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 »

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

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. Read the rest of this entry »

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

Mary Schaeffer, Finance Director, finedogs@hotmail.com

Arkansas 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 aadrlegislation@yahoo.com

Tennessee Director, Gina Cotton ginacotton@msn.com

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

************************************************************************
4/12/2007 Letter and info packet to Coeur D’ Alene, ID Mayor concerning proposed BSL
4/14/2007 Letter and info packet and NY State law to Upper Brookville, NY concerning proposed BSL.
4/14/2007 Letter and info packet to Springfield, MO Mayor and Council concerning proposed revocation of BSL
4/15/2007 Letter and info packet to Lexington, NE Mayor and council concerning proposed BSL.
4/15/2007 Letter and info packet to Poulsbo, WA Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
4/16/2007 Letter, info packet and Texas State law prohibiting BSL to DeSoto, TX  Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL
4/16/2007 Letter to Editor Daily Iberian newspaper concerning the ramifications of dangerous dog laws
4/16/2007 Response of thanks for letter and info packet from Councilwoman Sue Frank of Raytown, MO
4/16/2007 Letter and info packet to Wichita, KS Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL
4/17/2007 Response from Coeur D’Alene Mayor Sandi Bloem thanking RDOWS for letter, and info packet.
4/20/2007 Letter to Payette County, Idaho seeking confirmation of public notice of countywide BSL prior to its enactment
4/20/2007 Letter, and info packet to Payette County, ID County Commissioners concerning their enactment of  BSL.
4/22/2007 Letter and info packet to Manhattan, KS Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
4/22/2007 Letter to Commissioner Larry Church, Payette County, ID demanding an apology for his statement on KTVB News. -No Response-
4/25/2007 Letter and info packet to St. Paul, MN Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
4/25/2007 Response from St. Paul thanking RDOWS for info packet and Model Dog Owner Regulations.
4/26/2007 Response from St. Paul, MN Mayor’s office thanking RDOWS for info packet and Model Dog Owner Regulations.
4/26/2007 Letter and info packet to Franklin County, Maine concerning proposed changes in their dog laws.
4/26/2007 Letter and info packet to Bluefield, WV Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
4/26/2007 Letter to Editor Town Crier Manila, AR concerning Manila’s proposed BSL
4/27/2007 Another letter to Manhattan, KS Mayor, and Council concerning proposed BSL
4/27/2007 Letter to Manila AR Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL
4/27/2007 Received letter of thanks from Councilman Bob Strawn of Manhattan, KS.
4/27/2007 Letter and info packet to Centerville, IA Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL
4/28/2007 Letter of opposition, and info packet  to Dorchester County, SC concerning PeTA’s request to the County Government to pass BSL.
4/28/2007 Created and distributed a flier to oppose CA AB1634
4/30/2007 Received letter of thanks from Manhattan, KS Councilman Jim Sherow.
4/30/2007 Letter, and info packet to Canton, MA Town Clerk, and Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/2/2007 Letter and info packet to Somerville, MA Mayor and Board of Aldermen concerning proposed BSL.
5/2/2007 Received letter of thanks from Dorchester County, SC Councilman Richard H. Rosebrock.
5/2/2007 Letter and info packet to Massachusetts Legislature Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government concerning proposed BSL.
5/2/2007 Letter and info packet to Baltimore County, MD Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/2/2007 Letter, and info packet to Springdale, AR Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL
5/3/2007 Received letter of thanks from Marcie Goodman, Legislative Aide to Baltimore County Councilman T. Bryan McIntire.
5/3/2007 Letter and info packet to State of Massachusetts Legislature Committee concerning changes in the state’s dog laws.
5/3/2007 Letter, and info packet to Lonoke, AR Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/3/2007 Letter to Renee Lee at Houston Chronicle concerning Texas Senator Rodney Ellis proposed BSL for Houston.
5/4/2007 Letter and info packet to Tennessee Legislature concerning proposed changes in the state’s dog laws.
5/4/2007 Letter and info packet to Ashland City, TN Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/4/2007 Letter and info packet to Tuttle, OK Mayor, and Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/4/2007 Letter and info packet to Shelby, MS City attorney Jeffrey Livingston concerning proposed BSL.
5/4/2007 Letter and info packet to Bella Vista, AR concerning proposed changes in their dog laws.
5/5/2007 Letters and info packets to the entire Alabama Legislature concerning protecting dog ownership rights.
5/6/2007 Letters and info packets to the Leaders of the Massachusetts State Senate concerning proposed BSL.
5/6/2007 Letter to the editor Cleveland Plain Dealer concerning proposed BSL
5/7/2007 Created and distributed RDOWS Position Statement on CA AB1634
5/8/2007 Letter and info packet to Albert Lea, MN Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/9/2007 Letter and info packet to Jackson County MS Board of Supervisors concerning proposed changes in county dog laws.
5/9/2007 Letter and info packet to Batesville, AR Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/9/2007 Letter and info packet to Quitman County, GA Commissioners concerning proposed BSL.
5/10/2007 Letter and info packet to Batesville, MS concerning proposed BSL.
5/10/2007 Letter to reporter V. Roley at Mississippi Press concerning Batesville, MS proposed BSL.
5/10/2007 Letter of opposition to the North Carolina General Assembly concerning SB92.
5/11/2007 Letter and info packet to Jackson County, MS Board of Supervisors concerning proposed BSL.
5/12/2007 Letter to reporter George Knapp KLAS-TV Las Vegas concerning his two part report on Black Market Dog Breeders.
5/14/2007 Letter and info packet to Benton, KY Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/14/2007 Letter and info packet to Marion County, WV County Commissioners concerning proposed BSL.
5/16/2007 Letter and info packet to Jacksonville, AR Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/16/2007 Letter and info packet to Hutchinson, KS Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/16/2007 Letter and info packet to Gainesville, GA Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/16/2007 Response of thanks from Jill Young, City Managers office Gainesville GA.
5/16/2007 Letter and info packet to Lorain, OH Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/17/2007 Letter and info packet to Long Beach, MS Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL
5/17/2007 Four word response from Alderman Robert Stroud of Jacksonville, AR.
5/18/2007 Letter and info packet to Marion County, WV Commissioners concerning proposed changes in county dog laws.
5/18/2007 Letter from Linda Dulaney City Clerk’s Office Jacksonville, AR stating that she didn’t have Jacksonville’s newly enacted BSL in her computer, and couldn’t e-mail it to RDOWS.
5/19/2007 Letter and info packet to Hesperia, CA Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/19/2007 Letter and info packet to Ansonia, CT Mayor James T. Della Volpe concerning proposed BSL.
5/20/2007 Letter and info packet to Mayor and Metro Council East Baton Rouge Parish, LA concerning proposed BSL
5/20/2007 Letter to Merritt Clifton asking for a definition of “pit bull”.
5/20/2007 Response from Merritt Clifton
“People like to split hairs over breed definitions.I’m not interested in that kind of game-playing.  I have kept separate logs for the different breeds people claim dogs are,  but broad categorizations are much more meaningful”
5/20/2007 Response from Councilman Pat Culbertson East Baton Rouge Parish.
5/21/2007 Letter and info packet to Fairfield. OH Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/21/2007 Letter to Daviess County, KY Fiscal Court concerning proposed BSL.
5/21/2007 Letter opposing CA AB1634 to most California newspapers.
5/22/2007 Dog Politics posted RDOWS List of banned/restricted breeds http://dogpolitics.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/05/list_of_banned_.html
5/22.2007 Sent RDOWS Position Statement on CA AB 1634 to the entire California General Assembly
5/23/2007 Letter and info packet to Spaulding County, GA Commissioners concerning proposed BSL.
5/23/2007 Letter and info packet to Lawrence County TN Commissioners concerning proposed BSL.
5/23/2007 The Conservative Voice published “The Animal Rights Myth of Pet Overpopulation” by Cherie Graves http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/25351.html
5/23/2007 Letter to News Editor at KSBI-TV concerning errors in its reporting.
5/23/2007 Letter and info packet to Kern County, CA Commissioners concerning proposed M S/N.
5/29/2007 Letter and info packet to Cabot, AR Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/29/2007 Letter, and info packet to Portage, WI Common Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/29/2007 Yet another letter to the Indianapolis, IN Metro-Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/31/2007 Letter, info packet, and copy of New York State Law pre-empting BSL to Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
6/1/2007 Letter to Cliff Albert, radio personality who supported passage of CA AB1634 on air.
6/2/2007 Letter and info packet to League City, TX Mayor and Council concerning proposed changes in their dog laws.
6/4/2007 Received letter of thanks from League City, TX Councilwoman Phyllis Sanborn.
6/5/2007 Letter and info packet to Marshfield, MA Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
6/6/2007 RDOWS Secretary and Media Liaison wrote to CA Representative Lloyd Levine opposing CA AB 1634.
6/7/2007 Letter and info packet to the Town of Rolla, MO Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
6/7/2007 Letter and info packet to Little Rock, AR Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
6/13/2007 Letter, info packet, Model Dog Owner Regulations and Illinois state law prohibiting BSL to the Village of Crossville, IL Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
6/14/2007 Story concerning Crossville’s illegal BSL in Carmi-Times;  http://www.carmitimes.com/articles/2007/06/14/news/news2.txt
6/14/2007 Letter, and Texas state law prohibiting to El Paso, TX Mayor and Council concerning news report of proposed BSL.
6/14/2007 Letter to Minnesota Representative John Lesch concerning his proposed Bill to ban five, or more breeds of dogs in Minnesota.
6/15/2007 Received response from Karla Parra Legislative Aide to El Paso, TX Councilwoman Melina Castro saying the news report of proposed BSL in El Paso was in error.
6/15/2007 Letter and info packet to the Town of Hampton Falls, NH Mayor and Board of Selectmen concerning proposed BSL.
6/15/2007 Sent copy of Minnesota Constitution Article 1. Bill of Rights to Representative John Lesch of Minnesota.
6/15/2007 Letter to reporter Furst at the Post-Bulletin concerning Re. John Lesch’s proposed BSL.
6/16/2007 Letter and info packet to town of Beebe, AR Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
6/16/2007 Sent copy of Arkansas Bill of Rights to Mayor and Council Beebe, AR.
6/16/2007 Letter and info packet to the city of Cabot, AR. Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
6/18/2007 Letter and info packet to the town of Phillipsburg, NJ concerning proposed BSL.
6/19/2007 Letter and info packet to Warden, WA Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
6/19/2007 Dexter, MO Board of Aldermen Table BSL;  http://www.dailystatesman.com/story/1218243.html
6/19/2007 Letter to Dexter, MO thanking Board of Aldermen for tabling BSL, and seeking alternative legislation.
 6/19/2007 Letter and info packet to New Florence, MO Mayor and Board of Aldermen concerning proposed BSL.
6/20/2007 Second letter, and copy of Pennsylvania’s BSL pre-emption by state law to Phillipsburg, PA Mayor, and Council concerning their attempt to enact BSL.
6/21/2007 Letter to California Senator Jenny Oropeza thanking her for opposing CA AB1634.
6/21/2007 Second letter to Phillipsburg, NJ with copy of New Jersey state law pre-empting BSL concerning their attempted enactment of BSL.
6/21/2007 Letter and info packet to Paris, AR Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
6/23/2007 Letter to Editor St. Cloud Times (MN) http://www.sctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070623/OPINION/106230032/1006/NEWS01
6/28/2007 Letter to East Baton Rouge Parish requesting a copy of their BSL ordinance. NO RESPONSE
6/28/2007 Letter to North Adams, MA Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
6/28/2007 Letter, and copy of Illinois state law pre-empting BSL to the Village of Plainfield, IL concerning their proposed BSL.
6/29/2007 Received letter of thanks from North Adams, MA Councilman Chris Tremblay.
6/30/2007 Letter to Village of Westville, IL Mayor and Board of Trustees with Illinois state law to show that BSL violates Illinois state law.
7/1/2007 Letter and info packet to Dover, DE Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
7/4/2007 Indianapolis Mayor Backs off Breed Ban; http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070704/LOCAL19/707040443/-1/LOCAL17
7/4/2007 Letter and info packet to Pascagoula, MS Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
7/4/2007 Letter and info packet to Sulphur, LA Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
7/4/2007 Manhattan, KS: No BSL For Now; http://www.themercury.com/News/article.aspx?articleId=2d925de1834d42a9bf69879785cdf2c2
7/4/2007 Letter from Sulphur, LA Councilwoman Nancy Tower thanking RDOWS for info, and requesting that the packet be sent to Coty Attorney Skipper Drost. We did.
7/5/2007 Crossville, IL Rescinds Pit Bull Ban: http://www.carmitimes.com/articles/2007/07/05/news/news2.txt
7/7/2007 Letter and info packet to Rolla, MO Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
7/10/2007 Letter and info packet to Canton, OH Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
7/10/2007 Letter, info packet, and Pennsylvania state law pre-empting BSL to Reading, PA concerning proposed BSL.
7/10/2007 Letter and info packet to Selma, AL Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
7/11/2007  Received letter from Selma, AL Councilwoman Dr. Geraldine Allen thanking RDOWS for the info packet.
7/11/2007 Faxed letter to California Senators Tom McClintock and Cox concerning RDOWS opposition to CA AB1634.
7/13/2007 Letter and info packet to Sumter County, SC Administrator and Council concerning proposed changes in county’s dog laws.
7/13/2007 Letter to Jon Provost thanking him for testifying in opposition to CA AB1634.
7/14/2007 RDOWS in Greg Sellnow’s Column; http://postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=41&a=299998
7/16/2007 Letter to LA Times concerning CA AB1634.
7/18/2007 Letter to Washington state Representative Tom Campbell thanking him for re-introducing the non-discrimination insurance Bill HB1105 into Washington’s legislative session.
7/19/2007 Letter to Frostburg, MD Mayor and Commissioners concerning proposed BSL.
7/19/2007 Letter and info packet to Greenville, MS Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
7/21/2007 Letter to Montclair, NJ Mayor and Council concerning proposed anti-tethering law.
7/22/2007 Letter to Atlanta Journal Constitution to set the record straight on Fallacy filled article.
7/25/2007 RDOWS Arkansas Director, and Chairman of Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs (ROADs) Inc. did a television interview with FOX affiliate in Little Rock that was broadcast at 5:00 PM, 6:00 PM, and 9:00 PM concerning the breed specific dog laws in Arkansas, and the upcoming legal challenge.
7/25/2007 Letter of thanks to Sandra Kirk of FOX 16 Little Rock for Roger Schnyer’s interview.
7/25/2007 Letter to the Oklahoma State Legislature opposing Representative Paul Wesselhoft’s proposed Felony Dog Bite Bill.
7/26/2007 Letter to the Ohio State Legislature opposing HB 189 Ohio’s Proposed Dangerous Dog Bill.
7/27/2007 Letter, info packet and PA State Law pre-empting BSL to Exeter Township, PA Chairman, and Board of Supervisors concerning proposed BSL.
7/29/2007 Letter of thanks from Oklahoma Representative Earl Sears.
7/30/2007 Letter, and info packet to Laurel, MS Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
7/30/2007 Letter and info packet to Corinth, MS Mayor and Board of Aldermen concerning proposed BSL.
7/30/2007 Letter, and info packet to Clinton, MS Mayor and Board of Aldermen concerning proposed BSL.
7/30/2007 Letter and info packet to Richland MS. Mayor and Board of Aldermen concerning proposed BSL.
7/30/2007 Letter and info packet mailed to Spencer, SD Mayor and Council concerning the passage of BSL. NO RESPONSE
7/30/2007 Letter to Jackson, MS Mayor and Board of Aldermen concerning proposed BSL.
7/30/2007 Letter, and info packet to Marion SD Mayor and Council concerning the enactment of BSL.
7/31/2007 Letter and info packet to Beebe AR Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
8/2/2007 Letter to Ohio Supreme Court concerning Tellings decision.
8/7/2007 Letter and info packet to Hartford City, IN Mayor and Common Council concerning proposed BSL.
8/8/2007 Letter and info packet to McFarland, KS City Attorney Norbert Marek concerning proposed BSL.
8/8/2007 Letter and info packet to Sweetwater, TN Mayor and Commission concerning proposed BSL.
8/9/2007 Letter and info packet to Monterey, TN Mayor and Board of Aldermen concerning proposed BSL.
8/11/2007 Letter and info packet to Wichita, KS Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
8/12/2007 Received letter of thanks from Wichita, KS Councilman Jim Skelton.
8/12/2007 Letter and info packet to Rogers, AR Mayor and Board of Aldermen concerning proposed BSL.
8/12/2007 Second letter, and info packet to Dover DE concerning proposed BSL.
8/13/2007 Roger Schnyer attended Ward, AR City Council meeting. The Ward Council voted to not enact BSL.
8/14/2007 Received letter from Wichita, KS Councilwoman Sharon Fearey thanking RDOWS for info packet.
8/15/2007 DOG BAN REJECTED IN WARD;  http://www.arkansasleader.com/2007/08/top-story-dog-ban-rejected-in-ward.html
8/19/2007 RDOWS REPORTS NEW DIRECTORS AND OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
8/20/2007 RDOWS corresponds with reporter Ruben Rosario of the St. Paul MN Pioneer Press concerning Representative John Lesch’s proposed breed ban in Minnesota.
9/4/2007 Received letter from Ohio Supreme Court acknowledging receipt of RDOWS letter.
9/6/2007 Letter and info packet to Arkadelphia, AR Mayor and Board of Directors concerning proposed BSL.
9/7/2007 Letter and info packet to Youngstown, Ohio Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
9/7/2007 Letter and info packet to Cincinnati, Ohio Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
9/8/2007 Letter to Florida Representative Perry E, Thurston concerning RDOWS opposition to HB 101 a Bill to overturn Florida’s state level BSL pre-emption.
9/8/2007 Letter to New Jersey Senator James “Sonny” McCullough concerning BSL.
9/11/2007 Received letter from Cincinnati, OH Councilwoman Y. Laketa Cole, president Pro-tem thanking RDOWS for info packet.
9/12/2007 Received letter from Cincinnati Councilman Leslie Ghiz thanking RDOWS for info packet.
9/13/2007 RDOWS sends letter of thanks to American Dog Breeders Association, Inc. for all of their help and support.
9/13/2007 Letter of request to Beebe AR for a copy of their BSL ordinance. NO RESPONSE
9/17/2007 Letter and info packet to Takoma Park. MD Mayor and Board of Aldermen concerning proposed BSL.
9/19/2007 Letter and info packet to Mr. Phil Eldridge, Esq. City Attorney for Geneva County, Alabama concerning proposed BSL.
9/21/2007 Letter and info packet to Canfield, Ohio Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
9/22/2007 Letter and info packet to Youngstown, Ohio Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
9/23/2007 Letter and info packet to Sandusky, Ohio Mayor and Board of Commissioners concerning proposed BSL.
9/24/2007 Received a letter of thanks to RDOWS from Sandusky, OH Commissioner Dan Kaman.
9/24/2007 Letter to Baltimore County, MD Executive, and County Council concerning proposed BSL.
9/24/2007 Letter to Halls, TN Mayor Trent McManus concerning proposed BSL.
9/24/2007 RDOWS TOOLS FOR THE ENDANGERED DOG OWNER: https://rdows.wordpress.com/2007/09/25/rdows-tools-for-the-endangered-dog-owner-2/
9/25/2007 Request to reprint TOOLS FOR THE ENDANGERED DOG OWNER from Denise Groenwald, President GSDC of North Georgia -Permission granted
9/25/2007 Letter and info packet to Jackson County NC Chairman and Board of Commissioners concerning proposed BSL.
9/26/2007 Letter to Abbeville, LA Mayor and Council concerning a newspaper report of possible BSL.
10/1/2007 BSL LEADS TO UNSPEAKABLE CRUELTY; https://rdows.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/breed-specific-legislation-leads-to-unspeakable-cruelty/
10/1/2007 Letter, Illinois State Law and info packet to Johnston City, IL Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
10/2/2007 Letter, and info packet to Nebraska senator Vickie McDonald who proposed changes in Nebraska’s dog laws.
10/2/2007 Received letter from Nebraska Senator Vickie McDonald’s Senior Legislative Aide Mikki McCann assuring RDOWS that Senator McDonald is not interested in introducing BSL, and that the Senator understands the need to hold dog owners responsible for the care, training and control of their animals.
10/8/2007 Letter and info packet to Mayor Robert “Bob” Morris of Somerville, TN concerning their BSL.
10/8/2007 Letter and info packet to Dyer, TN Mayor and Council concerning enacted BSL.
10/9/2007 Letter, and info packet to Councilman Tim Pape of Fort Wayne, IN concerning proposed changes to their dog laws.
10/11/2007 TRUTHS FROM RDOWS; https://rdows.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/nathan-winograd%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9credemption-the-myth-of-pet-overpopulation-and-the-no-kill-revolution-in-america%e2%80%9d-and-the-concept-of-nativism/
10/15/2007 Letter to Illinois Senator Martin Sandoval concerning his breed specific comments anti-Illinois State level pre-emption against BSL.
10/20/2007 Letter to Liz Wiehl at Fox News concerning mandatory spay/neuter.
10/27/2007 Letter, and RDOWS Model Dog Owner Regulations to Wabash, Indiana City Council concerning proposed changes in their dog law.
10/29/2007 https://rdows.wordpress.com/2007/10/29/civil-rights-threatened-by-dangerous-dog-laws-and-breed-specific-legislation-2/
10/29/2007 Letter to WWE concerning the inappropriate use of rottweiler photos.
11/01/2007 Letter, and Model Dog Owner Regulations to Salem, TN concerning proposed BSL.
11/03/2007 https://rdows.wordpress.com/2007/11/03/pit-bulls-believing-the-big-lie/
11/03/2007 Letter, and Model Dog Owner Regulations to South Sioux City, NE concerning proposed BSL.
11/06/2007 Letter to Ohio Representative Shawn Webster concerning Ohio HB366, proposing RDOWS Model Dog Owner Regulations instead of DDL.
11/07/2007 Letter to The Honorable Judge Elizabeth Doyle concerning the Tammy Grimes Trial.
11/07/2007 California Director Jan Dykema wrote letter to Reporter Tony Lopez at KOVR-TV explaining dog show terminology.
11/08/2007 Letter, and Model Dog Owner Regulations to Hazel Park, Michigan Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
11/09/2007 Letter, Texas State Dog Laws, and Model Dog Owner Regulations to Copperas Cove, Texas concerning proposed BSL.
11/11/2007 Responded to request from Sulphur, LA to comment on their proposed anti-tethering ordinance. RDOWS sent P.S. on Containment. The Ordinance did not pass.
11/12/2007 Letter, Illinois State Dog Laws, and Model Dog Owner Regulations to the Village of Merriam Woods, IL. Concerning their proposed BSL.
11/16/2007 Letter, Illinois State Dog Laws, and Model Dog Owner Regulations to The Village of Burnham, IL. Concerning proposed BSL.
11/16/2007 Letter, and Model Dog Owner Regulations to Tennessee State Senator Tim Burchett concerning his proposal that Knox County pass BSL.
11/17/2007 Letter, and Model Dog Owner Regulations to Knox County, TN Board of Commissioners, including letter to Senator Burchett.
11/17/2007 Letter, and copy of the Illinois Bill of Rights to the Village of Burnham concerning Home Rule.
12/01/2007 Letter, and Model Dog Owner Regulations to Mark Jones Director of Knox County, TN Health Department concerning proposed BSL.
12/03/2007 Letter, and Model Dog Owner Regulations to The city of Rockwood, Tennessee concerning proposed BSL.
12/03/2007 Letter, and copy of Spokane Superior Court Decision finding Spokane’s DDL unconstitutional to Little Rock, Arkansas Mayor and Council.
12/05/2007 Letter, and Model Dog Owner Regulations to The City of Shannon Hills, Arkansas concerning their current BSL.
12/06/2007 Letter, and Model Dog Owner Regulations to CITY OF EDDYVILLE, IOWA, concerning proposed BSL
12/06/2007 Letter, and Model Dog Owner Regulations to Blount County, Tennessee concerning their proposed BSL.
12/11/2007 Letter, and copy of Spokane Superior Court decision finding Spokane’s DDL unconstitutional to South Sioux City, Nebraska.
12/16/2007 https://rdows.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/setting-the-record-straight-for-ab1634-californias-un-healthy-pet-act/
12/17/2007 https://rdows.wordpress.com/2007/12/17/shelter-dog-or-pure-bred-select-your-dog-with-care/
12/18/2007 Letter, Copy of Illinois State Dog Laws, Model Dog Owner Regulations to Farmington, IL concerning proposed BSL.
12/22/2007 Letter to reporter Tom Henry of the Toledo Blade concerning the Tellings case.
12/31/2007 Letter to Linda Satter Arkansas Federal Court reporter for Arkansas on Line thanking her for her excellent coverage of ROADS, inc.’s Federal Lawsuit against Lonoke, Beebe, North Little Rock, and Jacksonville, AR.
 

 RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS OF THE WESTERN STATES

 

P.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.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 aadrlegislation@yahoo.com

Tennessee Director, Gina Cotton ginacotton@msn.com

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

 

Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States (RDOWS) was formed October 15, 1989 to protect the civil rights, Constitutional rights, and interests of dog owners. We the members of the Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States  find that the intent of the amendments SA 3723, and SA 3500 of H.R. 2419 (see below) is to destroy traditional animal husbandry practices of pet animals in the United States of America, and is a legislated attack upon the pet animal industry in the United States of America.

The pet animal industry pumps a very healthy $50 billion dollars annually into our economy. Congress should be working to protect the pet animal industry, not to destroy it. We further determine that this amendment, formerly known as the Pet Animal Welfare Act has nothing to do with the welfare of animals. If passed, the amendment will effectively remove the care and nurture of pet animals from the security of our homes and force breeders to raise animals in an institutional environment that is not conducive to a sound well socialized animal. 

RDOWS by issuing this opposition statement is formally adding our credentials, and support to other organizations,  that stand in opposition to amendment SA 3500, and SA 3723 of H.R. 2419.

Below are the enumerated reasons that the RDOWS stands firmly in opposition to amendment SA 3500, and SA 3723 of H.R. 2419.

1.) The Amendments would limit breeders  to an arbitrary number of animals that may be sold in a given year without having a USDA approved facility. That number is 25 animals, or six litters in any given year. One pup, or one kitten over those numbers,  and the breeder/rescuer will be subject to build a USDA approved building.  This will lead to numerous healthy animals being killed to avoid compliance with federal law. These arbitrary numbers could be amended far lower in the future with no public notice, debate, or input.

2.) Calls for third party inspectors from non-profit organizations in private homes. This is a giving over of police powers to a non-governmental organization.

3.) Reclassifies hobby breeders as dealers, and holds them to a set of care, and housing laws, and regulations that are not yet written. This is in direct violation of the Bill of Rights, Amendment IV.

4.)  Proposes to regulate on a federal level that which is best left to each state, and locale.

5.) The existing Animal Welfare Act is more than sufficient to deal with the real problems of animal neglect and over use. 

6.) The amendment is supported by animal rights groups whose stated goals are not the care, and nurture of pet animals, but their total abolition from the ownership, care and use of the people.  Amendment SA 3500, and Amendment 3723 of H.R. 2419 takes the animal rights zealots several steps closer to their goal.

7.) The American Kennel Club’s data banks, and registry records will be made accessible to the USDA. The USDA will have access to the home addresses, telephone numbers, and breed information of every breeder that registers their dogs with the AKC.

8.) The Amemdments allow not-for profit groups to import animals from foreign nations into the United States unchecked. These animals are already being imported in vast numbers  bringing in diseases that are not indemic to the USA, and  for which we have no medical protocols. Shelters are being shut down all across the nation to stop the spread of these diseases brought in with these animals. An 11 year old California boy was bitten by an imported shelter dog, contracted a strain of rabies that resisted all treatment, and died. It is not only extremely irresponsible to allow for the unchecked importation of animals by non-profit groups it is a national health threat. 

9.) These amendments are a direct violation of our rights of commerce.

10.) These amendments violate our right to travel unimpeded upon our legitimate business.

In conclusion Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States states that there can be no workable compromise to amendment SA 3500, ans Amendment SA 3723 of H.R. 2419.  RDOWS stands firmly in the position that the existing Pet Animal Welfare Act is sufficient, if enforced,  to control breeders, and animal dealers as it was passed in 2003.


SA 3723. Mr. DURBIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3500 proposed by Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. BAUCUS, and Mr. GRASSLEY) to the bill H.R. 2419, to provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

    On page 1362, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:

   SEC. 11072. REGULATION OF THE PET INDUSTRY.

    (a) High-Volume Retailers and Importers.–

    (1) IN GENERAL.–The Animal Welfare Act is amended by adding after section 19 (7 U.S.C. 2149) the following:

   “SEC. 20. REGULATION OF HIGH-VOLUME RETAILERS AND IMPORTERS.

    “(a) Definitions.–In this section:

    “(1) CERTIFIED THIRD-PARTY INSPECTOR.–The term `certified third-party inspector’ means a nonprofit organization certified by the Secretary in accordance with subsection (d).

    “(2) IMPORTER.–The term `importer’ has the same meaning as the term `regulated person’, except that the term also includes any person that imports into the United States any dog or cat for resale.

    “(3) REGULATED PERSON.–

    “(A) IN GENERAL.–The term `regulated person’ means any person who in commerce, for compensation or profit, delivers for transportation, or transports, except as a carrier, buys, or sells, or negotiates the purchase or sale of–

    “(i) any dog or other animal (whether alive or dead) for research, teaching, or exhibition;

    “(ii) any dog or cat (whether alive or dead) at wholesale or retail; or

    “(iii) any dog or cat imported into the United States for resale.

    “(B) EXCEPTIONS.–The term `regulated person’ does not include–

    “(i) a retail pet store, except for a retail pet store that sells–

    “(I) any animal to a research facility, an exhibitor, or a regulated person; or

    “(II) any dog or cat imported into the United States directly by the retail pet store;

    “(ii) any animal shelter, rescue organization, or other person that does not operate for profit; or

    “(iii) any person that–

    “(I) sells dogs and cats only at retail;

    “(II) does not import dogs and cats for resale; and

    “(III)(aa) sells not more than the total number of dogs and cats described in subparagraph (C); or

    “(bb) in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary, is determined to be in compliance with the standards of a third-party inspector certified under subsection (d).

    “(C) DESCRIPTION.–The number of dogs and cats referred to in subparagraph (B)(iii)(III)(aa) is not more than–

    “(i) a total of 25 dogs and cats not bred or raised on the premises of the seller during a calendar year; or

    “(ii)(I) the number of dogs and cats bred or raised during a calendar year on the premises of the seller and sold directly at retail to persons who purchase the dogs and cats for personal use and enjoyment and not for resale, provided that the total number sold during a calendar year is not more than the greater of 25 dogs and cats or the dogs and cats from not more than 6 litters; and

    “(II) a total of 25 other dogs and cats not bred or raised on the premises of the seller during the calendar year.

    “(4) RETAIL.–The term `retail’ means any sale that is not at wholesale.

    “(5) RETAIL PET STORE.–

    “(A) IN GENERAL.–The term `retail pet store’ means a retail business establishment that–

    “(i) maintains a physical premises that is open to the public; and

    “(ii) sells pet animals directly to the public from the retail business premises.

    “(B) EXCLUSION.–The term `retail pet store’ does not include–

    “(i) a person breeding dogs or cats to sell at wholesale or retail; or

    “(ii) a person importing dogs or cats from outside the United States for resale.

    “(6) WHOLESALE.–The term `wholesale’ means the sale of an animal for resale.

    “(b) Treatment of Regulated Persons.–The Secretary shall treat a regulated person in the same manner that the Secretary treats a dealer under this Act.

    “(c) Alternative Licensing Option.–The Secretary may issue a license under section 3 to a regulated person that deals in dogs or cats if the regulated person–

    “(1) has demonstrated that the facilities of the regulated person comply with standards promulgated by the Secretary in accordance with section 13; or

    “(2) has demonstrated in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary that the facilities of the regulated person comply with standards established by a certified third-party inspector.

    “(d) Third-Party Inspectors.–

    “(1) REGULATIONS.–

    “(A) IN GENERAL.–Not later than 36 months after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations under which the Secretary may certify nonprofit organizations that the Secretary determines to have standards and inspection protocols that are at least as protective of animal welfare as those promulgated by the Secretary in accordance with section 13(a)(2).

    “(B) REQUIREMENTS.–Regulations promulgated under subparagraph (A) shall–

    “(i) establish procedures under which the Secretary may certify third-party inspectors, including provisions for public notice of–

    “(I) third-party certification applications;

    “(II) certification decisions by the Secretary; and

    “(III) the standards and inspection protocols of certified third-party inspectors;

    “(ii) require each certified third-party inspector to be recertified not less than once every 3 years;

    “(iii) establish procedures under which the Secretary shall decertify a certified third-party inspector that the Secretary determines has failed to maintain standards and inspection protocols that are at least as protective of animal welfare as those promulgated by the Secretary in accordance with section 13(a)(2);

    “(iv) require each certified third-party inspector to immediately notify the Secretary of any person inspected by the certified third-party inspector–

    “(I) whose conduct places the health of an animal in serious danger; or

    “(II) who otherwise fails to comply with the standards established by the inspector (including a description of the specific failure);

    “(v) require each certified third-party inspector to submit to the Secretary an annual summary report describing–

    “(I) the number of inspections conducted;

    “(II) the number of persons found to be out-of-compliance with the standards of the certified third-party inspector and the response actions taken;

    “(III) the types of non-compliance found; and

[Page: S14535]

    “(IV) such other information about the program of the certified third-party inspector as the Secretary shall require, without revealing personal information about inspected persons, to ensure that the program of the third-party inspector is maintaining standards and inspection protocols that are at least as protective of animal welfare as those promulgated by the Secretary in accordance with section 13(a)(2);

    “(vi) require certified third-party inspectors to submit to the Secretary copies of all inspection reports on an annual basis;

    “(vii) establish procedures under which the Secretary may require certified third-party inspectors to participate in training and education programs carried out through the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; and

    “(viii) establish procedures for compliance audits of third-party inspections.

    “(C) FOIA EXEMPTION.–Section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the `Freedom of Information Act’) shall not apply to reports described in subparagraph (B)(vi).

    “(2) INSPECTIONS.–

    “(A) IN GENERAL.–The Secretary shall promulgate regulations under which a regulated person dealing in dogs and cats may elect to have a certified third-party inspector inspect the regulated person and report the results of the inspection to the Secretary in lieu of inspection by the Secretary.

    “(B) THIRD-PARTY INSPECTIONS OPTIONAL.–No regulated person shall be required under this Act to be inspected by a certified third-party inspector.

    “(C) LIMITATION.–No person other than a regulated person may make the election described in subparagraph (A).

    “(3) ENFORCEMENT.–

    “(A) IN GENERAL.–The Secretary shall have exclusive enforcement authority over any violation of this Act.

    “(B) INITIATION OF ACTION.–The Secretary shall investigate and, if appropriate, initiate enforcement action under this Act, immediately upon receiving notification under paragraph (1)(B)(iv).

    “(4) USE OF APPROPRIATED FUNDS.–

    “(A) IN GENERAL.–The Secretary may use funds appropriated to the Department of Agriculture to carry out this subsection.

    “(B) PROHIBITION.–A certified third-party inspector may not use funds appropriated to Department of Agriculture.

    “(e) Access to Source Records for Dogs and Cats.–Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, all regulated persons and retail pet stores shall prepare, retain, and make available at all reasonable times for inspection and copying by the Secretary, for such reasonable period of time as the Secretary may prescribe, a record of–

    “(1)(A) the name and address of the person from whom each dog or cat acquired for resale was purchased or otherwise acquired; or

    “(B) if that information is not known, the source of the dog or cat; and

    “(2) if the person from whom the dog or cat was obtained is a dealer licensed by the Secretary, the Federal dealer identification number of the person.

    “(f) Importation of Live Dogs and Cats.–

    “(1) FINDINGS.–Congress finds that–

    “(A) regulating imports of dogs and cats for resale, including restricting importation of puppies and kittens for resale, is consistent with provisions of international agreements to which the United States is a party that expressly allow for measures that are necessary–

    “(i) to protect animal life or health;

    “(ii) to protect human health; and

    “(iii) to enjoin the use of deceptive trade practices in international and domestic commerce;

    “(B) the importation of puppies into the United States for resale is increasing;

    “(C) the breeding of puppies and kittens in foreign countries for resale in the United States creates opportunities and incentives for evasion of United States laws (including regulations) relating to the humane care and treatment of breeding stock, puppies, and kittens;

    “(D) the conditions under which puppies are transported into the United States for resale are frequently inhumane and in violation of domestic and international standards;

    “(E) there is an unacceptably high incidence of disease and death among puppies imported into the United States for resale;

    “(F) the importation of puppies and kittens for resale creates unacceptable incentives for evasion of United States laws (including regulations) intended to protect animal and human health in the United States, including quarantine regulations; and

    “(G) puppies and kittens imported for resale may be accompanied by fraudulent health and breeding documents, imposing high economic and emotional costs and fraud on United States citizens.

    “(2) ENFORCEMENT.–An importer that fails to comply with any Federal law (including a regulation) relating to the importation of live dogs and cats into the United States shall be subject to this Act, including penalties under section 19.

    “(3) REGULATIONS.–Not later than 24 months after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall promulgate regulations relating to the importation of live dogs and cats into the United States for resale.

    “(4) REQUIREMENTS.–Regulations promulgated under paragraph (3) shall require that–

    “(A) any importer that imports into the United States a dog or cat in violation of this Act shall provide for the care, forfeiture, and adoption of the dog or cat, at the expense of the importer; and

    “(B) dogs imported into the United States for resale–

    “(i) be not less than 6 months of age;

    “(ii) have received all necessary vaccinations, as determined by the Secretary; and

    “(iii) be in good health, as determined by the Secretary.”.

    (2) REGULATIONS.–Not later than 36 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate final regulations to carry out the amendment made by paragraph (1)

    (3) EFFECTIVE DATE.–The amendment made by paragraph (1) takes effect on the date on which final regulations described in paragraph (2) take effect.

    (b) Extension of Temporary Suspension Period.–Section 19(a) of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2149) is amended–

    (1) by inserting “(1)” after “(a)”; and

    (2) by adding at the end the following:

    “(2) Extension of Temporary Suspension Period.–If the Secretary has reason to believe that a violation that results in a temporary suspension pursuant to paragraph (1) is continuing or will continue after the expiration of the 21-day temporary suspension period described in that paragraph, and the violation will place the health of any animal in serious danger in violation of this Act, the Secretary may extend the temporary suspension period for such additional period as is necessary to ensure that the health of an animal is not in serious danger, as determined by the Secretary, but not to exceed 60 days.”.

    (c) Authority To Apply for Injunctions.–Section 29 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2159) is amended–

    (1) in subsection (a), by inserting “or that any person is acting as a dealer or exhibitor without a valid license that has not been suspended or revoked, as required by this Act,” after “promulgated thereunder,”;

    (2) in subsection (b), by striking the last sentence; and

    (3) by adding at the end the following:

    “(c) Injunctions; Representation.–

    “(1) INJUNCTIONS.–The Secretary may apply directly to the appropriate United States district court for a temporary restraining order or injunction described in subsection (a).

    “(2) REPRESENTATION.–Attorneys of the Department of Agriculture may represent the Secretary in United States district court in any civil action brought under this section.”.

    (d) Effect on State Law.–Nothing in this section or the amendments made by this section (including any regulations promulgated as a result of this section) preempts any State law (including a regulation) that provides stricter requirements than the requirements provided in the amendments made by this section.

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

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

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. 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. Laws must give us 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 legislation 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. 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.   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 proscribe 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. 

Realistically all domestic animal breeds were developed by human beings. When we come to the realization that it is us that these laws are truly aimed at,  then 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.  Dogs are valuable property. We humans have tens, of thousands of years of tradition in owning dogs. 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.

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 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.

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. 

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.  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. 

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, 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 less than 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 400,000,000 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 400,000,000 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