The media 'journalists' use a simple formula for their 'news' items about dog bites these days. If it can be at all passed off as a 'pit bull', do it - not showing a picture helps. Otherwise, just bury it somewhere because the fake hysteria over 'pit bulls' we've created might get diluted - and we can't have that, can we? We need the hits on our websites to generate ad revenue and stay alive. A poll about the wisdom of banning 'pit bulls' should be run whenever possible as well - it puts audience share through the roof when all the anti-BSL folk hit it to vote.
Here's a neat little blog you might want to check out:
Dog Attacks You Never Hear About
|
|||||
 
Search
Recent Comments
Useful Links
Man's Only Friends
MIXED BAG
MSM
Login
|
Thursday, August 13
WHY DON'T WE HEAR ABOUT THESE DOG BITES AND ATTACKS?
by
Selma
on Thu 13 Aug 2009 12:18 PM EDT
Friday, May 1
NEWS FROM ANIMAL LIBERATION-LAND
by
Selma
on Fri 01 May 2009 07:58 PM EDT
The FBI has added Daniel San Diego to its list of most wanted terrorists. He shares the honour with Osama bin Laden and others but has the dubious distinction of being the first domestic terrorist added to the list.
Oh, and thanks a lot, ABC. I was using the same title but had to change it after I visited your story. The FBI put out a press release on April 22 listing various rewards for information in attacks targeting scientific researchers. A couple of ALF members were indicted in Los Angeles on April 22, charged with conspiracy, stalking, and other crimes against researchers at UCLA. A pro-research rally in Los Angeles attracted hundreds of supporters, vastly outnumbering the animal liberaton extremists protesting at the same time. I guess the animal liberation schtick is finally wearing thin with mainstream groups, which is a good thing indeed. And then there's Mr Vick (rhymes with...). A buddy out west gave me the heads-up on this one: Michael Vick in Talks to Become PETA SpokesmanJailed NFL Superstar Looks to Rehab Image After Dog-fighting RapNEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Michael Vick is in talks to become the new spokesman for PETA.
Yes, you read that correctly. The disgraced one-time NFL superstar
serving prison time for funding an illegal dog-fighting ring is primed
to do public-service ads for People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals upon his release later this month. According to three people
with knowledge of the matter, the proposed endorsement is part of a
comprehensive PR scheme aimed at rehabilitating the quarterback's image
and gaining him readmission to the league that banned him from playing. Well, at least Vick and Peta have something in common - both have used 'pit bulls' to further their own ends, both have shown no respect for animal life and both appear to be greedy and manipulative enough to deserve each other. What's the difference between bumping off animals you promised to place in new homes then throwing the corpses into a dumpster and bumping off animals you were supposed to care for and burying the bodies in the backyard? Thirty million bucks a year, I guess. This guy Vick isn't too bright, is he? Doesn't he have teh Google? Somebody should let him know that the worst thing he could do to rehab his image (such as it is) is to join forces with the most hypocritical, self-serving, histrionic group of animal-killing phonies around. If Vick thinks people who love dogs are mad at him now, just wait until his goofy mug appears in a Peta commercial. I hope he goes for it just because I'm nice that way. Roll 'em! Wednesday, April 8
HSUS: NEVER GIVE A 'PIT BULL' AN EVEN BREAK
by
Selma
on Wed 08 Apr 2009 10:43 PM EDT
Nathan Winograd has a couple of good posts up about the meeting of the 'pit bull' profiteers in Las Vegas.
I know that nobody is surprised that the HSUS continues to exhibit what amounts to a corporate sociopathy or by the fact that no progress was made. The burning question isn't whether 'pit bulls' are just dogs (they are), whether fighting dogs are a product of their environment (they are), whether any thinking human would agree that dogs shouldn't die for our sins (they would) or whether the HSUS will veer away from its set course of animal liberation (it won't - at least not until the current BOD is booted out and some truly humane leaders are voted in). No, to me, the most important question is this: What makes these people think that they have the right to speak for 'pit bulls', dogs in general, 'bust dogs' (as they call them) or for all of us who are out here in the frontlines - in rescue, in the courts, and on the streets? I deeply resent the intrusive, self-serving, double-dealing campaign by the HSUS to legislate pet breeding and ownership into oblivion while crying crocodile tears for dogs, cats, horses and chickens. I'm insulted by the unending stream of contradictory, duplicitous and illogical statements that wouldn't fool a first-grader. I am galled by their hubris in implying to the rubes ithat they are a government-sanctioned agency - worse, a law enforcement group - rather than a private special interest lobbying outfit which does not represent mainstream views. Their arrogance in presuming to 'negotiate' repulsive ideas such as breed (ha ha) bans 'down' to breed-specific mandatory neutering (Louisville) and then say it's somehow better than a ban - would be hilarious were it not so deadly to dogs. Most of all, I get really, really, really pissed off by all these people who make money and promote themselves on the backs of 'pit bulls' - be they incompetent politicians like Old Nanny McGuinty in Ontario, cheese-ass journalists who need a hook because they're too lazy or hung over to write an actual story, rescue groups who post all kinds of nonsense about how weird 'pit bulls' are on their websites, hysterics who get information from personal injury lawyers and white-hooders so they can get a hate on and all the rest of them - fooling themselves into believing that people like me give a damn about what they think or say. If I want an opinion about 'pit bulls', I'll ask a 'pit bull'. At least they aren't in it for the money. Sometimes I think they're the only ones who aren't. Wednesday, April 1
TIME FOR THE HSUS TO HIT THE SHOWERS
by
Selma
on Wed 01 Apr 2009 09:21 PM EDT
Interpret that as you will. Thanks to the efforts of another blogger, we have seen the testimony in the Wilkes County, North Carolina dog-killing by representatives of the Humane Society of the United States. The dogs were seized from a Mr Faron, who couldn't afford the ransom to get his dogs back, including puppies that were born in the hoosegow. He pleaded guilty to 14 counts of dog-fighting, something which was legal in North Carolina until 1997. A hearing was held to determine the fate of the dogs seized in the case and the puppies born in custody. The representatives of the HSUS testified on February 16, 2009. First up was Amanda Harrington, former office manager, anti-tethering activist, and member of an animal welfare advisory board. She is now the North Carolina State Director for the HSUS and, like most HSUS spokepeople, seems to know very little about dog behaviour or dog breeding. MS. AMANDA ARRINGTON: They [Best Friends] are offering to assist. That is their language that they used. That means it would still be the county's responsibility. And in their own words, it costs about $190,000 per dog to rehabilitate them.
THE COURT: $190,000 to rehabilitate a dog? MS. AMANDA ARRINGTON: Yes, sir. THE COURT: That's what Best Friends says? MS. AMANDA ARRINGTON: Yes. Wow, I guess a lot of people owe me a lot of money for all the dogs I've adopted that needed rehabilitation training. We all know that 8-week-old puppies need a lot of rehab. Way to scare the rubes, Amanda, using big numbers like that. Did they all touch their wallets when you dropped that bombshell? This kind of begs the question, though: How much does it cost to rehab somebody from the Dr Phil show, if it costs almost 200 grand to rehab a dog? THE COURT: why is this the so-called humane thing to do? MS. AMANDA ARRINGTON: To euthanize? THE COURT: Yes, ma'am.
AARRRGGHHH!!! I can't take it anymore! Make it stop! It isn't frickin' euthanasia when you are destroying healthy animals. It's killing. Face it HSUS/Peta/Shelter euphemizers, that's what you are doing - in record numbers. But wait, there's more: MS. AMANDA ARRINGTON: For the dogs themselves, I think, because of the
way that they were bred. I think it is an unrealistic expectation for
us to ask these dogs that have been bred generations for fighting to
become regular pets. And it's an even bigger thing to ask people to
take on that responsibility and the county to take on both the
financial burden and the liability.
You know, we could be a couple years down the road and one of these dogs could do something, and I think it ultimately could come back on the county of Wilkes. Ooh, I bet they touched their wallets that time. The old 'hit 'em with liability' trick, eh? You know that liability is the one thing that keeps government lackeys up at night, don't you?There's an HSUS double-whammy here because what this bird is really saying is that nobody should try to place a dog into a new home through a city facility. Because, you know, a few years might pass and the dog might 'do something' and the city will be left wearing a barrel and suspenders, I tell you what. Quelle cruche de merde. Yes, you heard me, merde. I'm surprised the judge didn't call it as he obviously saw it. He was probably trying to appear objective while being slimed with a bucketful of vintage HSUS being hurled in his general direction by these witnesses. Next up is former animal control officer Chris Schindler (oh, the irony) who wants to make it clear that he knows dogs: THE COURT: Sir, did you want to add something? MR. CHRIS SCHINDLER: I'm Chris Schindler. I'm the Deputy Manager, Animal Fighting Law Enforcement, Humane Society of the United States. Swoon - Not only a Deputy [manager], but a Law Enforcement Deputy [manager]. A regular Dudley Fiddlin' DoRight in the flesh. There's just a slight problem, though. The HSUS is not a law enforcement agency, is not a government agency of any kind, has no mandate to represent anyone but its own twisted sistership which, being dazed and confused, supports the animal liberation agenda. But I digress. Here's the part that really shows everybody what the HSUS is all about: Your Honor, basically agree with all the things that everyone else has said. These dogs have been bred for generations upon generations for a single purpose of animal fighting; the puppies included. They all have been bred to display those traits of gameness and these things that dog fighters look for. People don't come from all over the world to obtain dogs from Ed Faron because, you know, they are just a regular pit bull. Pick me! I have some questions, Your Honor! Pick me! 1. Does Schindler believe that dogs can be bred for animal fighting? 2. Does he believe that young puppies, barely old enough to leave the nest, are dangerous? 3. Does he believe that every dog in every litter displays the same personality traits? 4. Does he know what he means by 'regular 'pit bull''? 5. Does he know that people come from all over the world to buy a lot of purebred dogs from long-time breeders, regardless of whether they are Chihuahuas, Beagles or American Pit Bull terriers? Answers 1 - 3 are 'yes'. Answers 4 & 5 are 'no'. There's more, not as much as I'd hoped, but enough to show that the HSUS people will never change. They do not believe that each dog is an individual. They don't understand anything about dogs, breeds or breeding (I know, duh). They want to kill all the 'pit bulls'. They think that a dog-aggressive canine is dangerous, when in fact, many dogs don't get along with their own kind and make terrific pets. I've had a few of those - gasp! adopted from humane societies - and never had any problems. Oh, and just for Donna and the gang, here's the grand finale from Deputy Chris: "...I mean, these dogs, they are not on the same level. You know, people speak about the Michael Vick dogs. Those dogs have not even been rehabilitated." (Brief Pause.) (Proceeding concluded at 10:52 a.m.) Wednesday, March 18
ILLINOIS DOG OWNERS DERAIL THE HSUS
by
Selma
on Wed 18 Mar 2009 03:40 PM EDT
Congratulations
To Illinois And
Chicago Dog Owners
Dedication Stopped HSUS Freight TrainBut Watch Out For Senators Cutting Deals by JOHN YATES American Sporting Dog Alliance http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org This article is archived at: http://eaglerock814.proboards107.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=30 Activism by dog owners stopped the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) freight train in Illinois and the City of Chicago this past week. Congratulations! You did what many people thought was impossible. You stopped HSUS in its tracks in a state that is a must-win battle for the powerful and radical animal rights group, which is pushing two bills that would have a devastating effect on people who raise dogs. Also, in the City of Chicago, where HSUS has political clout at the highest levels, a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance stalled during a committee hearing. However, it would be inaccurate to say that you defeated HSUS. You stopped them. You fought them to a stalemate. You have forced them to back down because they didn’t have the votes to win. But you can also expect a bag of political dirty tricks to emerge in the coming days, and the American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging you to be prepared to continue this fight with renewed vigilance, energy and dedication. Here’s what happened, and what to expect. In the state Senate, SB 139 and SB 53 did not get enough support to pass in committee. SB 139 would have made tail docking and ear cropping into felony animal cruelty offenses, and SB 53 would have imposed irrational and burdensome restrictions on people who raise dogs. Votes were not taken, but the bills’ sponsors saw the handwriting on the wall and chose not to force the issue in the face of certain defeat. Several senators credited numerous letters in opposition from dog owners as being an important factor in changing their positions. The American Sporting Dog Alliance was at the forefront of this effort. However, the bills’ sponsors did not simply allow the legislation to die. Instead, they turned them into what are called “shell bills.” Shell bills are stripped of all language and sent to the Senate floor as an empty document. The senators have until April 3, 2009, to amend new language into the bills, and this deadline can be extended in some cases. This keeps the bills alive, in case the sponsors can find enough support to pass them. If the empty bills are amended at some point, they would be sent back to their Senate committees for reconsideration. However, dog owners were lied to by the sponsor of the House version of the kennel legislation, HB 198. Continued here. Friday, March 13
Monday, March 9
CHICAGO, CHICAGO
by
Selma
on Mon 09 Mar 2009 10:48 AM EDT
Don't you wish Bob Barker would stay in the land of fruits and nuts? He was lobbying in Chicago last year for mandatory neutering. That proposal was killed and dogs' lives were saved.
However, it appears that behind the scenes lobbying has been ongoing and per usual, councillors are being fed lies by those with an agenda geared toward extinction. John Yates has the details. If you live in Chicago, get busy. Here's the lede: CHICAGO – A City Council joint committee has scheduled a hearing for this coming Thursday on a proposed citywide spay and neuter mandate for dogs and cats. The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging Chicago dog owners to attend this hearing and voice strong opposition to this ordinance. The 10 a.m. hearing will be held on March 12, 2009, in City Council chambers. We
also are asking dog owners to take an active role by contacting the aldermen and
informing them about the issues described in this report, and your own reasons
for opposition. Faxes and letters are best, followed by phone calls and emails.
Here is a link to contact information for each member of City Council: Here is a link to
the web pages of each of the aldermen, where you will find contact information:
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalProgramAction.do?programId=536879154&channelId=-536879035&topChannelName=Government. Prompt action is urgent and should be the highest priority. Inaction will doom dog ownership in Chicago. And here's the whole thing. Wednesday, February 25
ONCE AGAIN, LONDON SHOWS IT HAS THE WRONG STUFF
by
Selma
on Wed 25 Feb 2009 10:41 PM EST
FrogDog has a tale which is unfortunately all-too-typical of London, Ontario, where persecution of dog owners is the order of the day. Of course, it is the home of replacement Attorney General Chris Bentley, who believes that Bullmastiffs and Dogues de Bordeaux are 'pit bulls', so maybe orders are seeping down from the top. Actually, those breeds may as well be 'pit bulls' since there's no such thing, as everybody who didn't just fall off the turnip truck (including the Attorney General's own lawyer who defends the ban in court) knows full well.
This time, the crack dog identification team at London Animal Services got a Code Red when somebody applied for a dog tag for their - I kid you not - French Bulldog. The grismal details are available over at Froggy's place.
OH SWELL, THE GONAD THIEVES ARE AT IT AGAIN
by
Selma
on Wed 25 Feb 2009 05:25 PM EST
What's going on in California? Have they got too much time on their hands, too much money they can't figure out how to waste, or what? I thought the State was going bankrupt, couldn't meet its payroll, was looking for loans. Do they plan to spend their way out of debt?
Why are government officials obsessed with the gonads of dogs and cats and when did being a responsible pet owner start to include neutering, anyway? I know why the animal liberation gang is into it - it's the fast-track to extinction - but why do other people buy into it? They can't all be stupid. Sen. Florez had introduced an AB1634 copycat Bill, SB250. Florez introduces spay-neuter billSen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, has introduced one of the most controversial ideas from the last legislative session: a bill that would encourage spaying/neutering of most dogs and cats in California.
Florez's SB 250 requires adult animals to be fixed unless the owner obtains a license to have an "unaltered" animal over six months of age. Owners of unaltered cats would be required to keep them indoors. The license could be revoked at any time, and would also need to be transferred to the new owner if the animal was sold or given away.
Imagine how much this puppy would cost to enforce, then consider that mandatory neutering laws cause more pets to be killed in shelters, not fewer. Bill Hemby at PetPac is all over it and has a petition to be signed as well (right sidebar). Do we have any actual statistics to back up the 1 : 4 chance of dying in a shelter? And would that not be the fault of people in shelters who are killing animals? I don't see the connection between risking your dog's health and possibly negatively affecting his temperament by neutering too early and being a responsible owner. I also don't see how performing life-altering surgery on a pet will change the culture of convenience killing in shelters. Too many people out there are drinking the Animal Liberation flavour of Kool Aid for my liking. Monday, February 23
IS IT NF DAY?
by
Selma
on Mon 23 Feb 2009 10:50 AM EST
It must be National Fatuosity Day because blithering by media has reached an all-time low in terms of relevance. more »
Thursday, February 19
CREATURES' CAUCUS - THAT SOUNDS FAMILIAR
by
Selma
on Thu 19 Feb 2009 06:04 PM EST
   John Tenniel's illustration of the Dodo in "A Caucus-Race and a Long Tale". An illustration from Alice in Wonderland. Image in Public Domain Uh-oh. It looks as though those wolves in sheep's clothing at the HSUS are conning legislators again. It seems they are still pretending that they have widespread support for their schemes. SmartDogs has some details and a call to action for our friends in the US. The Creatures' Caucus is about to be whelped. Speaking of ticking time bombs. Sunday, February 15
MAKING UP FACTS, CONCOCTING STATISTICS
by
Selma
on Sun 15 Feb 2009 11:30 AM EST
There was a dog incident in Oregon but details are scant:
Vale—In the wake of the attack of a 5-year-old boy by a mixed breed dog Jan. 3, one resident is angered and believes actions by sheriff’s deputies regarding pit bulls is not fair. A Malheur County
Sheriff’s Office deputy happened to be on patrol and spotted a
black-colored dog inside an enclosed yard where it held the young boy
by the arm and was dragging him around. The deputy yelled at the dog, which did not respond, and went to a gate and entered the yard to rescue the victim. The dog is described as a 'pit bull', boxer and lab cross. OK. Maybe it's just a Lab/Boxer cross, maybe it's a Lab/hound cross, but we have to get 'pit bull' in there somehow. (Just ask the people in Omaha, where their new insane regulations are working out really, really well. That dog was a shepherd/chow/'pit bull' mix and there have already been several reports about it.) The fun part comes later in the Oregon article. Here's Ledy van Kavage, formerly of the ASPCA, now with Best Friends: VanKavage spoke not about specific breeds of dogs, but of the specific
dog involved in attacks. She said 97 percent of dogs involved in fatal
attacks are not sterilized and 25 percent of fatal dog attacks occur
when the dogs are running in packs. I hate to quibble, but talking about dog bite-related fatalities is a red herring as is the intact status meme. It sure sounds like a big number, 97%, doesn't it? The trouble is, nobody has verified this 'fact' and 97% of the average annual DBRF count in the US is 19. Fatalities are so rare that discussing them doesn't add much if you are trying to stop garden-variety bites and more serious attacks such as the one under discussion. It sure gets people riled up, though - it's too bad those who like to throw this 'fact' around don't point out that there are around 72 million dogs in the US to, you know, put things into perspective. Nitwit:We've talked about this before. It's most likely not the intact status of the dog that causes the attack. It's become clear that negligent owners are less likely to socialize and train their dogs and are less likely to take them for routine veterinary care. They are the people who leave their dogs tied out day in, day out, where they are accessible by the public, including unwitting children. Since owners of that calibre are less likely to visit a vet, they are not exposed to the now militant insistence that every dog should be neutered young, regardless of breed, regardless of size, regardless of personality. You have to be tough to resist the pressure these days, trust me. Here's more: She also spoke highly of laws in Illinois, which consider any dog to be
dangerous if it threatens a person or companion animal such as another
dog, cat or horse. If this happens, the dog must be sterilized, which statistically reduces cases of bites, [...] Notice how we jumped from fatalities to bites? What a smooth slide that was. I don't like to contradict Ms Van Kavage, but many studies show that the dogs more likely to bite are neutered females. Others show increased reactivity and territoriality in females and increased activity in males after neutering. Who is compiling these statistics? Heck, nobody is even counting dog bites, let alone verifying the reproductive status of the offending canines. They can't even get the breed right most of the time. Here's the fun part: One magazine editor simplified this classification of dog. “It’s a mongrel basically,” Wash.-based Animal People editor Merritt Clifton said. Are you laughing yet? Usually just seeing Clifton's name is enough to set me off. He actually makes some sense on a couple of points for a change but nobody's all wrong all the time, not even Clifton (I can't believe I just wrote that). Here's Clifton's explanation for why 'pit bulls' are so reactive - pay attention, breed historians, because I'll bet you didn't know this: Though some might label pit bulls as aggressive, Clifton said pit bulls
are often reactive because of the fact they were originally trained to
hunt rats on ships. However, because of their size and their inability
to pull large amounts of cargo from ships, they were not considered apt
for either job and instead began being bred for dogfighting on the
docks. This rat-killing, he said, has made them more reactive. Part I: http://lassiegethelp.blogspot.com/2007/08/dangerous-breeds-dog-bite-statistics.html Part II: http://lassiegethelp.blogspot.com/2007/08/pit-bulls-dog-bite-statistics-and.html Wednesday, February 11
TROUBLE IN NEW MEXICO
by
Selma
on Wed 11 Feb 2009 03:17 PM EST
Pit Bull NM has an alert today about impending death and destruction for 'pit bulls' (whatever they are) and 'rottweilers' (any dog that is black and tan seems to be the rule).
We all know that Albuquerque's pet bylaw is one of the worst in the country. Not content to stop there, brainwashed officials seem determined to continue down the wrong road, staggering and mumbling incoherently every misstep of the way. Details are available here. Sunday, February 1
REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN THE SHAPES OF 'PIT BULLS'
by
Selma
on Sun 01 Feb 2009 05:41 PM EST
(Updates at the end)
I was just over reading KC's excellent Weekly Roundup when it occurred to me that there's something supernatural about 'pit bulls'. Those l'il devil dogs are masters of disguise, shape-shifters no less. How else can we explain these pictures? It couldn't be misidentification of dog types by media and others, could it? This is a 'pit bull' in Jackson, Tennessee:    This is a western 'pit bull' from Oregon - he weighs over 100 lbs:  This Toronto 'pit bull' was killed by the Ontario government (poor pic, sorry) last year:  In KCMO, Nikko was a 'pit bull' who spent almost a year in jail:   Who could forget those two 'pit bulls' in Virginia that were involved in a child's death in 2005:   This 'pit bull' puppy was threatened with death by Mississauga Animal Control - he was lucky, his owners had papers (Mum was a purebred Boxer, Dad a purebred Bullmastiff):   Is it any wonder that there are so many news reports about 'pit bulls'? What was that Brytler said? I think it went like this: " If it looks like a 'pit bull' and it walks like a 'pit bull' and it wags its tail like a 'pit bull' then it's a 'pit bull' Psnorzle...Honk...Kaweet....Urrrrp....Fap" I think it would be more accurate to say that on a slow news day if you run a dog story make sure it's about a 'pit bull' or nobody will bother reading it. Don't worry about accuracy, they're just dogs, man. It won't be a big deal if you get it wrong. UPDATE: Brent's got a good one - a whole pack o' breeds are implicated in one dog-on-dog attack that made it all the way to Oz, where they dug up a file photo to add some punch. The inimitable Luisa over at Lassie, Get Help joins in. Check out that scary 'pit bull' - hide your kids, they could be next! Vladimir Putin, you're not, kiddo - you're more like the Scarlet Pimpernel to me. I like this game. I forgot about Faith, the big, bad, 'pit bull' in London, Ontario who was shipped to Montreal so she didn't have to be killed. It's a sad but typical story around here. Here she is, the pit-bulliest of 'pit bulls':  Wednesday, January 28
Saturday, January 24
Thursday, January 22
Sunday, January 18
Tuesday, January 13
Thursday, January 8
GUARDIANSHIP REARS ITS HEAD IN CALIFORNIA
by
Selma
on Thu 08 Jan 2009 08:57 PM EST
Sheesh, don't they have enough to worry about in California these days? They seem to spend a lot of time and effort on meddling with what wasn't broken in the first place.
From No Pit Bull Bans: By a 4-1 vote at its regular board meeting Dec. 17, the Ukiah City Council directed staff to draft an ordinance to be brought back for final approval at a later date mandating the change of the word “owner” to “guardian” in city code regarding canines. Councilmember Doug Crane said he could not stand behind the intentions of the actions because it would lead to more problems down the road. “I went online and asked the difference between ownership and guardianship,” he said, making himself the lone voice of dissent to the idea on the board. “I found several links to PETA. If you’ll remember, PETA has stated several goals: no pets, no zoos, no eating of animals, no use of leather. A complete paradigm shift in this society and strategically if communities across the country change this language in decades it will be enough communities that it’s critical mass, then the (law)suits will begin. " [snip] Councillor Crane sounds like a smart guy. I wish we had more politicians of his calibre out there. There's more info at the link. Guardianship is a strange concept indeed. While obviously, most of us think of our dogs as important members of the family who need of our care and protection, changing their status from property is a very dangerous idea. But it isn't really guardianship in the true sense that the animal liberationists want. It's really just the removal of property rights around dogs, which would ultimately make it much easier to seize pets from responsible homes and kill them. It's the same idea as a breed ban in that it feeds the ultimate goal of an end to animal ownership and eventually, domestic animals. If I am legally, rather than philosophically, the guardian of my dog then there are certainly questions that would need to be answered. Would I need their consent to perform euthanasia in times of extreme, irremediable suffering, or does my 'guardian' status grant me power of attorney as well? The same question arises with respect to performing invasive, life-altering surgery on a healthy animal. Would I have the right to neuter my dog without his or her consent? Would a breeder have the authority to place puppies in suitable homes or would there have to be some kind of agency that would hold hearings on puppy placements? Would it become illegal to buy and sell dogs? Would I be obligated to hire a caregiver if I had to be at work or go on vacation? Could I still board my pets at their regular kennel? How about using a crate? Walking with a leash and collar? Obedience training? If I died intestate and had no human family would my estate automatically transfer to my dependents, in this case my pets? Do I need to appoint a trustee to look after my dogs when writing a will? At what age do dogs become 'adults' or are they considered dependent for life? Would I be exposed to impromptu visits by animal welfare agents who would decide whether or not my 'guardianship' was up to snuff? Would that change the status of my dog licence? I presume that there would be no more licensing or microchipping, since that is an affirmation of ownership. There are many other questions that arise, I'm sure you have considered them. The whole guardian idea is a very bad one, in my opinion, and is just one more example of government busybodies being manipulated by fanatics into buying a pig in a poke - in this case, the animal liberationist ideology. I suspect that Mr Crane might appreciate some support. Contact info for the Ukiah City Council is available at No Pit Bull Bans. Monday, December 22
|
||||
|
|||||
