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 https://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

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? Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

Editor’s note: While we won’t post Fort Carson’s unnecessarily snarky, PR-machine generated response to our initial letter to them, we will post our response to their response. Suffice it to say there was no need for the tone they took with us, and there was certainly no excuse for treating tax paying members of the public this way. We civilians pay their salary do we not? As such I think it perfectly within bounds to demand an explanation when our own military treats our soldiers so shabbily.

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 https://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. Read the rest of this entry »

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 https://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? Read the rest of this entry »

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 https://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! Read the rest of this entry »

What is an American?

July 4, 2008

What is an American?
From “Letters from an American Farmer” (1782) by emigrant J. Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur

…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. Read the rest of this entry »

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. Read the rest of this entry »

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

To:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mary Schaeffer, Finance Director, finedogs@hotmail.com

California Director, Jan Dykema bestuvall@sbcglobal.net

Illinois Director, Elizabeth Pensgard bpensgard@yahoo.com

Indiana Director, Charles Coffman candkcoffman@comcast.net

Iowa Director, Leisa Boysen rdows_iowa@yahoo.com

Mississippi Director, Dan Crutchfield farmer1@telepak.net

Nevada Director, Ken Sondej 4winds@viawest.net

Ohio Director, Tiffany Skotnicky ohdirrdows@yahoo.com

Oklahoma Director, Jade Harris aadrlegislation@yahoo.com

Tennessee Director, Gina Cotton ginacotton@msn.com

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

OPPOSITION STATEMENT TO WASHINGTON HB 2511

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

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

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

(See, Tufts: Filling Empty Shelters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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