Permission to crosspost
http://oldnorthamericanpitbullterrierclub.wetpaint.com/page/Dog+Owners+rights+are+coming+to+an+end.



Dog Owners rights are coming to an end.
PETA AND OUR RIGHTS

This report is true, and if you don't think it can happen to you, THINK AGAIN! The apathetic attitudes of these people in these places has allowed these stringent laws to be passed, and now the people will either be paying huge permit fees to keep intact animals, or moving, or having everything neutered or spayed. This is A FACT!!!!! So when something is sent to you and you have the opportunity to respond to it, you might want to think again before deleting it, and go on and make a response and let your voice be heard!!!
************
Black Wednesday For Dog Owners


Animal Rights Wins In Dallas, California, Pennsylvania


by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org/


Wednesday was a black day for dog owners all across America, as animal
rights extremists posted legislative victories in Dallas, California and
Pennsylvania.


Dog owner advocacy groups fought hard in all three contests and had clear
majority support, but animal rights groups such as People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals and the Humane Society of the United States cashed in
political chips with elected officials.


PETA and HSUS have been infiltrating local and state advisory boards for
many years, backed by a war chest exceeding $150 million, hundreds of paid
employees and thousands of volunteers.


Apathy remains the greatest problem faced by dog ownership advocacy groups.


Wednesday's votes also highlighted what is rapidly becoming a partisan
division on animal rights legislation. In general, almost all Republicans voted
against the legislation, and almost all Democrats voted for the bills. The
Democratic Party appears to be lining up behind the animal rights agenda in
support of its presumptive presidential candidate, Barrack Obama. Obama has
expressed strong support for animal rights.


Here is a summary of the four issues decided this week:


In Dallas, City Council voted 10-3 to pass an animal control ordinance
requiring mandatory pet sterilization, expensive permits to own intact dogs and
cats, mandatory microchipping and pet ownership limits. The ordinance also bans
tethering of dogs and imposes strict requirements for keeping dogs outdoors.
Home inspections also are authorized.


In California, the Senate Local Government Committee voted 3-2 to approve
AB1634, which now will be sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee. If this
committee approves, it will be sent to the legislature for a vote. This bill
allows any person to act as a vigilante and report any dog owner for an
unsubstantiated violation of any animal law. If any animal control officer
agrees, the accused person will have a choice between paying a fine or sterilizing
the animal. People who are accused of anything have no right to defend
themselves or to appeal. An accusation is automatic guilt.


In Pennsylvania, the House Rules Committee voted Tuesday to approve HB2532,
which is a de facto ban on tail docking, dewclaw removal and ear cropping. In
the absence of proof that the procedure was performed by a veterinarian, the
mere possession of a dog that has had one of those three procedures subjects
an owner to a criminal citation for animal cruelty. This bill would destroy
many rescue operations, dog shows, competitive events and field trials in
Pennsylvania and result in the deaths of thousands of dogs. This bill now goes
to the full House for a vote, and then to the Senate.


Also in Pennsylvania, the House Agriculture Committee approved amendments to
the state dog and kennel law that fall short of changes that were promised
to dog owner advocacy groups. The actual text of this legislation was not
available at this writing, and a follow-up report will be issued when the
revised legislation is available. This bill now goes to the full House for a vote,
and then to the Senate.


Please see below for more detailed descriptions of all four issues.


Dog ownership advocates clearly outnumbered animal rights sympathizers in
public hearings on all four pieces of legislation, as well as in written
comments, emails and phone calls received by elected officials. However, many
of those officials chose to ignore our voices, and that is doubly true of the
Democrats. We are not saying this to be partisan, as many of our officers and
members are loyal Democrats. We simply are stating a fact. Democrats voted
against animal owners this week by a shocking margin, and we urge dog owners
who are registered with this party to work to reverse this policy.


Advocates of dog owners' rights also were hurt by the apathy of many people
who support us, but who did little or nothing to voice that support to
elected officials. At the Senate hearing in California, for example, only about
10 people showed up. In Dallas, about 200 dog ownership advocates attended the
hearing, but that is a tiny percentage of the estimated 300,000 pet owners in
the city. Attendance at the two Pennsylvania hearings was described as
moderate.


Apathy by the large but silent majority of dog owners is a major component
of the animal rights strategy. While we outnumber them 100-to-one, most of us
don't get involved. In contrast, animal rights groups rely on an almost
religious fanaticism by their supporters to gain a high percentage of participation.


The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges every dog owner in America to join
one or more of the several fine organizations that are fighting for your
rights. Each of these organizations has its own niche, but all are excellent
and deserve your support.


We welcome your membership and hope you will participate fully in our
programs. Please visit us online at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org/


Please stand up and be counted now!


We also ask all dog owners who belong to field trial clubs, sportsmen's
organizations, show specialty clubs, breed clubs and event clubs to urge those
organizations to take an active political role to defeat animal rights
legislation.


The American Sporting Dog Alliance also is urging dog owners to boycott all
dog events in the City of Dallas for their own safety. Under the terms of the
ordinance, even a visitor to the city is subject to citations, fines and dog
confiscations. It is known that PETA plans a protest at a July dog show in
Dallas, and we expect them to report show dog owners for alleged violations
of the ordinance. Because the Dallas animal commission is dominated by PETA
members, we expect that there will be a move to raid this dog show.
All professional handlers would be in violation of the possession limit of six
dogs, and none of the dogs are expected to have a required Dallas breeding or intact
permit.


If the Pennsylvania and California legislation becomes law, it will not be
safe for anyone to attend a field trial, dog show or performance event in
those states, or even to visit, pass through or take a hunting trip there.


We urge all clubs to cancel or move planned events in Dallas now, and also
in Pennsylvania and California if their legislation is signed into law. We
believe that clubs have an ethical obligation to protect the safety of
participants and their dogs.


Continued apathy and non-involvement will doom dog ownership in America, as
well as hunting, field trials and other dog events. We can't do it without you.


(continued)

(continued)
Here are the highlights of the four pieces of legislation that were voted on
this week:

California


We support the first part of AB1634, which calls for fines for dogs that are
allowed to roam and mandates sterilization after the third offense.


However, the second part of the legislation violates basic constitutional
rights and human decency.


Here are the provisions of the second part of the legislation (Italics are
direct quotes, and words that are not italicized are our comments):


-- The owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog that is the subject of
a complaint may be cited and pay a civil penalty as provided in this section.
This civil penalty shall be in addition to any fine, fee, or penalty imposed
under any other provision of law or local ordinance. In the first sentence,
the committee substituted "may" for "shall," which appears to leave the
issuance of a citation up to the discretion of an animal control officer.
However, the basis for this decision is not defined.


-- The owner of the dog shall pay the civil penalty to the local
animal control agency within 30 business days of the citation. The local animal
control agency shall waive the civil penalty if, within 14 business days of
the citation, the owner of the dog presents written proof from a licensed
veterinarian that the dog was spayed or neutered. There is no provision for
a dog owner to defend him/herself in court or at a hearing, and no appeal is
allowed. If you are accused, you are guilty. Period. This is a violation of
constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law.


-- "Complaint" means an oral or written complaint to a local animal
control agency that alleges that the dog or the owner of the dog has
violated this division, any other provision of state law that relates to dogs,
or a local animal control ordinance. "Complaint" also means the observation by
an employee or officer of a local animal control agency of behavior by a dog or
the owner of a dog that violates this division, any other provision of state
law that relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance. An example
of what this means is that a hunting or field trial dog that is in excellent
health and conditioned for performance could result in a complaint of animal
cruelty if anyone believes the dog looks thin.


-- "Local animal control agency" means any city or county animal
control agency or other entity responsible for enforcing animal-related laws or
local animal control ordinances. This includes Humane Societies and other
animal welfare organizations empowered to enforce animal cruelty or other dog
laws. Many members of these groups support a radical animal rights agenda.


The Senate Local Government Committee approved this legislation by a
party-line 3-2 vote Wednesday, with Democrats in the majority. It now goes to
the Senate Committee on Appropriations, and then to the Senate floor for a final
vote.


Please contact members of the Appropriations Committee immediately to voice
opposition to the second half of this bill, and also individual senators.


This link gives contact information for committee members:
http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/sen/committee/STANDING/APPROP/_home1/PROFILE.HTM
[ http://tinyurl.com/4oe639 ]
The committee meets on Monday.


This link gives contact information for all senators:
http://www.senate.ca.gov/~newsen/senators/senators.htp
[ http://tinyurl.com/2ejb6w ]
While Sen. Michael Machado voted for this bill on Wednesday, he expressed many concerns and might be convinced to change his vote.


Dallas


Here is a summary of the dog ordinance passed Wednesday by the Dallas City
Council by a 10-3 vote. The ordinance:


- Creates a permit for a dog or cat used for breeding or competition.
The cost of the permit is $70 annually for each animal, plus the regular
license fee of $30. There is no grace period or exclusion provided for new
residents or people who are visiting Dallas, including participants in dog
shows or other events. Visitors can be cited, and we expect that they will be cited.


- Requires all other dogs or cats to be spayed or neutered.


- Limits a single household to a total of six cats and/or dogs.
People owning more than a half-acre of land would be allowed eight. People who
currently own a greater number of animals could apply to the city to be allowed
to keep their animals without penalty, but they would not be allowed to buy a
dog or breed a litter of puppies until their number of dogs drops below the
limit. The ordinance applies to anyone who “harbors†more than six dogs,
which includes many visitors and participants in dog shows and other events.
Almost all professional handlers would be in this category, as well as many
owner/handlers.


- Subjects anyone who harbors a group of dogs that exceeds the limits
to unannounced inspections. This would include participants in dog shows or
other events.


- Mandates microchipping of all dogs and cats, including those of
visitors.


- Prohibits tethering of unsupervised dogs to trees or poles except
"for a period no longer than necessary for the owner to complete a temporary
task."


Forces owners to provide at least 150 square feet of space and a building or
designed doghouse for a dog confined outdoors. And provides for confiscation of
allegedly dangerous dogs, and other penalties.


Please contact us at <asda@csonline.net> if you would like to participate in
legal action or boycotts related to the Dallas ordinance.


Pennsylvania


Dog owners in Pennsylvania were beset by two pieces of bad legislation this
week.


HB 2525 regulates a million dog owners and owners of 2,700 licensed kennels
in the state. It passed the House Agriculture Committee by a 17-12 vote
Wednesday. All but one Republican (Rep. K. Boback) voted against the bill, and
all Democrats (the majority party) voted in favor of it.


It appears that the final bill reflects some of the promises made to dog
ownership advocacy groups during the past several months of negotiations, but
that the Democrats have reneged on other promises.


Some dog owners groups have withdrawn their opposition to this legislation,
but the American Sporting Dog Alliance continues to oppose it in its present
form. While we support changes that affect commercial breeders, these
represent only a small part of HB 2525. The rest of the bill has serious
impacts on all dog and kennel owners. The text of several amendments has not been
published thus far. We will issue a full report on this legislation in the next
couple of days.


(continued)

(continued)

The other legislation is HB 2532, which provides what amounts to be a de
facto partial or complete ban on tail docking, ear cropping and dewclaw removal
by anyone except a licensed veterinarian. Although most other dog owners'
organizations have not taken a clear public stance on this bill, the American
Sporting Dog Alliance categorically opposes it.


HB 2532 passed the House Judiciary Committee by a 28-1 vote Tuesday, with
only Republican Rep. T. Creighton voting "no."


The bill allows owners to dock the tails of puppies until they pass three
days of age, and to remove dewclaws during the first five days. However, the
burden of proof is placed on a dog's owner to prove that this work was done
legally before the age limits, or by a veterinarian. It would be difficult for
most dog owners to prove this, and a large majority would not be able to prove
it. The simple possession of a dog with a docked tail or a lack of dewclaws
would be considered evidence of an animal cruelty violation, if the owner
cannot prove his/her innocence.


The bill continues a total ban against ear cropping, except by a
veterinarian, and anyone who is found in possession of a dog with cropped ears
is automatically guilty of criminal animal cruelty in the absence of proof.


For all of these procedures, HB 2532 struck out a provision that would have
exempted dogs if their owners filed an affidavit with a county treasurer that
the work was done before the bill is passed.


That means a large majority of owners of many of the most popular breeds
will have no way of proving that they have complied with the law. These
procedures were done legally in the past on many dogs, or legally by breeders
in other states. In many cases, a dog owner has no idea who performed these
procedures. Thus, they would be guilty of criminal animal cruelty for
noncompliance.


This legislation will destroy rescue work for many breeds if it is signed
into law. Most dogs that are assisted by rescue groups, animal shelters and
private individuals either come from unknown sources, or do not come with
medical records. There will be no choice except to euthanize these dogs, since
it will be impossible to establish their legality.


This legislation also will have a severe impact on people who live in other
states. On one level, Pennsylvanians will no longer be able to buy puppies
from dozens of breeds from nonresident breeders who perform these procedures
legally in their home states.


On another level, Pennsylvania professional trainers and handlers will not
be able to accept many dogs from out-of-state customers, because proof will
not be available.


But a larger impact will be on thousands of people who own dogs and come to
Pennsylvania for a vacation, to hunt, or to compete in field trials, dog
shows and other events. Anyone who brings a dog with a docked tail, missing
dewclaws or cropped ears into Pennsylvania is subject to arrest for criminal
animal cruelty charges.


This will affect many very popular breeds of dogs, such as almost all
Continental breeds of pointing dogs, flushing dogs, terriers and many working
dogs, such as rottweilers and doberman pinchers.


The bill now moves to the full House for a vote. Please contact your own
legislator and as many others as possible to express opposition to this
legislation. Contact information can be found at:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/representatives_alpha.cfm
[ http://tinyurl.com/2xtrl3 ]


Here is a link to the text of the legislation:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2007&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=2532&pn=4030
[ http://tinyurl.com/6rdhp4 ]

Holy novel, batman!! :shock:


While I don't have a whole lot of time to comment right now, I will say both sides have legitimate arguments. I know a few good, reputable, responsible breeders who will be harmed by these laws and rules. However I also work with our local animal rescue and see the results of rampant backyard breeding and unethical puppy mills all the time.

That being said, there are a lot of "normal" dog treatment issues that I do NOT agree with in the least. Clipping ears and removing dewclaws to me have no value at all except to harm the animal and make it conform to an arbitrary written standard. Tail docking I normally don't agree with either, however in the case of working dogs (especially herding) I do know tail docking is fairly routine to keep tails out of gates and from under hooves. Normally, however, I don't see a need for it period.

More later...

Zealots of any form frighten me. Those linked article are about as balanced as the PETA junk they rail against.

Zealots of any form frighten me. Those linked article are about as balanced as the PETA junk they rail against.

Zealots are all about -ism's, which I also don't approve of. To quote one of my lifetime heroes, "Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in The Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off people."

Ferris Buehler, you've inspired my life :D

Goo Goo Gajoob!

Zealots of any form frighten me. Those linked article are about as balanced as the PETA junk they rail against.

Well said.

Tail docking I normally don't agree with either, however in the case of working dogs (especially herding) I do know tail docking is fairly routine to keep tails out of gates and from under hooves. Normally, however, I don't see a need for it period.

More later...

Just a quick comment here...Herding dogs do NOT need to be docked at all. The Border Collie is THE premier herding dog all over the world, they are the ones truly still *working* and they are never ever docked (unless it's due to an injury). Docking is absolutely not routine or necessary. Some herding dogs like Australian Shepherds & Pembroke Welsh Corgis are not supposed to have tails as many are born without tails...but the ones that HAVE tails get them docked to conform to the breed standard. I know an Aussie breeder who purposely left the tails ON her last litter...tails help alot with balance...I thing dogs need tails <G> which is why I won't own a breed that doesn't have them.
Many Sporting dogs are the ones that get docked routinely because of going thru the marshes & brush & thickets etc, their tails can get damaged. I won't comment further since I don't have Sporting dogs nor do I hunt or do field work.

I agree that Puppy Mills need to be stopped. If they banned selling dogs in Pet Stores, that would be a reasonable start to addressing the problem.

Border Collies need their tails!

Just a quick comment here...Herding dogs do NOT need to be docked at all. The Border Collie is THE premier herding dog all over the world, they are the ones truly still *working* and they are never ever docked (unless it's due to an injury). Docking is absolutely not routine or necessary. Some herding dogs like Australian Shepherds & Pembroke Welsh Corgis are not supposed to have tails as many are born without tails...but the ones that HAVE tails get them docked to conform to the breed standard. I know an Aussie breeder who purposely left the tails ON her last litter...tails help alot with balance...I thing dogs need tails <G> which is why I won't own a breed that doesn't have them.
Many Sporting dogs are the ones that get docked routinely because of going thru the marshes & brush & thickets etc, their tails can get damaged. I won't comment further since I don't have Sporting dogs nor do I hunt or do field work.

I agree that Puppy Mills need to be stopped. If they banned selling dogs in Pet Stores, that would be a reasonable start to addressing the problem.

Border Collies need their tails!

Certainly herding dogs don't NEED to be docked, but many of them are to avoid tail injuries in the future. Personally I own a "tailless" Aussie (in reality they're mostly bobtail, they have about 2-3" or so) and I can assure you she has NO issues in the least with balance!!

Also I wouldn't say border collies are the ONLY breed left still "working". I've known a number of Aussies who are working herding dogs, Australian Cattle Dogs are still heavily used in some areas, there's even a guy on here who has rough collies who do herding on a daily basis. Certainly they're the most commonly used but by no means the only ones!

At least we can agree on puppy mills :D

Are we talking about animals, Why dont we put this much care into to people
do you think these dogs know ther are being fixed, please ask one. My dogs seem to be ok with the fact, but thier tails always are waggin. We seem to put so much effort in to meaningless things

I got "docked" back in 92. Yup...put away the Rocket Dog "swim team". :rolleyes:

Also I wouldn't say border collies are the ONLY breed left still "working". I've known a number of Aussies who are working herding dogs, Australian Cattle Dogs are still heavily used in some areas, there's even a guy on here who has rough collies who do herding on a daily basis. Certainly they're the most commonly used but by no means the only ones!



Well...I didn't say Border Collies were the ONLY ones still *working*...but if you take a look across the pond...Scotland, Wales, etc, where dogs are needed to work the hills, they use mostly Border Collies....just sayin' that overall Border Collies are used more than any other breed. (hey, I used to work my Sheltie on sheep, not just my BCs)
Didn't mean to diss any Aussies :oops: They are great dogs, and yes, I know plenty who work sheep!
Sorry, I'll shut up now...

Well...I didn't say Border Collies were the ONLY ones still *working*...but if you take a look across the pond...Scotland, Wales, etc, where dogs are needed to work the hills, they use mostly Border Collies....just sayin' that overall Border Collies are used more than any other breed. (hey, I used to work my Sheltie on sheep, not just my BCs)
Didn't mean to diss any Aussies :oops: They are great dogs, and yes, I know plenty who work sheep!
Sorry, I'll shut up now...

No harm done at all, it's all in the spirit of good debate :D

And I agree with Tribal, if only we would be this concerned with PEOPLE social issues...:rolleyes:

RD you hung up the Speedos!? And here I was soooo looking forward to seeing you in them! :lol:

Are we talking about animals, Why dont we put this much care into to people
do you think these dogs know ther are being fixed, please ask one. My dogs seem to be ok with the fact, but thier tails always are waggin. We seem to put so much effort in to meaningless things

This IS about people. It IS about whether the government has any business telling you what you should do on your own private property with your own personal possessions. Bottom line, if you are a responsible pet owner, why should the government care whether your dog has balls or not? Frankly, it is none of their business. What won't they like next? Red tennis shoes? Government has NO RIGHT telling me or anybody else what I can or cannot do with my dog, unless they can prove to me that I have somehow caused harm to society. Breeding dogs, in and of itself, does not cause harm to society. An unneutered animal, in and of itself, is no different than any other dog. The government is dead wrong to categorically place me, as a responsible pet owner AND BREEDER, in the same category as puppy millers and irresponsible rescue organizations (no better than puppy millers) just because I breed dogs and then proceed to take away my right to breed my dog.

This issue is also about animals, as one has to ask--okay, if we are going to alter all these animals, then is the government saying we cannot own pets (won't PETA just LOVE that)? I mean, if they are all neutered, where is the next generation going to come from? So the government is taking away our right to own pets---ignoring all the positive and healthful aspects of pet ownership which have been documented in scientific study after another. Because it was too inept to perform the animal control duties we have collectively paid them millions, if not billions, to do. Face it, this animal control problem arose from the government's failure--to shut down puppy mills in particular--not our failure. They already have the rules to do so, but have completely failed in enforcement.

If we can ideally believe that all puppies will be raised and born "out in the country" somewhere, we are misled. Healthy pups require a diversified gene pool. It is much better to have a variety of breeders producing than to have one mass breeding operation. Pups bred in homes are also raised and socialized into environments that are impossible to replicate in large breeding operations--leaving less opportunity for the development of antisocial, aggressive, or fearful temperments. You would no more raise pups in mass operations anymore than you would raise children as such. Yet these regulations shut down literally all home-based breeding, and leave only large commercial operations as a viable option. EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what is best for society and the animals.

YES this is worth putting effort into and fighting back on. These rules are outrageously misguided and an example of big government stupidity at its best. I really can't believe so many legislators are swallowing them whole.

Good posting DOGBOX!

Any legislation that is passed that takes away my rights as a responsible dog owner is a step closer to breed discrimination...the only people who comply with these types of laws are responsible dog owners...and the responsible dog owners are hurt.

PETA is not a friend to people who own companion animals and is behind this type of legislation...Ingrid Newkirk publicly stated that she believes ALL pit bulls should be put down...NICE while she is riding the media coat-tails of the Michael Vick fiasco...hypocritical!

And the HSUS...egads! I could rant about them all day long...they are not saving dogs from harm...they are funding lobbyists and bogus "feel good" legislation...

I like my natural ears and tails, I am a huge proponent of speutering, but I don't need to be affected by legislation that affects my right to rescue a dog that may have cropped ears...don't tell my I can't tether my lab outside...he will have a meltdown if he cannot sit on a chain and watch the birds fly by or dig holes in my yard.


I would MUCH rather see time, money, effort put into laws that target the people that are actually HARMING an animal...stiffer penalties for animal cruelty and neglect.

I need some more coffee before I rant on....

I'm trying really hard to get worked up about this.



...I got nothin.

I'm trying really hard to get worked up about this.



...I got nothin.

It's OK...someday...if the bleeding hearts get what they want, you might no longer be a dog owner...

It's OK...someday...if the bleeding hearts get what they want, you might no longer be a dog owner...

.....hmmmm I had better not tell my dog, she thinks she owns me;-)

I could not agree more with most everything you said - especially with this statement:


I would MUCH rather see time, money, effort put into laws that target the people that are actually HARMING an animal...stiffer penalties for animal cruelty and neglect.

Responsibility is a good thing, not only in breeders and rescues, but everyday dog owners as well. Sadly, we all know the whole responsibility thing is rare... :|


and don't get me started on peta.... what a bunch of jerks...

I could not agree more with most everything you said - especially with this statement:



Responsibility is a good thing, not only in breeders and rescues, but everyday dog owners as well. Sadly, we all know the whole responsibility thing is rare... :|


and don't get me started on peta.... what a bunch of jerks...

Sorry man, responsibility went out the window in this country in the 70's :sad:

Sorry man, responsibility went out the window in this country in the 70's :sad:

yea, that all started with the whole disco thing... ;-)

yea, that all started with the whole disco thing... ;-)

Suuuuuuuuuure, blame disco! Why don't you blame hair metal while you're at it? :lol:

Seriously though, I actually think it started with the civil rights movement. As much as it was absolutely critical to this country's development and to the rights of its citizens, it seems like it opened the floodgates to the mentality of "I've been wronged and I demand the court correct this!". I could be completely mistaken, but it would be the first time...:rolleyes:

And on the actual subject...

While I don't support laws forcing every pet to be fixed, I do fully support rules at dog parks and public settings requiring pets to be spayed/neutered. There's no denying this is unfair to breeders and other responsible owners, but the fact still remains that most of the aggression (especially at dog parks) is caused by unaltered animals.

The sad thing about all this is it is not applicable to most of the dog owners. My sister has been raising Border collies 30yr. She lives in Texas and these new laws are not hurting the puppy mills and the bad breeders as much as they do the responsible pet owners and breeders. It is not unlike the move for gun control a small group of vocal zealots wanting to take away the rights of all rather than seriously going after those who are the problem. These laws do nothing to help real pet owners. For example in the area was my sister lives: If your dog was behind a fence and some one spooked him and he charged the fence and scared that person. That person could file a complaint of your dog being aggressive. They can come take the dog (with out a warrant) hold the dog for a hearing. And if the judge or hearing person thinks your dog should not have charge the fence the dog can be put down. There are many other consequences that these laws inflict on pet owners and their pets. If these laws are coming to your area READ THEM!!!!! Understand what is about to happen to you and your pet. And speak up if you do not like it. Do not lie down and let these people have their way. WE AND OUR PET COULD PAY DEARLY FOR OUR INDIFFERANCE.

... but the fact still remains that most of the aggression (especially at dog parks) is caused by unaltered animals.

Twi, this is somewhat incorrect. The aggression is directly related to the ignorance of the owner of the dog. Their lack of understanding of body language, pack status, and the fact that chances are, their dog is completely UNtrained to begin with. And then yes, sometimes an unaltered dog makes it's way into the park off leash. Again, the complete ignorance of the owner is at fault. :rolleyes:

I know where I stand on this issue, and while I agree with it to some extent, I do think it's only going to hurt those who are truly responsible dog owners.

I hear it every day, your dog(s) is going to just snap and kill someone. :x Total ignorance on the part of those individuals and the media isn't helping any when they report on only one breed of dog.

It's not the dog that should not be trusted, it's the owner who shouldn't be trusted. "Well, he's never bitten anyone before." Okay, what socialization have you provided, what rules have you set forth for both dog and children in the home? Do you leave this dog unattended with your young child? What obedience training have you offered this dog? Have you made it clear you are the Alpha and not the dog?

When a person chooses to take on a Dog, REGARDLESS of the breed, they can't sit back and be apathetic about it's socialization and training. THAT is how children and adults end up hurt!

I'm certainly not implying that unaltered animals are in any way aggressive, bad, or otherwise, but the numbers and history show that they're involved in a very high percentage of public space incidents, especially in dog parks. Banning unaltered animals from these places is certainly discriminatory but also the easiest practical option to cut down on incidents. Certainly it would be the best to screen each and every owner to see if they're responsible and the animal is well behaved and well socialized, but it would also be pretty much impossible.

When a person chooses to take on a Dog, REGARDLESS of the breed, they can't sit back and be apathetic about it's socialization and training. THAT is how children and adults end up hurt!

While we may disagree on other aspects of the issues at hand, this I can definitely agree with. :D

Twi ..

We are pretty much on the same level. :) And the dog parks around here do have a rule listed, NO Unaltered dogs allowed. Some even break it down to say, No whole male dogs and NO females in Heat allowed.

And you are right, while it's discrimination, it also can't be enforced by just the general populace of the dog park. :confused:

When a person chooses to take on a Dog, REGARDLESS of the breed, they can't sit back and be apathetic about it's socialization and training. THAT is how children and adults end up hurt!

True. I adopted a puppy from the Humane Society with every intention of doing right by that dog. Just after he turned one, he got sick. Terminal liver cancer. Now, over a year after his passing, I am still paying off the $2000 vet bill. I had that dog for only 8 months and I absolutely LOVED that dog. I cried for the first time in 10 years (the last was a month after my brother's passing.) I certainly gave that dog the best 8 months he would have otherwise had...

The ordeal challenged every belief I thought I had about life and euthanasia. How much money was enough? Too much? I have had pets most of my life...they live, they die. We still have my wife's 7 year old dog with its temperamental GI tract... I think I am done with pets for a while...

We still have my wife's 7 year old dog with its temperamental GI tract...

My condolences, both on the puppy and the older dog. My brother has a dog with a VERY sensitive tummy, so I know what you go through with it :sad:

My condolences, both on the puppy and the older dog. My brother has a dog with a VERY sensitive tummy, so I know what you go through with it :sad:

HGE, or Hemorrhagic Gastroenteritis, is a potentially life-threatening diarrheal disease with no known cause.

We, along with our vet, think it is stress and/or environment causing a bacterial imbalance within the GI and therefore inflammation leading to explosive bloody diarrhea.

We are lucky that we get a signal that an episode on the horizon and can head it off. Her guts start making audible noises and she will skip meals and want to eat grass. Our standard treatment is Pepcid and/or Metronidazol... and so far, we have had no episodes in three years... (we have spent almost $2500+ in ICU care for that dog for several episodes.)

I agree that lack of knowledge on the part of a pet owner is a big issue. Too many do not understand that puppies grow up. I do not believe in gun control but I do believe in requiring a person to have training before they can have and carry a gun. Maybe the same thing for dog owners, requiring a breed or dog type specific training before you can own a dog. It will not stop those who ignore laws and reason just like these other laws. But it could help lesson the tragic things that occur for the owners that just did not under stand the breed they were buying or basic dog handling. And slow those who buy a puppy on the spur of the moment because it is cute.

HGE, or Hemorrhagic Gastroenteritis, is a potentially life-threatening diarrheal disease with no known cause.

I can attest to this. Baxter, our Saint/Chow mix, has this condition. It's a horribly scary thing to see the first time. He's done time in the ICU too, I know ever so well how costly that is.

You're the first person I've run into who had a dog with this condition, it truly is something you'll see that sticks with you forever.

HGE, or Hemorrhagic Gastroenteritis, is a potentially life-threatening diarrheal disease with no known cause.

We, along with our vet, think it is stress and/or environment causing a bacterial imbalance within the GI and therefore inflammation leading to explosive bloody diarrhea.

We are lucky that we get a signal that an episode on the horizon and can head it off. Her guts start making audible noises and she will skip meals and want to eat grass. Our standard treatment is Pepcid and/or Metronidazol... and so far, we have had no episodes in three years... (we have spent almost $2500+ in ICU care for that dog for several episodes.)

Bleah, yuck :twisted:

My brother is up to about that much in vet costs. Their dog just can't eat ANYTHING not labeled "dog food" and even some of that upsets him. He'll develop severe pancreatitis within half an hour and has to be rushed to the emergency vet for stomach pump, drugs, etc. Every scrap of food in the house has to be locked away from the dog and they carry syrup of ipecac with them everywhere. He's a very happy doggy though, and a very good boy :D

My brother is up to about that much in vet costs. Their dog just can't eat ANYTHING not labeled "dog food" and even some of that upsets him. He'll develop severe pancreatitis within half an hour and has to be rushed to the emergency vet for stomach pump, drugs, etc. Every scrap of food in the house has to be locked away from the dog and they carry syrup of ipecac with them everywhere. He's a very happy doggy though, and a very good boy :D

An oatmeal cookie led to an all out carpet (and wallet) cleaning...

and pancreatitis along with liver function are part of it when an epsisode gets bad enough. Have to go to the ICU then...

We have to feed the dog Hills Prescription i/d dry food and keep cans of wet food on hand to stimulate appetite... that stuff ain't cheap. Not to mention the $70 tubs of prescription glucosamine.

With what we have spent (and are still paying) for the two dogs, I could have a really well built jeep... (The vet bills effectively drained my jeep fund.)

As for the gun control argument- AK-47's = pitbulls in the wrong hands. (bullets much cheaper though :D )

why not amend the constitution so dogs can carry guns too?

... Not to mention the $70 tubs of prescription glucosamine...

Our dogs get glucosamine, but no need to pay giant prices for it. We just go to the store and get the no-name generic human glucosamine pills for 1/8th the price :D

why not amend the constitution so dogs can carry guns too?

:lol: :lol:

While you're at it, I vote for outfitting all sharks with frikkin' lazer beams! :evil:

True. I adopted a puppy from the Humane Society with every intention of doing right by that dog. Just after he turned one, he got sick. Terminal liver cancer. Now, over a year after his passing, I am still paying off the $2000 vet bill. I had that dog for only 8 months and I absolutely LOVED that dog. I cried for the first time in 10 years (the last was a month after my brother's passing.) I certainly gave that dog the best 8 months he would have otherwise had...

The ordeal challenged every belief I thought I had about life and euthanasia. How much money was enough? Too much? I have had pets most of my life...they live, they die. We still have my wife's 7 year old dog with its temperamental GI tract... I think I am done with pets for a while...

I am sorry :-(

And on the actual subject...

While I don't support laws forcing every pet to be fixed, I do fully support rules at dog parks and public settings requiring pets to be spayed/neutered. There's no denying this is unfair to breeders and other responsible owners, but the fact still remains that most of the aggression (especially at dog parks) is caused by unaltered animals.

I would never go to a dog park...they are BAD for your dogs...dogs do not need to socialize with strange dogs and have to figure out where they rank in a pack of strange dogs...that is quite stressful for an animal...I know my Lab would have a ton of fun at a dog park...but he has more fun running along side my bike or chasing balls into the lake

http://www.dneprimport.com/dog-obedience-lessons/bad-dog-parks.html
Dog parks are a cesspool of diseases. Lots of dogs don’t have the correct vaccinations, since owners don’t care enough. Some dogs are not even on flea medications. Since owners rarely pick up their dogs waste the door park is literally a minefield of dog poop with all sorts of diseases coming with it.

Dog parks are dangerous because you never know what kind of dogs come there. You may have the friendliest dog in the world, but that doesn’t matter if someone’s untrained 100 pound Fido decides that your dog looked wrong on him. While you are trying to save your dog, a lot of owner will just stand around yelling that Fido is just playing around. This is especially dangerous for young puppies.

Dog parks are dangerous because majority of owners would rather sit on small islands of grass and chit-chat instead of watching their dogs.

Dog parks are dangerous because a lot of parents think it’s a good place to let their children play and bring very young children to park. Imagine the danger when a 5 year old child picks a stick and starts chasing dogs.

Dog parks are dangerous because people don’t follow rules about sizes. You often find more small dogs on big side of the park then big dogs. A small dog can be literally stomped to death in a dog park.

Dog parks often bring dogs that usually set in home for whole day either locked in a crate or backyard. On weekends you can see crowed who only let their dogs run around on weekends in a dog park. Imagine the dog’s behavior in a dog park after it has been locked away for a week.

I would never go to a dog park...they are BAD for your dogs...

Again. lots of unsupported generalizations here. Perhaps the quote reflects your experiences of dog parks but it certainly isn't mine. We have 13 dog parks in our area and each one is a little community of its own. There is far better control of aberrant behaviour (both human and canine) as well as health at the dog parks IME than in any other setting where you encounter dogs. The local pet stores provide bags for pooper scooping and the city provides (and empties) the waste bins regularly.

Stressful for dogs? Hardly, if they are well socialized.

I would never go to a dog park...they are BAD for your dogs...dogs do not need to socialize with strange dogs and have to figure out where they rank in a pack of strange dogs...that is quite stressful for an animal...I know my Lab would have a ton of fun at a dog park...but he has more fun running along side my bike or chasing balls into the lake

http://www.dneprimport.com/dog-obedience-lessons/bad-dog-parks.html

I hate to disagree but:

By denying dogs the opportunity to become social with other dogs and people, our dogs are becoming neurotic, apprehensive, territorial, aggressive, yappy, snippy, and dangerous, which enforces prejudices and causes certain breeds to be banned. (and I love the saying "Ban stupid people, not dogs.) While true not all dogs are suitable for a Dog Park environment, the majority of pet dogs benefit greatly, and should be brought on a regular basis to develop into a well rounded pet. It's called the "power of the pack". Your dog can finally be what he wants to be - a dog! Within minutes even the most neurotic dogs become part of the pack, both human and dog, and you see a considerable change and lots of smiling faces.

Dog Parks help dogs with what a lot of people think is aggression, when in fact it isn't. When the dogs have the freedom to just be dogs, they learn to relax and have a good time. They may act scared at first but within seconds they will be part of the happy pack or just out and about on thier own.


If more people brought their dogs to dog parks, there wouldn't be so many ending up in shelters, Humane Societies, or Rescue, nor would there be so many hyper and overweight dogs.

I cannot say it enough, "A tired dog is a good dog". Good quality exercise is the first ingredient in having a well rounded happy dog. I'm not talking a slow walk around the block, I'm talking running, playing, jumping, in other words, plain good old "dog exercise". Your dog will go home happy and tired and you will be looking forward to the next visit.


Steps of of soap box

Again. lots of unsupported generalizations here. Perhaps the quote reflects your experiences of dog parks but it certainly isn't mine. We have 13 dog parks in our area and each one is a little community of its own. There is far better control of aberrant behaviour (both human and canine) as well as health at the dog parks IME than in any other setting where you encounter dogs. The local pet stores provide bags for pooper scooping and the city provides (and empties) the waste bins regularly.

Stressful for dogs? Hardly, if they are well socialized.

I'll agree with you on that one. Though I've been to "Bad" dog parks, most of the ones in this area are a community unto themselves. The dogs know each other and run to greet each other. The owners also know each other and keep the park cleaned up, watch over the dogs, etc. Sure there are different people there every day, but there's always a core group of owners who are there on an almost daily basis.

Even if the owners do stand around, how is that a bad thing? Your dog gets to interact with you every day. Sure I'll interact and play with my dog when at a dog park, but to me we go there so they can interact with other DOGS, not just me. I go to the regular park every day, let my dogs off leash, and play ball/run/frisbee/whatever. I make trips to the dog park so they get social interaction with other dogs.

I will, however, give this the caveat that the parks I've been at are on the edge of towns, with lots of green space or trees/creek/whatever. I've seen pictures of downtown/city dog parks (usually mostly gravel) and wouldn't dream of bringing a dog to one! :shock:

taking my dog to the dog park early on in his life helped him to learn to socialize with other dogs as well as people. I don't have children at my house, so allowing him the opportunity to sniff around the little people helps when we have been on walks or even when people come over to my house. If I am all he knows, then a walk around the block could go wrong...he is collected around most types of people and can play well with others on the playground.

I appreciate our dog park, but the owners do a good job and are responsible (for the most part.) Poo is scattered, but most try to dispose of the waste properly. As far as diseases and whatnot, sure there are dogs that aren't vaccinated or whatever the case may be, but mine is and he's for the most part safe. There are children on playgrounds that can get other kids sick too, are they BAD places for children.

My dog gets a walk and maybe once a week he gets to run crazy and free at the dog park. I also feel part of the subculture and community of caring dog owners. I don't think that crappy dog owners take the time out of their day to drive to the park and hang out.
thanks.

I don't think that crappy dog owners take the time out of their day to drive to the park and hang out.
thanks.

Amen to that. I talk to dog owners who just "walk" their dog around the block every day, or just let them out back every few hours for a bit. They can't believe I actually go out and PLAY with my dog, even DAILY, even in the RAIN! Makes me mad, and few things make me mad...:mad:

..I actually go out and PLAY with my dog, even DAILY, even in the RAIN! ...

...and I thought wet dog smelled bad! :rolleyes:


:D

...and I thought wet dog smelled bad! :rolleyes:


:D

Oh trust me they do, something I deal with daily :twisted:

True. I adopted a puppy from the Humane Society with every intention of doing right by that dog. Just after he turned one, he got sick. Terminal liver cancer. Now, over a year after his passing, I am still paying off the $2000 vet bill. I had that dog for only 8 months and I absolutely LOVED that dog. I cried for the first time in 10 years (the last was a month after my brother's passing.) I certainly gave that dog the best 8 months he would have otherwise had...

The ordeal challenged every belief I thought I had about life and euthanasia. How much money was enough? Too much? I have had pets most of my life...they live, they die. We still have my wife's 7 year old dog with its temperamental GI tract... I think I am done with pets for a while...

Begs the question, why is the Humane society placing dogs that put the owners through the horrible ordeals. There are many dogs to place, they really should screen. Bravo to you, however, for doing all you can for that dog. He is waiting to greet you again some day.

I have two dogs, a Heeler/Spitz mix and a Heeler/Border mix. Wonderful dogs and they will be keeping all their body parts thank you.

However...

I learned the from working with a cattle rancher in Colorado:

Heelers get their tails docked when working with cattle, because it's less stressfull for the cattle! True!

See, deep in a cows brain it still remembers being predated by wolves and that tail triggers a flight response. You don't want the cattle to stampede, just keep moving. Heelers with docked tail don't scare the cows as much.

Pretty simple reason, and I've seen plenty of old, happy, docked tail heelers.

Only nasty part is, most ranchers get rid of the tail the old fashioned way by tying a peice of rawhide extremely tight around the base of the tail between the vertabre when they are about two months old. I've seen this procedure first hand. The dog gets a little annoyed for a surprisingly short time, the tail looses circulation, it goes numb and litteraly falls off in about a week. It almost always heals up just fine because the rawhide keeps anything out of the wound. By the time the tail is off, it's mostly healed up.

These people do this because it's part of ranch life. These dogs work for a living, and these are the terms of employment.