and the name.”

Animal Control, however, says Zeman’s signature released custody of the dogs, giving staff permission to put them down. “We’re running into a lot of people who are very upset and I sympathize with these people however you have to understand that we have a job to enforce. We don’t make the laws, we enforce the laws,” Rarrit says, explaining Zeman’s dogs were aggressive. “Any dogs with aggressive tendencies we cannot with good faith adopt those dogs out.”

Krzykowski says when he tried to figure out how this happened, he never got a straight answer. “They all had different stories, between the guy that picked them up, the lady at the desk, the guy that must have did it. They all had different stories,” he says, “he told me that the dogs were put down and I lost it.”

KMEG 14 asked Animal Control for a copy of the form owners must sign when Officers impound pit bulls, but staff denied our request.

Read this article in its entirety here.

Does one really have to adhere to a law that is blatantly unconstitutional? I guess that remains to be seen by any legal challenge against Sioux City. Still, I love the we-don’t-make-the-laws-we-enforce-the-laws mentality. You couldn’t pay me enough to defy the Constitution, but then perhaps these law enforcement officers don’t know the Constitution; it appears as if they didn’t even know their own law enough to enforce it properly. Unless…do you suppose they were instructed to mislead “pit bull” owners into surrendering their dogs to be killed? Seems like something is rotten in Sioux City.

Cherie Graves, Chairwoman, WA, (509) 447-2821
JSD, Assistant to the Chair,
Director at Large, GA Chevalier@chevalier-bullterriers.com
B. 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:

The Commanding Officer

Dear Sir:

It was of great concern to hear that Fort Riley has banned “pit bulls,” American Staffordshire Terriers, and their mixes from the base, particularly as “pit bull” is not a breed recognized by any breed registry like the AKC, UKC, or ADBA. Indeed, the slang term “pit bull,” which has repeatedly been found by many courts to be unconstitutionally vague, can refer and has referred to at least 30 different breeds. One could argue that any medium- or large-sized breed could technically be called a “pit bull” since this seems to be the standard the media uses. As such, statistics on “pit bulls” are greatly skewed making it appear as if the “pit bull” “breed” is inherently vicious or more deadly. However, if actual breed determinations were made for attacking dogs instead of simply labeling them “pit bulls,” no one breed would emerge as more statistically likely to bite/attack/kill.

Worse, breed bans have been found to negate due process rights (meaning they are unconstitutional) by several courts in the United States. We are told that these wars fought in Afghanistan and Iraq are undertaken in order to spread democracy to lands where the notion of freedom is a foreign idea, and yet this arbitrary ban is a stark violation of the constitutionally-protected rights to due process and ownership and use rights. Are my colleagues and those we represent to understand that Fort Riley would negate the very rights that our soldiers are fighting for in foreign lands as we speak? Is this just?

Indeed, it is ironic that soldiers are fighting a war on several fronts in order to defend those constitutional rights; rights which in this instance may not be afforded to them. Also ironic is that Sgt. Stubby, a war dog whose breed was in 1917 referred to as a “Pit Bull Terrier” or an “American Bull Terrier,” was the most decorated war dog of World War I and the only dog ever to be promoted to sergeant through combat. Sergeant Stubby was decorated by two presidents and is preserved in the Smithsonian Institute. Yet, this is the breed that Fort Riley has banned.

What you refer to as the “pit bull” comprises several breeds with a long history of valor as Sgt. Stubby should show. But “pit bulls” also make excellent search and rescue (S&R) dogs. Perhaps you will remember the date Feb. 1, 2003, the day when the shuttle Columbia went down. On Feb. 3rd, when NASA and FEMA undertook the enormous task of recovering the astronauts’ remains, among those S&R dogs chosen was a dog named Dakota, a “pit bull.” According to Dakota’s handler,

“We were there for 10 days and the pressure to perform flawlessly was incredible. We had a duty to bring our astronauts home; to provide
closure for their families…and to our nation./Dakota, my “pit bull”, was hand picked by both FEMA and NASA for this mission because of her proven search skills, professionalism in chaotic situations, her never quit attitude and also her humor and charm” (http://www.forpitssake.org/columbia.html).

And yet this is a breed that Fort Riley has banned.

Another Army base we recently contacted regarding their consideration of a ban of eight breeds informed us that the reason for considering such a decision was the supposed need for safety. They claimed that the breeds they were considering banning/restricting were a threat to the safety of others on the base. Yet they offered no proof of such a claim, and strangely while they claimed the eight breeds in question that they sought to ban/restrict were a danger, they also noted that they could quite possibly decide to “grandfather” in current owners. We found it odd that they would claim these breeds were an impending threat and yet still allow these breeds they considered dangerous on the base, a move that seemed contradictory and irrational. So for the same reason, we must question Fort Riley’s rationale for grandfathering in current “pit bull” owners while maintaining that this “breed” is an impending threat.

Of course, we are well aware that there is no such thing as a “dangerous” or “vicious” breed. Nor is there any credible scientific evidence to back up the claim that any one breed presents as a danger to anyone on your base. We would, however, be interested in knowing how it is that Fort Riley can say with authority that “The pit bull, American Staffordshire terrier or a cross of this breed has a genetic propensity which may lead to unprovoked aggression or attacks.” Please Sir, would you provide us with the study or source for such a conspicuously false statement? We fear you have been misled by pseudoscientists who pass off junk science as fact.

More credible scientists who are actually respected in their field and not openly dismissed by their peers have said verifiable things like the following by Dr. I. Lerh Brisbin, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist with the Savanna River Ecology Laboratory, University of South Carolina Professor, and an expert in training, handling, behavior and the anatomy of bulldog breeds whose testimony to a trial court in Ohio is recounted in the following excerpt from the court’s decision:

“…pit bulls do not have locking jaws. Based on actual dog dissections and measurement of their skulls, the evidence demonstrated that pit bull jaw muscles and bone structure are the same as other similarly sized dogs. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that a pit bull’s bite is any stronger than other dogs of its size and build…[C]ontrary to information relied upon and perpetuated by earlier case law…and law review articles…assertions that a pit bull can bite with a “force of 2,000 pounds per square inch” have absolutely no basis in fact or scientific proof” (http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/6/2006/2006-ohio-975.pdf).

Based on Dr. Brisbin’s and others’ testimonies the court concluded “that there is no evidence that pit bulls are inherently dangerous or vicious” and that “the city ordinance limitation on ownership [was] arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory.” The court concluded properly that there is no credible scientific proof that there is any one vicious breed, only careless, irresponsible owners who fail to train, socialize, and otherwise properly care for their dogs. These kinds of owners are not limited to any one breed, but thankfully they are limited in number.

Additionally, breed bans have long been proven ineffective. For instance, Brighton, Colorado decided against a breed-specific ordinance just last month because,

“several municipalities in the area instituted pit-bull bans with no reduction in vicious animal complaints and with a significant increase in the number of hours worked by animal control staff” (http://www.metrowestfyi.com/story_display.php?sid=10535).

In the end, Brighton decided simply to enforce the laws they already had on their books noting that “although the number of pit bulls has increased following the institution of bans in neighboring communities, vicious dog incidents involving the breed have not.”

Based on all the evidence provided in this letter, it is our hope that Fort Riley will reconsider the decision to ban “pit bulls,” American Staffordshire Terriers, and their mixes as no good can come from it.

For your further consideration, I have herein included Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States’ Position Statement on Breed-Specific Legislation.

Thank you very much for your time.

Respectfully,

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

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
JSD, Assistant to the Chair,
Director at Large, GA Chevalier@chevalier-bullterriers.com
B. 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

POSITION STATEMENT ON BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION

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 opposes breed specific legislation
(BSL) on legal, and moral grounds, and upon the Rules of Reason that all laws must meet. Our position is that every dog owner is responsible for protecting the public from his/her dog.

Our research shows that in the majority of severe or fatal dog attacks there had been numerous, previous reports made to Animal Control that were not acted upon. Our research further shows that as shocking, and
traumatic as severe or fatal dog attacks are, they are relatively uncommon occurrences in comparison to other causes of severe injury, or fatalities in the United States, given that the vast majority of Americans are dog owners. The likelihood of any pure-bred, registered dog being involved in a fatal attack upon a human being is infinitesimal.

MORALITY

-BSL is based upon the urban myth of the “pit bull”, which is not a recognized breed of dog. Under the guise of banning “pit bulls” any breed may be thus identified. There are at least seventy-five actual breeds, plus any mixed breed now either banned from ownership, or restricted in ownership in the United States. That is about 1/5 of all recognized breeds.

-BSL is inflammatory, and is based upon unproven beliefs, not facts.

-BSL is under inclusive in that it only recognizes a threat to society from certain breeds, or mixed breeds of dogs.

-BSL is over inclusive, as dogs are as varied within their breed, as are human beings within our ethnicity.

-BSL by stipulating, and naming specific breeds as being dangerous indemnifies all of the unnamed breeds as being safe by exclusion.

-BSL creates a false sense of public safety.

-BSL does not address the irresponsible dog owner.

-BSL punishes the law abiding dog owner.

-BSL orders the death of dogs based solely upon their physical appearance.

-BSL assumes that human beings are inferior to, and incapable of properly maintaining dogs of specific breeds, or appearance.

LEGALITY

-BSL has been ruled unconstitutional in Court venues across the United States on grounds ranging from vagueness, to an infringement of property rights, to equal treatment, equal protection.

-Dogs have been the domesticated traditional property of human beings for well over thirty-five thousand years. This tradition gives legal standing to dog owners based upon the IX Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States of America.

-BSL violates the rights granted under the IV Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

-BSL violates the rights granted under the V Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

-BSL violates the rights granted under VI Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

-BSL violates the rights granted under VIII Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

-BSL violates the rights granted under XIV Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

-BSL creates a whole new criminal class, the dog owner.

-BSL sets a legal precedent that unchallenged empowers the enacting body to add any, or all other dog breeds, or even domestic species of animals to the prohibition on ownership.

Zuniga v. San Mateo Dept. of Health Services (1990) 218 Cal. App. 3d 1521, 267 Cal. Rptr. 2d 755. The court found there was not sufficient evidence to prove Pit Bulls have an inherent nature of being dangerous.

Carter v. Metro North Assocs. (1998) 255 A.D. 2d 251; 680 N.Y.S.2d 299 A New York appellate court determined that the alleged propensities of Pit Bull Terriers to behave more viciously than other breeds had not
been authoritatively established.

American Canine Foundation litigated the city of Huntsville Alabama in 2002 in a case that was heard by the Alabama Supreme Court. Huntsville v. Four Pit Bull Puppies (Ala. 08-30-02), No.1010459, unreported. The court affirmed a trial court decision that American Pit Bull Terriers were not dangerous.

On July 16th 2003 ACF brought forth a constitutional challenge against Ohio’s state law O.R.C. 955:11 that declares the Pit Bull vicious. The case was heard in the Toledo Municipal Court. The court found the American Pit Bull Terrier was not dangerous, and granted Pit Bull owners due process. Tellings v State of Ohio CRB02-15267
In August 2004 a case American Canine Foundation assisted in was heard by the Ohio Supreme Court. State v. Cowan 103 Ohio St. 3d 144 , 2004 – Ohio – 4777 The court found ORC 955:22 violative of the right to be heard as applied to ORC955:11 which declared a specific breed of dog vicious in Ohio. The decision struck down Ohio’s breed specific legislation at the state level. Ohio was the only state to have this type of legislation at the state level.

TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1983
§ 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights . Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1982
§ 1982. Property rights of citizens All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every
State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.

RULE OF REASON

a.. Laws must be reasonable.
b.. It is not reasonable to write animal behaviors, legal punishments, and criminal labels for animals into statutes that are enacted to structure human society.
c.. Animals must not be criminalized under laws that are intended to protect human rights, and to control human behaviors.
d.. It is unreasonable to write animal behavior into laws that no animal has the capacity to understand, answer to, or to function under.
e.. 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.
f.. It is unreasonable to remove the human owner from blame, or culpability for the actions of his/her animal(s).
g.. It is unreasonable to assume that every dog of a given breed, or physical appearance will behave in exactly the same manner.
h.. It is unreasonable to assume that every owner of every dog of a given breed, or physical appearance is irresponsible, negligent, or careless with his/her animal(s).
i.. Human error, carelessness, or negligence is the underlying factor behind every dog attack.
j.. Given the actual figures of severe dog attacks, or fatalities related to dog attacks per capita in the United States of America, dogs are not the threat to human life that the sensationalistic media, and urban myth would portray.

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
JSD, Assistant to the Chair,
Director at Large, GA Chevalier@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:

Mr. Dean Quaranta
Chief, Housing Division

Mr. Quaranta-

My interest, and that of my colleagues, is in the upholding of the Constitution. Ironically, soldiers who have just deployed and their fellow soldiers are fighting a war on several fronts in order to defend those constitutional rights; rights which in this instance may not be afforded to them.

Also ironic is that Sgt. Stubby, whose breed was then referred to as a “Pit Bull Terrier” or an “American Bull Terrier,” was the most decorated war dog of World War I and the only dog ever to be promoted to sergeant through combat. (I have attached a picture of him. He’s the one with only three legs.) Yet, this is one of the breeds Fort Carson is considering banning.

What you refer to as the “pit bull” is a breed with a long history of valor as Sgt. Stubby should show. But “pit bulls” also make excellent search and rescue (S&R) dogs. Perhaps you will remember the date Feb. 1, 2003, the day when the shuttle Columbia went down. On Feb. 3rd, when NASA and FEMA undertook the enormous task of recovering the astronauts’ remains, among those S&R dogs chosen was a dog named Dakota, a “pit bull.” (See photo attached.) According to Dakota’s handler,

“We were there for 10 days and the pressure to perform flawlessly was
incredible. We had a duty to bring our astronauts home; to provide
closure for their families…and to our nation./Dakota, my “pit bull”,
was hand picked by both FEMA and NASA for this mission because of her
proven search skills, professionalism in chaotic situations, her never
quit attitude and also her humor and charm.”

And yet this is a breed Fort Carson is considering banning. Certainly there are other similar heroic accounts from the other seven breeds Fort Carson seeks to ban/restrict, but you get the idea.

If one were to view this situation from all angles, one might conclude that authorities at Fort Carson — knowing how heinous it would be to not only ban/restrict breeds of dog, but eight of them — waited until a good portion of their residents deployed before considering such a drastic policy as banning eight breeds. But, we’d rather ask questions than assume: What was the impetus for the idea to ban eight breeds? Was there an attack or attacks by dogs of one or more of the eight breeds in question?

And your initial paragraph seems to indicate that while you will consider those soldiers deployed and their families before making such a drastic decision as to ban eight breeds on base, the reason for making that decision — your claims of a need for safety and the supposed threat that these specific eight breeds pose — is specious. If, as you say, the base is considering a ban out of an interest in safety, and yet you “grandfather” in current owners, by your own estimation then, you are still allowing these eight breeds you consider dangerous. Is this rational?

Of course, we are well aware there is no such thing as a “dangerous” or “vicious” breed. Nor is there any credible scientific evidence to back up your claim that these breeds endanger those on your base. We would, however, be interested in knowing what “numerous experts in various disciplines studying the issue” you have consulted. And likewise Sir, we do not take safety lightly. Indeed, we have dedicated our lives to the pursuit of safe dog ownership, but there is no proof that there is any one vicious breed, only careless, irresponsible owners who fail to train, socialize, and otherwise properly care for their dogs. These kinds of owners are not limited to one or even a dozen breeds, but thankfully they are limited in number.

Incidentally, breed bans have long been proven ineffective. For instance, Brighton, Colorado decided against a breed-specific ordinance just last month because,

“several municipalities in the area instituted pit-bull bans with no
reduction in vicious animal complaints and with a significant increase
in the number of hours worked by animal control staff.”

In the end, Brighton decided simply to enforce the laws they already had on their books noting that “although the number of pit bulls has increased following the institution of bans in neighboring communities, vicious dog incidents involving the breed have not.”

In short, the crux of this “dilemma” is that there is no dilemma at all. We know this because breeds fingered for supposed heightened viciousness are mere scapegoats for a lazy government — state or municipal — who simply will not, for whatever reason, police free-roaming dogs and their irresponsible owners. We’re sorry to say this characterization also seems to fit some military bases. We reiterate that this is not how we or those we represent want to see our soldiers treated. Whether you ban or restrict specific breeds, it’s still unconstitutional and it stands to negate the very rights — property and due process — that our soldiers are ostensibly fighting to preserve. To state that those on base are in danger from these eight breeds is a dubious statement to say the least, especially since you have offered no proof to back up your claim from the “numerous experts in various disciplines studying the issue.” Make no mistake, however, there are pseudo-scientists who make a perfectly good living lying to the public about the supposed inherent danger of select breeds. But you should know that these individuals often have ties to radical animal rights groups whose stated agenda is to end domestic pet ownership entirely. It would be a terrible pity to think that officials at Fort Carson had so carelessly given in to an animal rightist agenda, particularly as breed bans are an affront to the rights our Constitution is supposed to afford every American.

Thank you in turn for your interest. If you or others at Fort Carson have further interest in learning the agenda of animal rightists and how officials at Fort Carson may have fallen prey to their agenda, please reply to me and we would be more than happy to educate you. Our Board of Directors and affiliates are a wealth of knowledge and indeed could also be characterized as containing “numerous experts in various disciplines studying the issue.”

Again, 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

Editor’s note: A similar letter was sent to the sponsor and co-sponsors of S. 3519’s companion bill H.R. 6949 in the U.S. House of Representatives and each letter was CCed to the Agriculture Committees in both the House and Senate who will be considering the bills.

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
JSD, Assistant to the Chair,
Director at Large, GA Chevalier@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

Dear Sen. Durbin:

It is quite alarming that at the outset of the U.S. Senate’s 2008-2009 session that such a severe bill as S. 3519 — the “Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act,” or “P.U.P.S. Act” — has already been proposed. Even more alarming is your acknowledgment — on the Senate floor, no less — that Oprah had anything to do with this bill. Are we, your constituents, to understand that your bill was inspired by the shoddy research of a daytime talk show host? If that is how things are done in the U.S. Senate then can we also expect bills inspired by Tyra Banks, Jerry Springer, and The View?

The most egregious offense that Oprah committed during her infamous “puppy mill” show was to refer to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) as “the Humane Society” as if the HSUS is related to local humane societies who actually rescue and adopt out animals, unlike the HSUS. Oprah also failed to research the HSUS’ background wherein she would have found spokespersons for the HSUS saying things like these:

“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, HSUS, 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, HSUS, Full Cry Magazine, October 1, 1990.

“I don’t have a hands-on fondness for animals…To this day I don’t feel bonded to any non-human animal. I like them and I pet them and I’m kind to them, but there’s no special bond between me and other animals.” Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p. 251.

“Humane care (of animals) is simply sentimental, sympathetic patronage.” Dr. Michael W. Fox, HSUS, in 1988 Newsweek interview.

“Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting.” Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, Bozeman Daily Chronicle, October 8,1991.

“We would be foolish and silly not to unite with people in the public health sector, the environmental community, [and] unions, to try to challenge corporate agriculture.” Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, at the Animal Rights 2002 Convention, July 1, 2002.

“We have found that civil disobedience and direct action has been powerful in generating massive attention in our communities…and has been very effective in traumatizing our targets.” JP Goodwin, Committee to Abolish the Fur Trade, National Animal Rights Convention ‘97, June 27, 1997, now employed by the HSUS.

And yet the HSUS, this animal rights organization with at least one member with a criminal and violent past, is backing S. 3519 which you are sponsoring. How will hunters and fishermen in Illinois and across the nation feel when they have discovered that you have allied with an animal rights group who has publicly stated that they will stop all hunting in the United States? How will farmers in Illinois and across the nation feel when they discover you have allied with an animal rights group who has stated they will challenge corporate agriculture, and therefore all agriculture as we know it? And as for S. 3519, how will Illinoisans and indeed all breeders across the country feel, when they discover that you have allied with an animal rights group which not only has no problem with the extinction of domestic animals, but is working tirelessly to achieve that end?

It is hardly a secret that the HSUS has launched an all-out attack on the right to own domesticated animals by stepping-stone type legislation like S. 3519. To the general, Oprah-watching public, however, S. 3519 appears to be a good bill. But the following provisions give us pause. S. 3519 would,

*Define a “retail pet store” as a person who “sells an animal directly to the public for use as a pet,” and “does not breed or raise more than 50 dogs for use as pets during any one-year period.”

Mr. Durbin you stated on the Senate floor that “[T]here are many responsible dog breeders across the country who care about and take great pains to properly look after the animals in their care. Those breeders are not the target of this legislation.” We must disagree Mr. Durbin. Those responsible breeders are precisely the target of S. 3519. Those who breed less than 50 dogs, and usually much less than 50 dogs, are often called “hobby breeders.” These breeders are typically very caring, meticulous, and breed very high-quality dogs. Yet, if S. 3519 passes, they will be subject to all kinds of various state restrictions — like required renovations to their homes and facilities or local zoning laws — which will most likely be cost-prohibitive and price them out of breeding. And how exactly will changing the definition of a hobby breeder to a “retail pet store” crack down on so-called “puppy mills”?

Also, S. 3519 does not allow for exemptions for those who rescue. So a well-meaning rescue that rescues/fosters less than 50 dogs a year would be a “retail pet store” with all the cost-prohibitive state restrictions that apply.

*Require that breeders obtain a license from the USDA if they raise more than 50 dogs in a 12-month period and sell directly to the public.

As it is, the USDA does not thoroughly enforce the law and get required inspections done now. The USDA will certainly be less able to do so should S. 3519 pass and those raising more than 50 dogs a year (potentially thousands upon thousands of kennels) be required to acquire USDA licensure. And will the taxpayers be required to foot the additional costs for inspection and law enforcement? Will rescues also be required to acquire USDA licensure should they “raise” over 50 dogs a year?

Also, though it is little known or understood, licensure — whether for individual pets or for pet facilities like kennels — is the usurpation of animal ownership and use rights. A license creates 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. Ostensibly, cities, counties, or states which require licensing of either pets or pet facilities could refuse to issue further licenses for any reason, revoke the privilege of dog ownership or kennel operation altogether, and confiscate people’s property (their animals, equipment, etc.).

And as an aside, it is cause for great concern that ASPCA investigators are now called the “ASPCA Police” in the media or on television, and that the HSUS now acts with police powers. Who gave them this power and how is it lawful for them to have it? We have seen several of these raids, including right here in Illinois, wherein local law enforcement, assisted by animal rights groups like the HSUS, serve warrants based on “tips” of animal cruelty, and whether the owner(s) is/are ever charged with a crime or not (and usually not), their animals and other property are confiscated never to be returned. Worse, those plundering the treasure trove of animals, often go on to turn around and sell the animals at a profit adding funding to their war chests which only emboldens them to lobby for rights-negating legislation and continue on in their plundering. Are we therefore to trust that such abuses of power will not be a result of a bill like S. 3519?

Sir, this bill targets responsible breeders almost exclusively, and just the fact that you would use the animal rightist PR-created term “puppy mill” indicates that you may not have a full grasp of the situation. You said that “Some animals rescued from puppy mills show signs of malnutrition and dehydration, having been denied a sufficient supply of food.” However, animal cruelty is not a breeder issue. Animal cruelty and mistreatment are criminal offenses and are issues for a prosecutor in the jurisdiction in question.

Likewise, you said that in “puppy mills” “the breeding females are made to have litter after litter of puppies.” Yet, many veterinarians recommend that females be bred in succession to avoid a life-threatening condition called Pyometra. As such, descriptions of female dogs as having been “overbred” or as having “too many litters” “back-to-back” shows a lack of understanding about the nature of breeding, is animal rights driven, and is meant only to push unreasonable legislation which will ultimately lead to the end of domestic animal ownership as we know it.

Harry Truman once said “If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.” The only thing is, if the HSUS gets their way, there won’t be any more dogs left to befriend you. I hope that the HSUS has afforded you enough “friendship” such that when they accomplish their end-goal of eliminating all domesticated animals — whether pets or agricultural animals — that you don’t miss your dog…or eating meat, or your constitutional rights.

Respectfully,

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

http://www.povn.com/rdows

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RDOWS
]]> http://rdows.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/letter-to-senator-dick-durbin-et-al-regarding-s-3519-%e2%80%9cpups-act%e2%80%9d/feed/ 0 rdows http://rdows.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/rdows-letter-to-the-editor-of-the-daily-mail-in-provo-utah/ http://rdows.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/rdows-letter-to-the-editor-of-the-daily-mail-in-provo-utah/#comments Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:51:14 +0000 rdows http://rdows.wordpress.com/?p=69 ]]> 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
JSD, Assistant to the Chair,
Director at Large, GA Chevalier@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 the Editor:

I am writing in response to the opinion editorial “Note to cities: Sic ‘em” which appeared in the Tuesday, August 19, 2008 edition of the Daily Herald.

Remember how during the 1992 presidential campaign James Carville quipped, “It’s the economy stupid”? Well here I just can’t resist saying to you: It’s the Constitution stupid. I will never understand those who prostrate themselves before their government — federal, state, county, or municipal — and say “Take my constitutional rights, please” which is in effect what this op ed was saying by asserting that breed bans aren’t “about constitutional rights or discrimination” but “about public safety.” After all, the government must know best right? They wouldn’t ask you to give up fundamental inalienable rights (that’s inalienable, as in “not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated”) without a good reason like safety, right? And of course everyone knows that breed bans indemnify the public against attacks from all other dogs, right? Oh wait, no they don’t. Breed bans can’t even indemnify against attacks from the breeds banned!

But what if, just if, you needed to defend your property rights one day? And what if you needed your due process rights to defend those property rights? What if you needed equal protection under the laws? What if you needed your right to privacy? These are all rights negated by bad animal laws, like breed-specific legislation, and they cut a swath of rights negation far broader than most Americans can fathom.

Perhaps that’s why some are so quick to give their rights away. They don’t know what rights they have so they’re not afraid to lose them. Worse, they don’t know who they’re giving their rights to. All throughout history, the negation of fundamental civil and other inalienable rights like the rights to property, privacy, equality, etc. have ended badly. Think of the U.S.S.R., China, and Germany just to name a few. The only way rights were ever restored, if they were restored, was through bloody revolution.

As Thomas Jefferson said, “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” That means we must ever be on the lookout for those who would try to take away the freedoms we should be holding so dear.

Perhaps you will wonder what that has to do with “pit bulls.” But that’s just it. It’s not about “pit bulls.” It’s about the inalienable rights to due process and equal protection; the rights to life, liberty, and property. And safety? Well, prove that the public is in danger. While you in the media label almost every attacking, biting, or killing dog a “pit bull,” there is no such breed. The slang term “pit bull” can refer, and has referred, to any medium- or large-breed dog. I just saw a city in Nebraska define the “pit bull” “breed” as an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Dogo Argentina, Presa Canario or Cane Corso. This list of breeds, that’s ‘breeds’ as in plural, includes both medium- and large-breed dogs. How can it be that this “breed” “pit bull” is made up of six breeds, at least according to this town in Nebraska?

Does it not follow that if you have to define the “pit bull” as at least SIX breeds — not including mixes of those breeds or dogs resembling those breeds, which is the language in many breed-specific ordinances — that statistics on “pit bulls” would be skewed? Since “pit bull” is not a breed but a conglomeration of breeds that can include basically any breed of dog you want it to, how can any city be certain that the breeds it defines as “pit bulls” are the breeds originally responsible for the attack, bite, or fatality that so often prompts a call for a breed ban? I hesitate to even use the do-you-really-know-which-breeds-were-attacking argument because it still fingers a breed or breeds of dog as if there is such a thing as an inherently vicious breed, though no credible scientific study has ever proven that.

The “pit bulls” “are more dangerous than average canines” mythology has long been debunked and is now only told by braggarts, those who don’t know any better, and worse, those who do know better but spread this falsehood anyway because it accomplishes some end. For some, the belief is that getting rid of “pit bulls” will get rid of the drug dealers, gang bangers, and/or dog fighters who are purported to be the only kinds of people owning these breeds, but 1) breed-specific legislation has little to no effect on the few criminals owning these breeds, and 2) such a supposition, if taken to its full-drawn conclusion is racist against people — like blacks and Latinos — who are believed to be the predominant owners of these dogs. And of course since it is asserted that likewise only drug dealers, gang bangers, and dog fighters own these dogs, the racist syllogism (Many blacks and Latinos are “pit bull” owners, which is of course what many people believe; many or most drug dealers, gang bangers, and/or dog fighters are “pit bull” owners, which is also what many people believe; therefore many or most drug dealers, gang bangers, and/or dog fighters are “pit bull” owners) is quite obvious.

The claim that “pit bulls” are more dangerous than the average canine is just another variant of the locking-jaws/more-powerful-jaws urban mythology of “pit bull,” which is wholly false. In 2005 Dr. Brady Barr in a show for National Geographic called “Dangerous Encounters” conducted bite-force tests for several kinds of animals from crocodiles and white sharks to snapping turtles and hyenas. Also included in the tests were three breeds of dog: the German Shepherd, the Rottweiler, and the American Pit Bull Terrier. [And while the APBT is an actual breed, I should make it clear that we still don't know if this is the breed the media and others mean when they use the slang term "pit bull" to describe bites/attacks, though this is almost always the breed banned when "pit bull" bans are passed.] Of the three the American Pit Bull Terrier had the least amount of bite force, which was found to be well below the average dog’s 320-pound bite pressure.

Further, Dr. I. Lerh Brisbin, Ph.D., who is a Senior Research Scientist at the University of Georgia Savanna River Ecology Laboratory and an expert in training, handling, behavior and the anatomy of bully breeds has said that,

“The few studies which have been conducted of the structure of the skulls, mandibles and teeth of [the American Pit Bull Terrier] show that, in proportion to their size, their jaw structure and thus its inferred functional morphology, is no different than that of any breed of dog. There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any kind of “locking mechanism” unique to the structure of the jaw and/or teeth of the American Pit Bull Terrier.”

Dogs of any breed can do extensive damage in the rare instances when they attack simply because of the frenzied state they are in. For example, in 2005 a woman in France became the first successful recipient of facial transplantation after her dog, a Labrador, mauled her face unrecognizable. Yet did France ban Labradors? Absolutely not. Would we have even known about the mauling had the woman not been a breakthrough in medical science? Probably not, because it involved a Labrador, and Labs aren’t on the list of breeds targeted for banning or restriction. So, the proper conclusion to draw here is that dogs of any breed can bite or attack.

Also, fatalities due to dog attacks are so much rarer than drownings, car accidents, or even slips and falls. Still, I have yet to see pool bans, automobile bans, or bans of slippery surfaces. A better way to look at dog attacks is that they are rare, isolated incidents and that while America has grown in population size from approximately 150 million in the 1950s to an estimated 300+ million today, the number of fatal dog attacks each year has remained approximately the same. In other words, while the population of the U.S. doubled and millions more Americans owned dogs, the number of dog-bite related fatalities stayed virtually the same.

Yet even after being shown evidence debunking claims of “pit bulls’” supposed heightened aggression and more damaging bite, those hell-bent on pushing breed bans will inevitably point to “pit bulls’” fighting heritage. However, the widely-held belief that dogs belonging to breeds that were bred for fighting are more likely to bite people and are thus categorically deserving of the vague classification “vicious” is not founded in fact. In truth, difficult as it may be for the average person to understand, the opposite is true. The proper temperament selected for and propagated by old-time fighting-dog breeders included an extreme aversion to aggression towards people. It was imperative that the “game” dog be entirely reliable around people because even when the dog was in the extreme state of aggressive arousal during the actual dog fight, the human handler had to be able to hold and pick up his dog and these handlers would often not be the owner.

Temperament tests for bully breeds substantiate the claim that these are some of the most mild-mannered and pleasing breeds in existence. American Bulldogs, American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, and Bull Terriers on average rated 84.1%, 84.3%, 83.4%, 88.8%, and 92.1% 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.

If anything must be made of these breeds’ former fighting heritage, it is that some may not get along with other animals. But this can be true of any breed of dog. For instance, if a Labrador chases chickens because it can’t distinguish between wild game like a pheasant and domesticated birds like chickens does that make it vicious or simply a Labrador? If a Jack Russell Terrier chases rabbits in a field but accidentally kills a domesticated rabbit in the house does that make it inherently vicious? No, that makes it a Jack Russell. If these are undesired behaviors in the dog, then it is the owner’s responsibility to train the dog out of these undesired behaviors, or to keep the dog contained. Proper training and containment are the responsibility of every dog owner, not just those possessing of certain breeds, because any dog of any breed can bite or attack when left untrained or left to free-roam.

The CDC concluded the same:

“Breed-specific legislation does not address the fact that a dog of any breed can become dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive. From a scientific point of view, we are unaware of any formal evaluation of the effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in preventing fatal or nonfatal dog bites. An alternative to breed-specific legislation is to regulate individual dogs and owners on the basis of their behavior.”

Since publishing your op ed I’m certain that the numerous e-mails you have almost certainly received have shown you that the issue of breed-specific legislation is bigger than your mere opinion. Still, because of the magnitude of the soap box on which you stand, those in Utah (elected officials and civilians alike) might actually give your opinion credence though it is nothing more than ignorance, deserving of no more weight than water cooler gossip. As such, perhaps you could give equal space to those who are possessing of more than a mere opinion.

Sincerely,

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

…In this great American asylum [place of refuge], the poor of Europe have by some means met together, and in consequence of various causes; to what purpose should they ask one another what countrymen they are? Alas, two thirds of them had no country. Can a wretch who wanders about, who works and starves, whose life is a continual scene of sore affliction or pinching penury [poverty]–can that man call England or any other kingdom his country? A country that had no bread for him, whose fields procured him no harvest, who met with nothing but the frowns of the rich, the severity of the laws, with jails and punishments, who owned not a single foot of the extensive surface of this planet? No! Urged by a variety of motives, here they came. Everything has tended to regenerate them: new laws, a new mode of living, a new social system; here they are become men: in Europe they were as so many useless plants…they withered, and were mowed down by want, hunger, and war; but now, by the power of transplantation, like all other plants they have taken root and flourished! Formerly they were not numbered in any civil lists of their country, except in those of the poor; here they rank as citizens. By what invisible power hath this surprising metamorphosis been performed? By that of the laws and that of their industry. The laws, the indulgent [permissive] laws, protect them as they arrive, stamping on them the symbol of adoption; they receive ample rewards for their labours; these accumulated rewards procure them lands [property]; those lands confer on them the title of freemen, and to that title every benefit is affixed which men can possibly require. This is the great operation daily performed by our laws.

…Ubi panis ibi patria [Where there is bread, there is one's fatherland.] is the motto of all emigrants…He is an American, who, leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. He becomes an American by being received in the broad lap of our great Alma Mater [Fostering mother]. Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labours and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world.

…The American ought therefore to love this country much better than that wherein either he or his forefathers were born. Here the rewards of his industry follow with equal steps the progress of his labour; his labour is founded on the basis of nature, self-interest; can it want a stronger allurement?

…The American is a new man, who acts upon new principles; he must therefore entertain new ideas and form new opinions. From involuntary idleness, servile dependence, penury, and useless labour, he has passed to toils of a very different nature, rewarded by ample subsistence. This is an American…

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

July 4, 2008

To:

The Honorable Ryan McCue, Mayor
Alderman Joseph Mikolajczak, First District
Alderwoman Mary Schissel, Second District
Alderman Mark Otto, Third District
Alderman Sean Smith, Fourth District
Alderman Thomas Pavlic, Fifth District

Dear Mayor McCue and Esteemed Members of the Cudahy Common Council:

I waited until today, July the 4th, to write to all of you because it is a day of solemnity when we pause and take stock of where this nation has been and where it is going.

Certainly you are familiar with President Abraham Lincoln’s address at the dedication of the Gettysburg National Cemetery. Everyone knows the “Four score and seven years ago” part, but the lesser-known portions of that address are perhaps more poignant on Independence Day. Not only did Mr. Lincoln say that our nation was conceived in liberty, dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal (which was not a given at the time of his address despite the Declaration of Independence), but that,

“It is for us the living…to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us–that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

It would not be until almost 5 years later that the 14th amendment would be ratified which declared in part that no state should,

“deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The 14th amendment was an echo of the Declaration of Independence which held that the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were self-evident truths and unalienable rights (meaning rights that are not severable or transferable).

My purpose in writing you today is to demonstrate how these rights came about and to remind you how it is that they are negated by breed-specific ordinances and breed bans. Banning a breed of dog, or breed-specific legislation in any form, is a negation of the 14th amendment (of property rights, and the rights to due process and equal protection); the very rights for which good men and women fought and died and are fighting and dying as I write this letter.

Over the many years that Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States (RDOWS) has been lobbying against breed-specific legislation and other adverse animal legislation, we have occasionally been scorned for the work that we do. At times detractors have inquired if there might be a better use of our time. We have always responded that there is no better use of our time, our talents, our energy, and our will, than to lobby for the upholding of our Constitution; the very foundation of our life, liberty, and happiness in this great nation.

We have several veterans that belong to RDOWS, and they are ever in our minds as we write to elected officials and lobby for or against certain legislation. One veteran in particular said to me a while ago that what he was currently witnessing in this country — the constant and steady erosion of our constitutional rights — brought tears to his eyes. He was heartbroken to see that the rights and freedoms for which he had risked his life could so swiftly and easily be eroded or outright negated by the passing of just one bill or ordinance.

Likewise, a couple of months ago, I was given a sobering reminder of why it is that our group lobbies so hard against rights-negating legislation when a World War II veteran was helped with great difficulty to the podium at my home town’s city council meeting. This gentleman gave a rousing oration which recounted his service during the war — the enemy fire he had come under, the friends he had lost who were fighting beside him one minute and were gone the next — in an attempt to petition the council for a World War II veterans’ memorial. Those words would prove to be the last few he would ever utter. He died shortly thereafter. His speech took all the energy he had left in his body, which means that to his very last, he was still fighting for his country and his countrymen. Most veterans will tell you that the war didn’t end simply because they came home. If they were lucky enough not to bear the wounds of war on their bodies, they are almost certainly scarred with the memory of war; those they loved and lost and the atrocities they witnessed. They will also be the first to tell you that freedom comes with an unfathomable price, because freedom is certainly not free.

This Fourth of July, we ask you to remember the rights and freedoms on which this nation was founded and the great men and women — like the veterans I just described — who fought and died, and who continue to fight and die, to defend those rights. We ask you to remember the Declaration of Independence, the words of President Lincoln at Gettysburg, and the civil rights, like the 14th amendment, that were the result of the loss of many thousands of American lives. We ask you to remember that our nation was conceived in liberty and founded on the principle that all men and women are endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty, property, due process, and equal protection. And we ask you to keep these things in mind on July 9 as you consider whether to pass a breed-specific ordinance or not. On that day, we hope that you will uphold the Constitution, as you were sworn to do, and oppose any attempt to negate fundamental civil rights via any breed-specific provision.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration. We wish for you and your families a happy and safe Independence Day.

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://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

Dear Esteemed Members of the Chicago City Council:

It was of great concern to hear that Chicago is considering a mandatory spay/neuter (MSN) ordinance. Mandatory spay/neuter ordinances are proposed as a result of what is erroneously called a “pet overpopulation problem,” which is absolutely false. Chicago, in particular, could not use pet “overpopulation” as an excuse because according to statistics published in 2006,

“The euthanasia numbers in the Chicago Area are dropping. Between 2003 and 2005 overall citywide euthanasia rates dropped 12% and shelter intake went down to 11%. With an overall shelter killing rate per 1,000 humans at a historic low of 6.9%, Denver remains the only city between the coasts with a lower kill rate (5.9%)” (http://www.anticruelty.org/site/epage/42566_576.htm)

So you see Chicago’s embrace of a ‘No Kill’ stance has seen intake and euthanasia rates significantly dropping on their own. Yet still MSN advocates are pushing the “overpopulation” lie on an unsuspecting Chicago public anyway.

Nathan Winograd, author of Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America explains the type of denial that keeps MSN advocates pushing for mandatory spay/neuter laws even though shelter intake numbers and consequently euthanasia numbers have dramatically gone down:

“While some activists simply do not know better and mean well, others obstinately ignore facts, experience, and history and continue to push these types of laws. They will do what they have always done—facts, logic, and history be damned. They will continue to blame the public and they will continue to fight for more and tougher laws. they will argue that their community is different, that their situation is unique, that citizens in their community are particularly—or peculiarly—irresponsible. None of this is true, but they do not care.” (117)

When it is shown to MSN advocates that euthanasia numbers have dropped dramatically as Chicago has adopted ‘No Kill’ programs over the last decade, they will undoubtedly say that one euthanized dog or cat in the city of Chicago is one too many. But why, then, does this country import so many dogs from outside the country every year? According to the National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA),

“campaigns to end pet overpopulation have been so successful that demand for puppies actually outstrips supply in the United States today. The result is that US pet suppliers, both commercial distributors and animal shelters alike, have turned to foreign sources to fill it. A staggering 300,000 dogs were brought into the US in 2006 alone, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and that total may not include the significant number of puppies smuggled in through the black market.”

Despite dramatic evidence like the NAIA’s that shows that in some areas demand is so great that shelters/commercial distributors can’t supply the need, many MSN advocates simply do not care because they have an agenda that has nothing to do with supposed “pet overpopulation.” Their agenda is not to save animals like you might think. Some want to end domestic pet ownership (and even animal agriculture) as we know it:

“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, of Humane Society of the United States, Animal People, May, 1993.

“It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership.” Elliot Katz, President “In Defense of Animals,” Spring 1997.

“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, Newsday, 2/21/88.

“One generation and out” is about the time it would take to end domestic pet ownership as we know it, and mandatory spay/neuter is one very effective tool in accomplishing that goal, as is breed-specific legislation. And while the recently-proposed Chicago ordinance bills itself as a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance, it will also clearly be breed-specific, because, as Ald. Ed Burke noted in the Sun-Times,

“‘When you drive down the street and see a gang banger with all kinds of gang regalia walking along with two or three pit bulls, it’s pretty simple for the policeman to raise the dog’s tail and see whether or not it’s spayed or neutered. If it’s not, the gang member is in violation,’ Burke said, noting that street gangs operate dog-fighting rings” (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/949173,neuter051408.article)

Not only would this be breed profiling, it would be racial profiling, because after all, isn’t “gang banger” just code for an African-American and/or a Hispanic?

Chicago recently had 32 shootings, 6 stabbings, and 2 deaths all in one weekend. Chicago had a gangland war but instead of cracking down on gangs and gang violence the city council is now considering a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance? What message does it send citizens of Chicago that the Chicago City Council is more concerned about forcing pet owners to spay/neuter their pets than ending gang violence, the kind which sees children gunned down in the streets? But then, judging from Ald. Burke’s comments, perhaps mandatory spay/neuter is just a smoke screen to allow racial profiling. What else could readers of Burke’s comments in the Sun-Times conclude?

Worse, it appears that Ald. Burke is also using Chicago’s mandatory spay/neuter ordinance as an excuse to do criminal background checks which police might not be able to do any other way:

“Exceptions to the spay and neutering mandate would be granted to those who apply for a breeder’s license, triggering a criminal background check/’I don’t know of too many gang members [who] would be willing to subject themselves to this type of scrutiny,’ Burke said” (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/949173,neuter051408.article)

So you see, this mandatory spay/neuter ordinance isn’t about controlling the supposed pet overpopulation problem at all. It’s back-door breed-specific legislation which is being used to target “pit bulls” and even worse, their African-American and Hispanic owners, since these ethnicity types will almost certainly be singled out as the only ones that are members of gangs.

A criminal background check as a prerequisite for obtaining a breeder’s license is not going to stop criminals from their criminal behavior. Those who fight dogs or engage in the gang lifestyle will continue to ignore a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance with its accompanying criminal background check, just as they ignore laws that prohibit dog fighting, drug dealing, prostitution, and racketeering. Nor should a minority, or anyone, walking down the street with a “pit bull” necessarily mean that that person is a gang member, drug dealer, or recidivist. (And “pit bull” is not a breed, but rather a slang term which can refer and has referred to 30 or more actual breeds. Indeed, the media seems to use the slang term “pit bull” to describe any medium- or large-sized breed that bites or attacks, which is how statistics on “pit bull” bites/maulings can appear so disproportionately high compared to other actual breeds. It’s also why any statistics which use the slang term “pit bull” as a breed designation are automatically skewed and therefore worthless. So when the media reported recently that a Chicago woman had been mauled by five “pit bulls,” it makes one wonder what breed(s) of dog she was actually mauled by.)

If we know criminals will not be affected by this ordinance, then who will be affected? Again, according to the Sun-Times,

“Burke was asked how the city would go about enforcing the ordinance, since cats are not licensed and dog licenses are widely-ignored.”

If dog licensing is widely ignored, then so too will a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance be widely ignored. As a process of elimination then, only the most law-abiding citizens will comply with an MSN requirement and they are admittedly not the targets of this ordinance. So this ordinance, if passed, will be ineffective and unenforceable except for law-abiding pet owners and breeders who were already abiding by the law.

MSN laws also turn formerly good, civic-minded people resentful and non-compliant as Winograd observes:

“Studies show the primary reasons people do not sterilize their pets are cost and lack of access to spay/neuter services…The higher the cost, the lower the rate of compliance…Punitive legislation will only discourage people from caring for homeless pets or drive disadvantaged people “underground,” making them even harder to reach and help.” (112)

Chicago has low-cost or free spay/neuter available and judging from the severe decline in intake/euthanasia numbers, these programs are working. Perhaps these programs simply need to be expanded into more economically disadvantaged neighborhoods.

If these programs are working, why punish otherwise responsible pet owners with an ordinance that profiles their pets and themselves? Why alienate and drive underground those who simply may not know about or have access to low-cost or free spay/neuter services? Worse, once off the radar, pet owners may not comply with other laws like rabies vaccination requirements.

As Nathan Winograd has so often said, the key to reducing intake/euthanasia numbers is low-cost or free spay/neuter services and better education about spaying/neutering. Chicago has already implemented these suggestions and they are working splendidly. So where is the rational basis for proposing an MSN ordinance in Chicago, or anywhere in America for that matter? Worse, how are minorities to feel when they read Ald. Burke’s comments in the Sun-Times? Will they be more or less likely to comply knowing that Chicago’s MSN ordinance is a ruse meant only to allow racial profiling?

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 ask.

Thank you very much for your time.

Respectfully,

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

http://www.povn.com/rdows

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

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

POSITION STATEMENT ON MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER

Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States was formed October 15, 1989 to protect the civil, and Constitutional rights, and interests of dog owners. Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States is opposed to any government mandated invasive, or non-invasive surgeries being performed upon privately owned domestic pets. Our opposition is based upon both practical, and upon constitutional reasons. There are health risks involved with any invasive, or non-invasive surgery. The least of which is risk of infection, and there is always the risk of any surgery being fatal.

Spaying/neutering has little or no affect upon a bitch or dog’s temperament, in fact the lack of normal hormones may cause mood swings, and unpredictable behavior, and exacerbate a poor temperament. (see attached study Behavioral Assessment of Child-Directed Canine Aggression)

Legal Standpoint: Such a mandate is a taking of personal property rights by a governmental body that has usurped ownership, and use rights in the animal from its rightful owner. The United States of America is not a communist collective in which all people, and their goods are properties of the government. RDOWS upholds the domestic animal owner’s right to choose whether or not to spay, or to neuter his, or her animal. RDOWS stipulates that an animal’s internal, and external genetalia belong to the owner of the animal. RDOWS claims the rights of ownership for all domestic pet owners based upon tens of thousands of years of proven historical ownership, and of the ancient and honorable profession of animal husbandry.

· Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States sees such a mandate as an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation, and a violation of the Bill of Rights;

· 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, or the property to be seized

· A violation of Amendment IX. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

· Lastly. A violation of Amendment XIV, Section 1.All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

References:

1.. Salmeri KR, Bloomberg MS, Scruggs SL, Shille V.. Gonadectomy in immature dogs: effects on skeletal, physical, and behavioral development. JAVMA 1991;198:1193- 1203
2.. http://www.grca. org/healthsurvey .pdf
3.. Grumbach MM. Estrogen, bone, growth and sex: a sea change in conventional wisdom. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2000;13 Suppl 6:1439-55.
4.. Gilsanz V, Roe TF, Gibbens DT, Schulz EE, Carlson ME, Gonzalez O, Boechat MI. Effect of sex steroids on peak bone density of growing rabbits. Am J Physiol. 1988 Oct;255(4 Pt 1):E416-21.
5.. Slauterbeck JR, Pankratz K, Xu KT, Bozeman SC, Hardy DM. Canine ovariohysterectomy and orchiectomy increases the prevalence of ACL injury. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Dec;(429):301- 5.
6.. Spain CV, Scarlett JM, Houpt KA. Long-term risks and benefits of early-age gonadectomy in dogs. JAVMA 2004;224:380- 387.
7.. Ware WA, Hopper DL. Cardiac tumors in dogs: 1982-1995. J Vet Intern Med 1999 Mar-Apr;13(2) :95-103
8.. Cooley DM, Beranek BC, Schlittler DL, Glickman NW, Glickman LT, Waters D, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002 Nov;11(11):1434- 40
9.. Ru G, Terracini B, Glickman LT. Host related risk factors for canine osteosarcoma. Vet J. 1998 Jul;156(1):31- 9.
10.. Obradovich J, Walshaw R, Goullaud E. The influence of castration on the development of prostatic carcinoma in the dog. 43 cases (1978-1985). J Vet Intern Med 1987 Oct-Dec;1(4) :183-7
11.. http://www.akcchf. org/pdfs/ whitepapers/ Biennial_ National_ Parent_Club_ Canine_Health_ Conference. pdf
12.. Meuten DJ. Tumors in Domestic Animals. 4th Edn. Iowa State Press, Blackwell Publishing Company, Ames, Iowa, p. 575
13.. Stocklin-Gautschi NM, Hassig M, Reichler IM, Hubler M, Arnold S. The relationship of urinary incontinence to early spaying in bitches. J. Reprod. Fertil. Suppl. 57:233-6, 2001
14.. Pessina MA, Hoyt RF Jr, Goldstein I, Traish AM. Differential effects of estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone on vaginal structural integrity. Endocrinology. 2006 Jan;147(1):61- 9.
15.. Kim NN, Min K, Pessina MA, Munarriz R, Goldstein I, Traish AM. Effects of ovariectomy and steroid hormones on vaginal smooth muscle contractility. Int J Impot Res. 2004 Feb;16(1):43- 50.
16.. Aaron A, Eggleton K, Power C, Holt PE. Urethral sphincter mechanism incompetence in male dogs: a retrospective analysis of 54 cases. Vet Rec. 139:542-6, 1996
17.. Panciera DL. Hypothyroidism in dogs: 66 cases (1987-1992). J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc., 204:761-7 1994
18.. Howe LM, Slater MR, Boothe HW, Hobson HP, Holcom JL, Spann AC. Long-term outcome of gonadectomy performed at an early age or traditional age in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2001 Jan 15;218(2):217- 21. This article is available for download in Adobe Acrobat PDF format Early Spay Considerations (pdf).
ENDOGENOUS GONADAL HORMONE EXPOSURE AND BONE SARCOMA RISK

http://cebp. aacrjournals. org/cgi/reprint/ 11/11/1434. pdf

Once again, Virginia “Ginger” Rugai, 19th ward Chicago alderman, is getting behind another unconstitutional piece of legislation (along with Ald. Ed Burke, who we noted in a prior post has been busy deflecting the heat from a Fox Chicago news report about questionable expenses). This time it’s mandatory spay/neuter. Ginger. It’s such a benign spice, but such a caustic politico.

It’s odd too, don’t you think that the Chicago City Council would repeal the foie gras ban, another unconstitutional restriction, on the same day that they proposed a mandatory spay/neuter (MSN) ordinance? On the one hand they recognize that a ban on foie gras is unconstitutional, but an ordinance requiring pet owners to spay/neuter their pets is somehow perfectly legitimate in their eyes.

The mandatory spay/neuter ordinance was supposedly proposed as a result of a woman being attacked by five “pit bulls” last month. It was never determined, at least to my satisfaction, whether the dogs were full-grown or puppies and just exactly what prompted the event. One thing we know for sure, they weren’t “pit bulls.” You see, as we so often say here, “pit bull” is not a breed. It’s a broad characterization that can describe and has described as many as 30 or more actual breeds. And yes, some people refer to their American Pit Bull Terriers as “pit bulls” but then the media refers to every medium- or large-breed dog that attacks as a “pit bull,” which skews statistics like CDC bite stats making it appear as if the “breed” “pit bull” is inherently vicious. People often ask me why I quibble over breed every time there is a dog attack. The answer is obvious: because when the media gets the breed wrong, which they always will if they refer to the dogs in question as “pit bulls,” then bad legislation results.

For instance, you may be wondering why I am talking about “pit bulls” when the ordinance is a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance and not a breed-specific one. Because Ald. Rugai and Ald. Burke, the two aldermen who had the temerity to show their faces as the co-sponsors of this MSN ordinance, as much as said this ordinance is meant to target “pit bulls,” and worse, “pit bull” owners. Burke in particular was quoted in the Sun-Times as saying,

“‘When you drive down the street and see a gang banger with all kinds of gang regalia walking along with two or three pit bulls, it’s pretty simple for the policeman to raise the dog’s tail and see whether or not it’s spayed or neutered. If it’s not, the gang member is in violation,’ Burke said, noting that street gangs operate dog-fighting rings.”

Well, those who fought breed-specific laws always maintained that breed bans were a type of racial profiling. Here we have actual racial profiling using someone’s dog! And Chicago policemen must be thrilled at the prospect of having to go around Chicago neighborhoods looking at canine “junk.” My goodness, of all the sick ways to hassle a potential perp!

According to the Sun-Times,

“Exceptions to the spay and neutering mandate would be granted to those who apply for a breeder’s license, triggering a criminal background check/’I don’t know of too many gang members [who] would be willing to subject themselves to this type of scrutiny,’ Burke said.”

So you see, this mandatory spay/neuter ordinance isn’t about controlling the supposed pet overpopulation problem at all. It’s back-door breed-specific legislation which is being used to target “pit bulls” and even more delectably, their black and Hispanic owners. Criminal background checks simply for acquiring a breeder’s license? And this is supposed to stop people from dog fighting, “backyard breeding,” and gang banging?

It’s a catch-22 really. On the one hand Chicago is a sanctuary city for illegal aliens. It claims to be all liberal and “blue” when it comes to immigrant rights, but ironically, it doesn’t seem to like blacks and Hispanics very much as evidenced by Burke’s and others’ comments.

Gangs have been an increasing menace; a result of Chicago’s sanctuary status. But city officials continue to deny the gang problem because they must necessarily deny the illegal immigrant problem, or that one is part and parcel of the other. The city even made national headlines a few weeks ago after 32 people were shot, 2 stabbed, and 6 died in one weekend and yet instead of addressing the gang problem, Mayor Daley pushed for more gun control laws! Yes, because Chicago’s gun ban is working spectacularly isn’t it?

Maybe Chicago’s gun ban is working. Maybe city officials like that only cops and criminals have guns. Most fascists do. Meanwhile, kids are getting shot in the head because Chicago businesses so love their cheap illegal immigrant labor. What? Is that not politically correct to say? Oh yes, heaven forbid we should tell the truth even though our children are dying in the streets. Wouldn’t want the corporateocracy to be inconvenienced in any way. Who cares anyway right? They’re just dead black kids. Politicians don’t care about them unless they can use them as political pawns to push more rights-negating legislation on an ignorant populace begging to have their freedoms removed in the name of safety (which will leave them with neither freedom nor safety to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin). Don’t be fooled. Chicago has always had the ability to crack down on gang violence and hasn’t needed to use “pit bull”or racial profiling to do it.

It’s funny too. When we started out six years ago, we used to get e-mails from people laughing at us for saying “crazy” things like that these ordinances were unconstitutional or that they were racist and were used to profile minorities and give them a hard time. Thing is, nobody’s laughing anymore.

The good news is that very few people are complying with these draconian, unconstitutional laws. In the Sun-Times interview with Burke it was noted that cat owners aren’t required to license their cats and dog licensure compliance is a joke. So in other words, dog owners in Chicago do not license their dogs as a common practice, and yet once a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance is passed it is expected that everyone will just magically start spaying/neutering their pets and acquire a license for their dogs? As Nathan Winograd in his recently-released book Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America noted,

“Studies show the primary reasons people do not sterilize their pets are cost and lack of access to spay/neuter services…The higher the cost, the lower the rate of compliance….Punitive legislation will only discourage people from caring for homeless pets or drive disadvantaged people “underground,” making them even harder to reach and help.” (112)

So those “underground” who already aren’t licensing their pets will continue to stay underground, and added to their ranks will be those who, for whatever reason, will not comply with a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance. Worse, once off the radar, these same people also tend to not comply with other laws like rabies vaccination requirements. And, if concern for pets is really the issue here, which we already know from the horse’s mouth it’s not, then it is not desirable to pass an ordinance that has been proven ineffective and unenforceable in other areas, that drives pet owners underground, and that prevents pets from being taken to the vet and vaccinated.

Mandatory spay/neuter ordinances are proposed as a result of what is erroneously called a “pet overpopulation” problem.  Chicago, in particular, could not use pet “overpopulation” as an excuse because according to statistics published in 2006,

“The euthanasia numbers in the Chicago Area are dropping. Between 2003 and 2005 overall citywide euthanasia rates dropped 12% and shelter intake went down to 11%. With an overall shelter killing rate per 1,000 humans at a historic low of 6.9%, Denver remains the only city between the coasts with a lower kill rate (5.9%).”

So pet “overpopulation” in Chicago in particular is a myth, and yet MSN advocates are pushing the “overpopulation” lie on an unsuspecting Chicago public anyway:

“‘Dogs and cats reproduce exponentially, which means one dog or cat can be responsible for hundreds of puppies or kittens in their lifetime,’ said Paula Fasseas, founder and chair of PAWS Chicago, the city’s largest humane organization/’As a result, nearly 20,000 cats and dogs are kiled each yet in Chicago. This legislation will ensure that pet guardians bear the responsibility for adequately caring for their pets’.”

First of all, and as a bit of a digression, we are NOT pet guardians. We are pet OWNERS. Get that through your big, fat heads animal rightists! We OWN our animals to protect them from YOU. Guardianship is just one more way for our property, our dogs, to be removed from us. For those who don’t know, guardianship, in theory, is supposedly a more humane way of looking at our pets not just as property, but as unto our children. And of course you don’t own your children do you? No, you don’t own your children. That’s why it’s so easy for the government to take your kids away. Just ask the guy who took his kid to the ballpark a few weeks ago and accidentally ordered his child a “hard” lemonade instead of the non-alcoholic kind and had his kid taken away from him by Child “Protective” Services as a result. See how easy it is to be labeled an “unfit parent”?

Second, Winograd explains the type of denial that keeps MSN advocates pushing for mandatory spay/neuter laws even though shelter intake numbers and consequently euthanasia numbers have dramatically gone down:

“While some activists simply do not know better and mean well, others obstinately ignore facts, experience, and history and continue to push these types of laws. They will do what they have always done—facts, logic, and history be damned. They will continue to blame the public and they will continue to fight for more and tougher laws. they will argue that their community is different, that their situation is unique, that citizens in their community are particularly—or peculiarly—irresponsible. None of this is true, but they do not care.” (117)

Indeed, when it is shown to MSN advocates that euthanasia numbers have dropped dramatically as Chicago has adopted more of a ‘No Kill’ stance over the last decade, they will undoubtedly say that one euthanized dog or cat in the city of Chicago is one too many. But why, then, does this country import so many dogs and cats from outside the country every year? According to the National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA),

“campaigns to end pet overpopulation have been so successful that demand for puppies actually outstrips supply in the United States today. The result is that US pet suppliers, both commercial distributors and animal shelters alike, have turned to foreign sources to fill it. A staggering 300,000 dogs were brought into the US in 2006 alone, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and that total may not include the significant number of puppies smuggled in through the black market.”

So where is the rational basis for proposing an MSN ordinance in Chicago, or anywhere in America for that matter? And if this ordinance passes and Chicago is sued, how easy will it be to prove that this is a case of racial profiling, which is a civil liberties violation? And no matter what lies they tell you to convince you otherwise, that junk in your pet’s trunk is your property, not the property of the state, not the property of the city councilmen who get paid off by animal rights lobbies to do their bidding, and not the property of animal rightists who want to end all domestic pet ownership and animal agriculture as we know it.

Read more about it:

Nathan Winograd’s “Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America”
]]> http://rdows.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/chicago-mandatory-spayneuter-ordinance-is-racist-back-door-bsl/feed/ 3 rdows