Great cruelty always follows upon the heels of any sort of ban. A perfect example is the inhumane treatment of the confiscated dogs in Denver, Colorado. The mindset behind the cruelty is,  that the targeted breed/type of animal, or race/ethnicity of human being,  is considered unworthy of life, it becomes a target for debasement, torture, even starvation, and eventually death. It starts with individuals, and ends with genocide.   The target is no longer considered to be a member of it’s species, but an aberration that must be annihilated. Breed specific dog ordinances are today’s legalized hate crimes.

Breed specific ordinances utilise very same tactics are to be found in every instance of prejudice that lead to abominable hate crimes. This time the targets are dogs that have been so vilified that they are no longer considered to be dogs, but some sort of mythological beasts. Breeders are portrayed as evil Dr. Frankenstein-like genetic manipulators. How is it that only the breeders of the targeted breeds are capable of mass producing cookie cutter-like monsters?  That concept is incredibly absurd, yet it is promulgated throughout society, and  the media, it runs like a sewer through the thought patterns of otherwise intelligent people. Nobody ever questions the absurdity of the statements, or the belief system that foments breed specific legislation. 
Euthanasia is accepted way to dispose of unwanted animals in our shelter systems. When euthanasia is ordered by law to be performed upon dogs that are loved, and wanted by their rightful owners, and is performed with a mindset of hatred, bordering upon obsession it becomes a societal illness. Lucas County Ohio Dog Warden Tom Skeldon is an example of a person who has placed himself into a position that has allowed him to feed his overpowering need to annihilate all dogs that he determines are “pit bulls”.  His excuse is that it is his job. The truth is, that it is his obsession, and when he thought that his evil avarice was about to be curtailed, he went over the edge of sanity, and reason. Kory Nelson is the Adolph Eichmann of Denver dogs. His obsession has flowered like a contagion of hatred. He is spreading his vile disease of hatred across the continent.  If either of these twisted individuals did not have animals to act out their murderous tendencies upon  would they target human beings?  People do not just fall into their professions. People choose the professions that bring them satisfaction.  
Behind every dog is it’s owner. We all must become acutely aware that we are the true targets of this hatred. Society generally accepts that it is okay to target our dogs. It is strange, that those people who love their animals cannot conceive of the fact that we who own the targeted breeds love our dogs, too.  Why are people open to believing that our dogs are not as worthy as their dogs?  Why is it that people do not understand that we owners of the  banned breeds have the same deep intense feelings for our animals, as they have for their animals?  How is it in that our animals are unfeeling, unloving, ravening monsters, while their animals are loving pet?. We are being excised out of mainstream society by our elected officials based solely upon the breed of dog that we choose to own.

The dog owners in Denver, or Ohio, or any other place that has enacted a breed specific ordinance will tell you that their lives have been ripped apart. They have been violated beyond their wildest imagining. This ban is no less an assault on their lives, than would be a rape, the murder of a family member, the invasion, and vandalism of a home, a violent attack upon their person. These victims of breed bans feel as though they have lost all control over their lives. They certainly feel that they have been the victims of cruel, and unusual punishment.

How can it possibly be legal for government to assault it’s citizenry for owning a certain type of dog? Is there not enough crime that our legislators must create a whole new class of criminal, the dog owner? We cannot allow breed specific legislation to stand. Legislators who remove the rights of the citizenry should be recalled for violating the Constitutional rights of the citizenry. There is the argument that we do not have a Constitutional Right to own dogs. It does not hold up to scrutiny. All our laws are based upon English Common Law, and upon tradition. The Constitutions of the U.S., and of the fifty states do not enumerate all of our rights. It would be an impossibility.  The  IX. Amendment – Rule of construction of Constitution: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.   The X. Amendment – Rights of the States under Constitution: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.  The more government is allowed to take through the quiet acceptance of the people, the more it will take, until we are enslaved. The ownership of dogs is a right retained through tens of thousands of years of tradition.

It is important support the efforts of the Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States.  RDOWS helps to set up RDO groups in each state to effectively fight breed specific legislation, mandatory spay/neuter legislation, and any other laws that adversely affect responsible dog ownership. RDOWS was founded in Washington state October 15, 1989 following upon the heels of the American Dog Owners Associations loss in the Washington Supreme Court. The Chief Justice Keith Callow wrote the decision to uphold the breed specific ordinances in Yakima, Buckley, and et,al. Chief Justice Callow’s term of office was near, and he would be running again in the November 1989 election. RDOWS rallied dog owning voters across the state. Voter registration booths were set up at dog shows. RDOWS threw its support behind a young attorney named Charles Johnson. He owned a Rottweiler, and he only had a $1,000.00 war chest. Charles Johnson was the dark horse in the list of candidates for the Washington Supreme Court. Charles Johnson, and RDOWS only had one month to defeat the sitting Chief Justice of Washington’s Supreme Court. Election day dawned. At the close of the polls Charles Johnson was the clear winner. Shock waves ran through the state, and the media. The Wall Street Journal covered the story. They declared it a fluke that Charles Johnson won. It was not a fluke. He is still sitting on the Washington Supreme Court. Dog owners comprise approximately 65% of the population. We are a strong, but untapped voting block.  RDOWS has proven effective in combatting poorly concieved laws that have been introduced by overly zealous elected officials.

Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States




The United States of America, home of the brave, land of the free?  This country was founded upon the ideal of free people taking responsibility for their actions, participating actively in the political process, being citizen statesmen, and women, and being self governing.  The following statement exerpted from the Washington State Constitution expresses exactly what our framers envisioned for we the people;
“All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.” 

The U.S. Constitution guarantees that we would be able to protect ourselves, and our property with the following words; “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”  Every household in the United States of America should openly display, and study the Constitution before we have acquiesced all of our rights and liberties away.

A license is a temporary, revocable permit issued by a governmental agency to have something, or to do something that is otherwise illegal.  If you live in a city, town, municipality, county, or state that requires dog licensing, then the act of dog ownership has been made illegal without permission of government.  A parallel to dog licensing is the licensing of firearms in 1968 which effectively removed citizens of the United States Second Amendment Right to keep and bear arms. Once we agree to license we agree to give over our rights to the licensing agency that is empowered to at any time remove the licensed object, or activity from us.

Some licenses are reasonable.  To drive upon public streets, roads, and highways your drivers license is proof of proficiency.  Drivers licenses are regularly revoked, or suspended for failure to show competency.  It’s reasonable to license for the practice medicine, or law.   Licensing has been carried to the extreme in the USA.  We supposedly live in a free enterprise system, yet every business must be licensed. We must have a license to marry, to fish, to hunt, to own firearms, which is how our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms was undermined to the point of illegality. 

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

The secondary step was the introduction of breed specific dog laws that limit, or prohibit the ownership of dogs based solely upon their breed.  To the inexperienced, or uneducated citizen BSL appears to be a way to control dogs.  Far from that simplistic view, it is government exerting control over the rights of human beings to have the full use and enjoyment of his/her property as is granted under the US Constitution.  Breed specific dog ordinances set up the owners of the named breeds for exceptional treatment under law. 

As citizens we are guaranteed equal treatment, and equal protection.  As owners of these breeds we are treated as  though we have committed a crime, again without due process of law.  We are labeled as being less responsible, less capable, not worthy of having equal rights of those of our fellow dog owners whose breeds have temporarily escaped the restrictions, or prohibitions.  Are we not tax payers? Are we not property owners?  Do we not participate in our political processes? Are we secondary citizens?   If we do not stand up for ourselves we will all become slaves to an out of control government.

In the limited , or restricted permission to own a “dangerous breed”,  another license was brought to bear upon the dog owner, plus the added burden of having to post an exorbitant surety bond, or liability insurance that was unavailable. 

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

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



The animal rights movement as those who would take our animals from our care, and nurture prefer to be known, is the enemy of all owners/breeders, and practitioners of animal husbandry. They support, and encourage the passage of breed specific dog ordinances that started with the “pit bull”, and have expanded to name upwards of seventy-five recognized breeds, plus any mixed breed that contains as an element of it’s make-up any of those breeds.  They support, and expound upon mandatory spay/neuter of all privately owned dogs, and cats, as though they have a personal proprietary interest in the animals that are rightfully owned by others. They push for mandatory licensing of pet animal husbandry practitioners, better known as breeders.  Their impetus is to use our legislative bodies, at every level to remove our animals from us, and to annihilate tens of thousands of years of the human/ animal bond. They are trained to use techniques that make them appear to be experts on all aspects of animal ownership, and laws. I have chosen to call this movement the animal takers.  It is in our own best interest to learn to recognize their strategies, so that they will not manipulate us. Animal taking zealots endeavor to deceive people into believing breed myths. The following chapter deals with animal takers myths of the absolute as pertains to the “pit bull”. 


Absolute: All pit bulls are dangerous, unpredictable killers.

Hmmm, wouldn’t that make them predictable? Not one of the numerous registries that operate in any nation registers a breed of dog as “Pit Bull”.  The term “pit bull”, used to mean any dog whose owner used it for pit fighting. It was a functional term that has been distorted, and used now to define actual breeds of dogs. Under the guise of banning “pit bulls”, upwards of twenty-five actual breeds of dogs have been named in bans, prohibitions, or restrictive ownership ordinances. Dogs are as individual as are we human beings. No two dogs within a given breed are exactly the same, just as no two human beings within any given race are exactly the same. Similarities to each other are either physical breed characteristics, or learned behaviors. It is not only erroneous to characterize all dogs of a given breed as being exactly alike it is exceedingly foolish.

Absolute: All pit bull breeders/owners are dog fighters.

This is not only a false accusation it is libelous. The American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Bull Terrier, and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier owners have a very high percentage rate of conformation show entries, obedience trial entries, and are engaged with their dogs in sanctioned sport competitions such as fly ball, agility, weight pull, schutzhund, tracking, when compared to other breeds of dogs owners. Check with registry statistics.  We do not deny that dog fighting exists. It is not an openly conducted activity.  In truth dog fighting has increased exponentially since the Humane Society of the United States set its sights on the once legal, and sanctioned sport, that was conducted under strict rules.  HSUS fought for legislation to make dog fighting illegal. They succeeded, and dog fighting is bigger than it ever was as a legal, and sanctioned activity. The preceding statements are not meant to condone dog fighting, but to give a historical perspective.  The vast majority of dog owners whose dogs are targeted in breed specific ordinances are law abiding citizens, and are responsible for, caring, and nurturing of their dogs.


Absolute: All pit bulls are bred to possess supernatural traits.

That “pit bulls” possess locking jaws is the most common mythical misconception. No canine has the ability to lock, or unlock its jaw. There are three head types in dogs. Not one of which has a lock. There is the brachy-cephalic, it is the pushed in face with the protruding under jaw like the Pug dog in the movie Milo and Otis. It has the least bite strength of all head types. The mesocephalic is the most common type head in dogs. The Dalmatian is a mesocephalic type of dog breed. The length of muzzle approximates the length of top skull. It is the strongest configuration. The third head type is the dolicho-cephalic. It is the long narrow head with a long muzzle.  The Collie is a dolichocephalic type breed.  These breeds do not depend upon strength of jaw, but upon their teeth that are used for slashing.  Most of the breeds that are named in breed specific legislation fall under the mesocephalic head type, but not all, there are several of the brachy-cephalic breeds, and even a few dolichocephalic breeds. This should be indicative to any thinking person that the umbrella term, “pit bull”, is a convenient blind for city councils, and county boards to use to remove all domestic dogs from ownership, in a piecemeal way.

The not stoppable, appear out of nowhere, disappear, attack without warning, etc., myths are the stuff of horror movies. These stories confer supernatural powers on domestic dog breeds, but have no basis in reality. Newspaper articles are reported in such a manner as to evoke fear in the reader, and to reinforce the urban myth. They offer no proofs, only rhetoric. As dog owners our responses to these reports must be reality based, and we must openly question any reports of the supernatural kind. All dogs are corporeal. No dog is capable of appearing, or of disappearing.  All dogs are stoppable.  All attacks are triggered. The people, who are involved, may not know what triggered the attack, or they may know, and choose not to divulge what they know to the media, and to the police.

Absolute: All “pit bull” breeders are geniuses of genetic engineering

If we believe the myths that surround the “pit bull”, then we must believe that their breeders possess an innate ability to manipulate their dog’s genes to reproduce without fail a monster of mythical proportions. These breeders can do what the greatest geneticists in the world cannot; they can make a dog that conforms unerringly to a prescribed, and uniform mold, each and every time. Not even automobile manufactures can make identical cars when using all standard parts.  

Absolute: All “pit bull” breeders are imbeciles of genetic engineering

In a direct contradiction to the myth above, the detractors describe the physical ailments, and crippling genetic defects that are purportedly rampant in the “pit bull”, hip/shoulder dysplasia, myocardia, cataracts one would believe that their breeders are incapable of producing a sound physical specimen of dog. If we believe this myth, then breed specific legislation is a waste of time, and money to implement, and enforce, because the dogs are well on their way to extinction. Genetic defects are reported in purebred dogs because their breeders are the ones who spend the money, and care enough about their dogs to test them. Breeders strive to produce healthier dogs through eliminating dogs that are defective from their breeding programs.  To use the facts that purebred dogs have defects in order to sully the reputations of breeders is an exploitation of the breeders concern for producing healthy animals.   

Absolute: All BSL proponents are pit bull experts, but can’t define them

Ask the most vociferous “pit bull” hater to define the term. You will quickly discover that a “pit bull” is any dog which animal control deems as such. There is no set definition. There are at least twenty-five actual breeds, plus uncounted mixed breed dogs that are now labeled as “pit bulls”, and the list is growing.  The takers, and various legislative bodies have wrongfully cited, or misused breed standards as a means of identifying dog breeds. Breed identification is not the purpose of a breed standard. A breed standard is a written device that is used by dog show judges to determine, or measure the standard quality of the conformation of each pure-bred, registered dog of any given breed in the show ring, at a sanctioned dog show. The judge is not guessing what breed is being judged. Dog show judges are tested on their knowledge of the breed standard, and it’s application prior to being licensed to use that breed standard in a sanctioned show. A judge is tested, and licensed separately for each breed that he, or she is allowed to judge. Breed standards are copyrighted documents. American Kennel Club parent breed clubs are owners of their breed’s standard copyright. Other breed standard copyrights are property of the breed registry. Any misuse of dog breed standards is a violation of intellectual property rights of the copyright owner.  

Absolute:  Only titled, health tested show dogs should be allowed to breed. 

This removes a whole dimension of working dogs, hunting dogs, service dogs that will never see the inside of a show-ring. The whole idea of show dogs is elitist on one hand, and arbitrary on the other hand. It is elitist to believe that a dog that has earned conformation titles is superior to a dog that works on a cattle ranch, and earns it’s way, and provides help to it’s owner. The rancher will put far more value on his dog’s working ability than upon it’s conforming to a show standard of quality.  The rancher is far better equipped to know whether his dog should be used in a breeding program than any arbitrary government body. The idea that government imposes mandates upon who may, or may not practice animal husbandry, and mandate an impractical standard for the animals to be used within that program, exceeds the scope of government, and is a taking of ownership, and use rights.

Health testing is a tool that is at the disposal of any animal owner/ breeder who wishes, or needs to use it. The test results show the tested animal’s health for the day that the tests were done. They do not project guarantees into the future health of the animal, nor do clear test results guarantee that any offspring of the tested animal will test clear. Testing is an option, it should never be mandated.

Absolute: It is wrong for a breeder to profit from breeding, and selling dogs.

A dog breeder is supposed to spend thousands of dollars, and not see a return that will be reinvested back into the dogs.  According to the detractors of dog breeders, in order to be responsible, a breeder must have endlessly deep pockets, and always spend, never, ever breaking even, let alone operate a real business based upon doing what one loves, and is proficient in. How would this absolute myth apply to any other business? Tell it to ATT, FORD, YAHOO, MICROSOFT, TYSON, H$U$, PeTA. In any business the measure of success is to see a financial return that is based upon the quality, desirability, and usability of said product.

 Absolute: All dog/cat/pet breeders must be licensed, and obtain breeding permits

Animal husbandry is an ancient, noble, and respected human occupation. Its beginnings are lost in the remote past. A license is a temporary, revocable permit that is issued by government that allows the holder to have something, or to do something that is illegal to have, or to do without the license. This is simply another ploy to remove our animal ownership, and use rights. Our animals do not belong to the government. We do not live under a socialist, or a communist government that holds ownership over people, and their property.

 Absolute: All dogs must be spayed/neutered

No government in the United States of America has the power to mandate invasive surgical procedures be performed upon privately owned animals. Animals belong to their owners. Animal’s reproductive organs likewise belong to the owners. Governments do not have the power to take away constitutional, or traditional property rights. It is solely up to we the people to stand firmly, and to refuse to capitulate to the taking of our ownership, use, and property rights in our animals. This is a legislated extinction of domestic pets.


Personal attacks take the place of evidence

Once you have made logical inroads into the taker’s ideology, you will be a target for personal attacks, especially if you have a website, or you are an officer, or a director in any dog/cat club, or organization. You may be accused of being a “shill”.  Your appearance, or choice of apparel may be critiqued. There is nothing too despicable for these takers to stoop to when trying to discredit us.

Goading us into anger

The takers are skilled in haranguing, if we show the least irritation that is where they will concentrate their attack. If we watch carefully, and learn their techniques, we can avoid being goaded into anger.

Changing the subject

The takers will ask personal questions to try to take the topic where they want it to go. We must be alert, and stay on track. Our information is far more important than their ideology. Our reasons for joining a blog, or a public forum is to put useful, educational information into the hands of the readers, and to expose the animal takers for the ideological zealots who are bent upon removing our pets from us.

Attempt to divide the defenders

The takers will be working together to reinforce their position. They will try to detract from the valid points that the defenders make. One of their frequently used tactics is to use personal attacks that are aimed at the defenders, or at their dogs.  It is very important for our side to reinforce our position without using the rude, personal attacks that are often employed by the takers.

Promoting “breed/breeder” hatred

Breeder is not a four-letter word. The takers will make it appear to be in the same context as child molester, rapist, murderer, or any number of heinous criminal activities. A breeder is a practitioner of the ancient, and noble art/science of animal husbandry. It is a legal business, and an admirable calling.  Without breeders we would have no dog breeds, nor would we have any of our domestic animal species. That is why breeders are so hated, and vilified by the takers. Their goal is a complete severance of the human/animal bond. Our dogs/animals are the product of our applied art/science. In the minds of the takers our animals are not worthy of life, as they are the product of our, their breeder’s, vision, and effort.

Accusing the defenders of doing whatever is true of themselves

As chairwoman of Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States, I was accused of being a shill for the animal industry. My accuser refused to divulge any information as to who, or what entity or group that she/he was fronting for.  It was obvious that this person was promoting an agenda of BSL, breeder licensing, and mandatory spay/neuter. It was a very slick and polished presentation.

Hide behind anonymity

Forums or blogs allow screen names to be used so as to hide the identity of the person who is commenting. The supporters of restrictive, and oppressive animal legislation tend not to use their real identity. I always use my own name, and I sign with all of my contact information. I want everyone who reads what I write to know that I have the courage of my convictions. I want everyone to know how to contact me should they want, or need any more information.

Claim to be experts, yet show no credentials

Having been involved in debates with the takers on public forums I always put forth all of my credentials. Any person who is promoting an agenda but refuses to divulge anything about them self on a professional level is not believable. These are the people that are filling blogs, and public forums with the takers agenda. They offer no credentials only a very polished presentation. The presentation hardly varies by a word or two from forum, to forum carried by a scripted anonymous army. Always ask who, or what organization that they represent. Ask why they hide behind the shield of anonymity if they are truly such advocates.

Attempt to discredit those defenders who do have credentials

Any defender who is accessible through running a search engine may be made the target of the attack. This person may be challenged on his/her physical appearance, choice of wearing apparel, and any number of things that have no bearing upon the subject matter of the discussion. I was asked if I was a member of the NRA. I did not respond. Neither the question, nor my answer would have been of any benefit to the topic under discussion. My personal website was brought into the discussion. It is important to recognize these tactics that are used to discredit us, it is a tactic to move the conversation away from the topic.

Isolate one defender to befriend, and another to denigrate.

A divide, and conquer technique is frequently utilized to distract the defenders. One defender may be befriended by one of those pushing the taker’s agenda, while several others may gang up on a different defender. This tactic is quite often very successfully used against novice defenders. 


 The animal lover

Example; “I have a pit bull, but I believe that they should all be spayed, and neutered, and the owners licensed. What are you afraid of?” The opening statement is an opinion. The question is an assumption that we are clinging to a baseless fear concerning the relinquishment of the ownership of our animal, and its reproductive organs.

The Victim

Animal taking zealots may employ a false victim to gain sympathy.  This person will call for a ban based upon a claim of having a friend, or a relative who was maimed, or killed by a “pit bull”.  This person is unable to give any provable facts when pinned down by a defender.


The “objective” person

May claim that he/she owns no dog, but agrees with the takers point of view.  Ignore this person. Why call attention to him/her? It does our side no good, and is a wasted effort. This is another distraction technique.

The sleeper agent

Disguises him/herself as an owner supporter when in fact he/she is an agent provocateur. This is Mr./Ms. Perfect who does everything by the book. You know the book.  It might be that cookbook with all of the perfect pictures that no real person in a real kitchen could ever replicate. Those photos are supposed to be reality, but no matter how hard we strive, we mere mortals will never create the false reality of Mr./Ms. Perfect.

The accuser

Animal taking zealots accuse breeders/owners of being irresponsible for not buying into the totalitarian propaganda of mandatory spay/neuter, breed bans, or mandatory breeder licensing.  The takers attack on a very personal level here. We must ask where the precedent for all of this taking of our animals comes from. We must ask where this has been in effect, and for proof that it works. San Mateo, Ca is the only place that comes to mind for setting a precedent on mandatory spay/neuter, and mandatory breeder licensing. The dog breeders compromised with the takers, and lost their rights. Even so, it is a dismal failure. Point it out after arming yourself with information. 

Animal taking zealots employ actions, and words to put animal owners on the defensive. That is okay; we are defending our ownership, and our use rights.


Debate openly

Do not hide behind anonymity.  Only those who are not open, and above board have need to hide behind the screen of anonymity, think Wizard of Oz. If you are honestly concerned about retaliation, do not join in a public forum, or blog.  Put a credential behind your name. If you belong to a dog club you can add “Member, Alpha Dog Club” behind your name. It lends credibility.

Stay on topic

It is very easy to be taken off track by a skilled activist agitator. They will ask personal questions. They will do, say, or write anything to devolve a logical defense into a free-for-all, name-calling debacle. Think before you write. Your response is not only going out to the agitator, it is going out to an audience that you want to educate.

Ignore personal attacks

Point out personal attacks that are directed at you, but refuse to lower yourself to defending them. Personal attacks that are made by strangers are diversions. Do no allow yourself to be diverted along a path of the attacker’s choosing. Use your free will. You get to choose how, and to whom to respond. Ignoring the attacker, and putting your point across strengthens your position.

Offer proof

Prove every point that you make when defending our position to retain our ownership and use rights. Never write, or say anything in a public forum that you cannot immediately prove. If in doubt, leave it out.

Use humor

Humor slays zealots, they do so want to be taken seriously. Ridicule, done as gentle humor brings a perspective that simple denial will not.  The humorist is generally perceived as having superior knowledge. He/she not only sees the joke, he/she shares it.


Never allow anger to take control over your writing, or speaking

It is okay to write, “This makes me angry.” It is not okay to allow anger to take you to a place that is harmful to the dog owner’s positive image.  Our detractors are portraying us as the out of mainstream fringe element. We are the only one’s who have the power to dispel the projected image.  Each individual dog owner is responsible for ensuring that he/she is perceived as a law abiding, respectable citizen who is concerned with public safety, as well as protecting the rights, and freedoms that are characterized in our Constitution.

Treat the enemy with politeness, and respect 

Give your adversary the benefit of being a fellow human being. Being polite and respectful, even after being verbally abused shows the general public that you are secure in your position. People will certainly forget your name, but they will always remember how you made them feel. When we are writing on a public forum, it is extremely important to make the entire readership feel comfortable with our point of view.  We must treat each person as though he/she were an invited guest that we want to share our message with.  Our objective is to win the hearts, and minds of the readers who are not posting. We are dealing with two different groups of people. We are firstly dealing with the promoters of the taking of our animals.  Secondly we are dealing with the average citizen who is not caught up in the struggle, but has no doubt been adversely affected by the urban myths that so permeate our society. We will never change the minds of the takers. That is not our objective. Our objective toward them is to blow huge gaping holes in their ideological arguments, so that the secondary group starts to have doubts about their agenda. Our next objective is to speak with logic, to prove our points, to bring in the laws that are on the books, and to persuade the citizens that we are more like them, than are the detractors. It is human nature to align with those who sound the most as they do.

Expose the lies, distortions, and myths

Do not enter into a battle of ideology that you have not made preparation to win. Before joining in a blog, or a public forum be prepared. The takers come prepared. They have read, and book-marked every book written about dog fighting, or fighting dogs. Richard Stratton’s books may be introduced into the discussion. He may be quoted as the final authority in order to bolster their position. They will apply his writing to not only the dogs that he writes about, they apply it to breeds that they have determined are “pit bulls”, and are not the dogs that Mr. Stratton has immortalized in his books. This ruse is meant to bring our side into discussing the books, and away from the topic. They assume that everyone who owns “pit bulls” has read Richard Stratton’s books. That is an erroneous assumption. I have not read his books. Having not read his books, I can neither confirm, nor deny any point that they are trying to establish by using quotes from his, or any other author’s book. I can only state with honesty that the opinions expressed in any book, are certainly those of the author.

Know your enemy

The dog takers have done their homework thoroughly. They expect that you have not. If you find yourself in over your head, then please depart before you cause harm.  Never write, or speak without giving considerable thought as to what you will say.  The takers will use every opportunity to twist your words into a meaning of their choosing.

Know yourself

You are the only expert on yourself. You know your strengths. Use them. You know your weak areas. Do not expose them. It is okay to say, ”I don’t know.” It is far better to admit that a topic is not your area of first hand knowledge, than to forge blindly onward and cause our side to lose ground. Always stay within your own personal comfort zone of knowledge, and information. That is where each of us is strongest.

Know the law

There is nothing more traditional than animal ownership, use, and animal husbandry. The rights that are enumerated under our Bill of Rights are not our only rights. Our framers created the Constitution, and our Bill of Rights not to be all-inclusive, but to lay the foundation of law for the people of our free nation. If they had tried to list every right, and every freedom that we the people might enjoy, then surely we would be restricted. Our rights, and our freedoms are bounded only by our moral, and social obligations to have a functional society. The framers were wise beyond their time, and beyond their worldly scope. To prevent any such similar takings of our traditional property, or our animals, and to prevent the cessation of any ancient, noble, and honorable profession such as animal husbandry, they wrote: AMENDMENT IX. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny, or disparage others retained by the people.AMENDMENT X.The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Besides these two Amendments that reaffirm our rights of traditional human occupations, we also have the right to be recompensed for any taking of our property. Our animal’s ovaries, and testicles belong to us. If the government is going to mandate a taking, it had better be prepared to PAY!!! To pay for the surgeries, for those citizens who will comply, to pay for loss of the viability of the animal, or to buy out the real property of the animal owner, whose right to its full use and enjoyment has been removed due to the government’s arbitrary removal of it purchased purpose.

Learn from every encounter

Do not join a blog, or public forum expecting to sway the animal taking extremists to our side. You will lose. They are equally as committed to their idealism, as we are committed to preserving our animals, their ownership, and our traditional animal husbandry practices. The objective is to put forward usable information that is backed up with proof, and to sway the people who are undecided.  The animal taking zealots have nothing that is tangible to take. They are pushing an ideology. We, on the other hand have the tangible, living, breathing, animals that count on us to protect them. Even though our animals have no way of knowing it, they are dependent upon us for the continuation of their breed, and their gene pool to survive into the future. We cannot succeed by entering into compromise agreements with the animal taking zealots. They have nothing to offer us from their ideology. We have everything to lose. The very worst thing that anyone from the animal owner side can do is to accept any part of the opposition’s ideology. That acceptance will grow like a malignancy until it engulfs us, and our dogs, and our traditions, our way of life, our freedoms, our past, our present, or our future.

Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
323922 N. Hwy. 2
Diamond Lake, WA 99156


American Staffordshire Terriers
“Home of the swinging, flying show dogs”


“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” —Marcus Aurelius

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Have you ever noticed that the animal rights movement wants to sell us all on imitations? They claim that meat is murder, fish is poison, fur is cruel, leather is something terrible, hunting, and fishing are torture, and want us to replace all of these ancient traditions with fake stuff that looks, smells, and supposedly tastes like the real thing. Is this truly abhorrence, or is it flattery? In my delicate sensibilities, I find fecal matter most abhorrent. I do not make things that look like, smell like, or taste like fecal matter. The animal rights movement touts foods that not only are shaped to look like meat, or seafood, smell like meat, or seafood, and taste like meat, or seafood, they want us to believe that it will save the world. Where is the logic in that? Are they going to plug a super volcano, or catch a stray asteroid with this stuff? They state that fake fur is so realistic it is difficult to tell from the real thing. If I really thought that wearing fur was murder, I would not wrap myself in an imitation, and talk about the glamour of faking something that I believed was akin to murder. Would you? Think about that the next time that you see an animal rights devotee flaunting their imitations. Leather? Why, oh why does imitation leather excite these people so much? Wouldn’t a cotton rope hold up their pants, and make more of a statement than a cheap piece of imitation leather? Why not wear woven grass shoes instead of plastic? Their feet would be able to breathe, and they would put less stress on the oil industry. Wait! I’m trying to apply logic to the animal rights movement. That is like trying to apply logic to the beliefs, and actions of a cult. No how, no way does logic fit into the equation of animal rights. The animal rights most devious imitation is their pretence of compassion for animals. Under the guise of compassion their ultimate goal is the abolition of all animal ownership, and use. Compassion does not have an agenda of annihilation. Real compassion for animals does not exploit them as the animal rights movement is so prone to do. Real compassion is caring, nurturing, and preserving. Real compassion is calm, steady, loving, educational, and generous. Real compassion is not confrontational, filled with lies, and geared toward destruction. Real compassion does not steal from the rightful owner. Real compassion looks like Mother Theresa, not like Ingrid Newkirk, Wayne Pacelle, or Tammy Grimes. The animal rights movement has a twelve step program (Hmmm, another imitation). Surely there is one or even two items with which you find that you can agree. This is how they hook people. We cannot look at a tiny portion, we must look at it as a whole, and see that taken all together it is poison. These are the twelve steps of the animal rights agenda. 1. Abolish by law all animal research. 2. Outlaw the use of animals for cosmetic and product testing, and classroom demonstration 3. Vegetarian meals should be at all public institutions, including schools. 4. Eliminate all animal agriculture. 5. Eliminate all herbicides, pesticides or other agricultural chemicals. Outlaw predator control 6. Transfer enforcement of animal welfare legislation away from the Department of Agriculture. 7. Eliminate fur ranching and the use of furs. 8. Prohibit hunting, trapping and fishing. 9. End the international trade in wildlife goods. 10. Stop any further breeding of companion animals, including purebred dogs and cats. Spaying and neutering should be subsidized by state and municipal governments until all companion animals are extinct. Abolish commerce in animals for the pet trade. Eliminate pet ownership. 11. End the use of animals in entertainment and sports (resulting in no horse shows, cat or dog shows, animal actors, rodeos, animal movie stars). 12. Prohibit the genetic manipulation of the species The great animal/agriculture industry is the backbone of our nation. It is the basis for our wealth, and for our ability to not only feed ourselves, but the world. It is the basis for our economy that makes us the richest nation on earth. It allows our great generosity to nations that do not have the ability to feed their people. Without the animal/agriculture industry our economy would collapse. Without research on animals veterinary medicine would make no advances, nor would human medicine. Hunting, trapping, and fishing are the most ancient of human traditions. Each gives us the ability to feed ourselves, or clothe ourselves. The trade in wildlife goods is as old as human kind. We human beings have practiced animal husbandry since before we became an agrarian society. Are you noticing that the entire animal rights agenda is about removing all of our most ancient and traditional ways of life? Before we had pesticides we had massive crop failures. We still have crop failures that are weather related, but we also have the ability to mass transport foods. We must never forget history. We must never give up our real humanity. The animal rights movement is not about compassion for animals, but about recreating humanity into a cheap imitation of the real thing. Since most people live in cities today, it is romantic to dream about a Utopian world where our ancient traditions, and skills are unnecessary. Food does not originate in supermarkets. We are just one super volcano eruption, or one major asteroid strike from being tossed out of technology back into self sufficiency. It behooves us to cherish our traditions, and to hone our skills. Any time in history that there have been conflicts there have been food shortages. Just because we live in the most abundant time in recorded history does not mean that it will last forever. Cherie Graves, chairwoman Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States

Compiled by BSLWorkshop 06′

Fort Smith decides against BSL Bald Knob-decides against BSL Shannon Hills-decides against BSL Searcy-decides against BSL Mulberry-decides against BSL 
ColoradoSB054-doesnt passGolden-decides against BSLEstes Park-decides against BSLNorthglenn-decides against BSLLaJunta-decides against BSLLayfayette-decides against BSLLongmont-decides against BSLParker decides against BSLRocky Ford-decides against BSLFederal Heights-decides against BSLWestminster-decides against BSL
DelawareNew Castle County-decides against BSL
GeorgiaFloyd County decides against BSLRockmart–decides against BSL
IllinoisKewanee-decides against BSLWaukegan-decides against BSLMcHenry County-decides against BSLNormal-decides against BSLNorthlake-removes BSL languagePaxton-decides against BSLForest-decides against BSLBloomington-decides against BSLWill County-decides against BSLChicago-decides against BSLNorth Chicago-decides against BSLLincolnshire-decides against BSLHodgkins-decides against BSL
IndianaAnderson-decides against BSL
IowaDavenport decides against BSLHumboldt- decides against BSLMason City-decides against BSLWaterloo-decides against BSL
Kansas Leavenworth-decides against BSLWitchita-decides against BSL
Frankfort -decides against BSLLietchfield-decides against BSLMilton-decides against BSLLincoln County-decides against BSLSpencer County-decides against BSLMiddlesboro-decides against BSLOldham County-decides against BSLPaintsville- decides against BSL LouisiannaGonzales decides against BSLLake Charles-decides against BSLSulpher-decides against BSL
MassachusettsSalem-decides against BSL
MissouriBelton-repealedBellfontaine Neighbors-decides against BSLOak Grove-decides against BSLUnionville-decides against BSLJennings-decides against BSL
New Jerseystate-TABLED
OhioLancaster-decides against BSLEast Palestine-decides against BSL
PennsylvaniaWilkes Barre-decides against BSLHazelton, Pennsylvania-decides against BSL
TennesseeBedford County-decides against BSLWoodbury- decides against BSL
TexasKilleen-decides againt BSL
WisconsinMadison decides againt BSL 


September 25, 2007



P.O. Box 1406  Newport, WA 99156Web Site E-mail US rdows@povn.comBlog  E-mail List Cherie Graves, Chairwoman, WA, (509) 447-2821Judy Schreiber-Dwornick, Assistant to the Chair, Director at Large, rdowsdirectoratlarge@gmail.comHermine Stover, Secretary, Press Liaison, CA, hermine@endangeredspecies.comArkansas Director, Roger Schnyer  cajun9@sbcglobal.netCalifornia Director, Jan Dykema bestuvall@sbcglobal.netIllinois Director, Elizabeth Pensgard bpensgard@yahoo.comIndiana Director, Charles Coffman candkcoffman@comcast.netIowa Director, Leisa Boysen rdows_iowa@yahoo.comMississippi Director, Dan Crutchfield farmer1@telepak.netNevada Director, Ken Sondej 4winds@viawest.netOhio Director, Tiffany Skotnicky ohdirrdows@yahoo.comOklahoma Director, Jade Harris

Tennessee Director, Gina Cotton

Texas Director, Alvin Crow

MISSION STATEMENTResponsible Dog Owners of the Western States was founded October 15, 1989.  The group’s name may be abbreviated R.D.O.W.S. It is a not for profit group.                                                            RDOWS MISSION IS TO PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC SERVICES

  • Provide speakers for dog clubs, service clubs, and community centers throughout the western states.
  • Have information booths at dog shows
  • Formulate alternative legislation to that which infringes upon the rights of people to own or utilize their dogs.
  • Attend council, commissioner, and committee meetings.
  • Conduct aggressive letter writing campaigns to city councils, county commissioners state legislatures, newspapers, magazines, TV, and radio stations.
  • Keep the dog owning public informed of any legislation directly concerning ownership and use of dogs.
  • Actively work to cause reasonable dog legislation to be enacted.
  • Oppose legislation that infringes upon any citizen’s right to responsibly own animals.
  • We actively fight legislation that undermines the right to own, show, hunt,  or breed dogs, including breeding bans, mandatory spay/neuter,  and breed specific codes or ordinances.
  • RDOWS promotes the responsible ownership, care, nurture, husbandry, and treatment of dogs. 


September 25, 2007

RESPONSIBLE OWNERS OF ARKANSAS DOGS, Inc.Roger Schnyer, ChairmanP.O. Box 18Lonoke Arkansas, 72086 phone (501-676-7582) e-mail  cajun9@sbcglobal.netWebsite SEPTEMBER  17, 2007 

Roger Schnyer, Chairman of Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs, said  “ROADs has incorporated, and set up a bank account with the purpose of posing a legal challenge to the Arkansas breed specific dog ordinances in Federal Court.  The attorney Andrew Clark of the firm Clark and Byarley has been retained to try the cases. Mr. Clark is preparing the cases, and will file the suits in Federal Court on our behalf, and will seek immediate injunctive relief for our plaintiffs who reside in Beebe, Lonoke, and Jacksonville. We expect that the cases will be filed the week of September 17th.” 

“The American Canine Foundation is lending its experience, and its body of case law to our challenge.  Dr. I. Lehr Brisbin will be among the expert witnesses, his testimony is invaluable to our case.  This team has been the most successful in prevailing in legal challenges against breed specific ordinances, and legislation since its inception in the United States.” 

ROADs, Inc. Chairman Roger Schnyer stated, “We know that other cities in Arkansas have enacted breed specific ordinances, too.  We just do not have the financial means to include all of them in our suits. When we prevail, it will automatically cause the other cities to have to repeal their breed specific ordinances. We are working hard for all Arkansas dog owners.”

Breed specific dog ordinances violate not only Constitutional rights, they violate civil rights. They are based upon discrimination, that discrimination is directed at the dog owner through his/her choice of dog.  They also violate a person’s right to be innocent until proven guilty in a Court of Law. Breed specific dog ordinances remove American citizen’s rights to due process. They also violate property rights. Breed specific dog ordinances take away the burden of proof being with the accuser, and placing it solely upon the accused. These are violations upon the most basic principles of American law.

“Dog owners in Beebe, Jacksonville, and Lonoke Arkansas are having their dogs confiscated, and killed by animal control based solely upon the dog’s physical appearance.  These owners are under the immediate threat of the loss of their dogs. Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs, Inc., needs your generous help in our fight to overturn Arkansas breed specific dog ordinances.  ROADs, Inc., does not profit from your donations. Legal challenges are expensive. We must bring in expert witnesses, and we must pay all filing fees, and attorney fees. The American Dog Breeders Association has agreed to match funds up to $5,000.00. Please help us protect your animal ownership, and animal husbandry rights.  We fight for your right to responsibly own any dog.”  Roger Schnyer said. 


                                                                                            Please make your checks payable to: Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs, Inc.and mail to;Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs, Inc.C/O Arvest Bank P.O. Box 57

Cabot Arkansas 72023

Or donate by PayPal

  Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs Inc. is a proud affiliate of Responsible Dog Owners of The Western States