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?

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:

Dedication Stopped HSUS Freight Train

But Watch Out For Senators Cutting Deals

by JOHN YATES

American Sporting Dog Alliance

http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org

asda@conline.net

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.

Florez introduces spay-neuter bill

Sen. 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.

Dubbed "The Pet Responsibility Act," SB 250 was given its number to denote the $250 million a year spent to house and euthanize stray dogs and cats. According to the US Census Bureau and other agencies, a dog born in California today has a one in four chance of dying in a shelter.

I see that Susan Hunter and Richard Brisbin have made the results of their research into BSL available. 

Panic Policy Making: Canine Breed Bans in Canada and the United States

Although dogs have bitten humans for millennia, in recent years state, provincial, and local governments have responded to incidents of dog bites with legislation or administrative rules that ban the ownership of dog breeds such as American Staffordshire Terriers, Rottweilers, and American Pit Bulls. In this paper we examine if a framework of “panic policymaking” can explain the passage of breed bans. The paper first develops a framework to explain panic policymaking that builds upon and modifies psychological theories of decision making, the sociological literature on moral panics, the analytical and case study literature about critical junctures in policy paths, behavioral economic studies of responses to risks, and the empirical studies of punctuated policy equilibria. Using data from a survey of the Canadian and U.S. public and interviews with interest group activists and public officials in locales that considered and defeated or passed breed bans, we then assess the predictive value of the concept of panic policymaking. Finally, we consider how breed bans indicate the scope and limits of the concept of animal rights.

Here's a link to the paper (PDF) some of which is still in draft format (minor typos here and there). 

http://www.polsci.wvu.edu/faculty/BRISBIN/Papers/2007.%20Panic%20Policy%20Making.pdf

And here's an excerpt from the section about Ontario to pique your interest:

Ontario

Although the record of events in Ontario is difficult to construct because of behind-closed-doors decisions that respondents would not describe to us, the fate of breed ban legislation in the province evidences a specific version of panic policy making.

Recognition

Although a few publicized violent dog attacks had transpired in Ontario in the decade prior to 2005, including attacks that resulted in the death of a child and assaults on police, these attacks produced no immediate public outcry or media demands for the control of dangerous dogs.

However, in August 2004 the media had covered how Toronto police had to fire more than a dozen bullets to kill two pit bulls who had turned on the man walking them and how a pit bull had attacked a man in London, Ontario who tried to protect a puppy from the pit bull’s attack (CBC News 2004). In late August 2004 the Ontario

Liberal Party’s Attorney General, Michael Bryant, decided to legislate a ban on the ownership of pit bulls. Critics of the Liberals–the majority party in the Legislative Assembly or “the government”--havesuggested that the ban was a tactic manufactured by the Liberals to deflect criticism of the growth of crime and gang activity, especially in Toronto (confidential Interviews). Opposition Progressive Conservative and New Democrat legislators also thought that he proposed the ban to deflect media attention from other issues and unpopular policies bedeviling the Liberal government. In their eyes, the identification of the pit bull problem was “all political.” It was a manufactured intrusive event.

Soon Bryant held news conferences to tout the proposed ban and link it, by inference, to criminals, outlaw bikers, and urban gangs–groups with members often drawn from ethnic minorities.  Although a reporter showed Bryant a photo array of dogs and he was unable to identify a pit bull, his party nonetheless pushed ahead in its promotion of what became a series of amendments to the Dog Owners’ Liability Act. It held a series of “consultations” with police, animal law enforcement officers, humane societies, and what it called a “broad spectrum of stakeholders” that it selected (Ontario 2005: 929). Therefore, the government had engaged in the construction of the intrusive event. However, as supported by our survey data, no evidence exists that the event created a contagion of fear of pit bulls and a moral panic. Also, no emotional assessment of alternatives appears to have generated an unwillingness for the general public to consider other policies, such as the effective dangerous dog law of Calgary (Calgary 2004) supported by national animal interest groups.

Characterization

The Liberal government used press releases and media interviews with Attorney General Bryant in an attempt to orchestrate public support for a pit bull ban. Bryant characterized the dogs as a “menace” and a “loaded weapon.” Press releases cited municipal officials, including the Mayor of Toronto, the Chief of the Toronto Police Service, the Mayor of Kitchener, and the Mayor of Wawa, as supporters of the ban. The government also arranged for press statements from victims of attacks about the extent of their injuries and the Animal Services Agency of Winnipeg about the effectiveness of their ban.   These comments and releases emphasized the danger pit bulls posed for children and conveyed horror stories of their behavior (author’s observations on media reportage).

[snip]

I'll say.

My guest column in the Mississauga News:

November 25, 2008 06:11 PM - 1. A guest leaves the gate open. Little Rambo goes exploring. Officials tell you to sign him over for death. You refuse and are charged with owning an illegal “pit bull.”
2. You’re walking two puppies before work and are stopped and told your pets must be killed or shipped out of Ontario because they are “pit bulls.”
3. Two Huskies kill a Yorkie in line at a pet supply shop. No action is taken.
4. A visiting child is attacked by a Golden Retriever. The trauma surgeon says it’s the worst mauling he’s ever seen. No charges are laid.

I only had 600 words and they did a bit of creative editing but I sure appreciate the opportunity to get out of the house for a change.

I hope you'll visit the site to read the whole thing.

Think good thoughts for the folk who are suing Aurora CO over its panic policy-making.

There's a good article in the Denver Post today which presents some facts that prove that 'pit bull' bans are nothing but 'pit bulls**t'.

Let's hope the folk in Aurora get a judge who can look past the hyperbole and snake oil to understand the core issue.  That's obviously the trick.

Florence Vianzon Sasek hopes she can take Isis outside for a walk through her Aurora neighborhood again without strapping a pink leather muzzle over the dog's mouth.

Isis, a 5-year-old American Staffordshire terrier mix, can't ride in the car without being enclosed in a locked crate and is not allowed to roam her backyard without supervision.

Today, Vianzon Sasek's lawsuit challenging the city of Aurora's pit-bull ban goes to trial in U.S. District Court in Denver before Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel.

The case was filed on her behalf by the American Canine Foundation, a Washington state-based group focused on protecting the rights of dog owners and promoting responsible dog ownership.

Here's the rest.