Puppy Forum and Dog Forums banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
335 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This link leads to the Monthly Legislation Report, that gives information about anti-pet/anti-animal legislation all over the United States. The vast majority of states are listed:

http://mnlreport.typepad.com/

It is imperative that we animal lovers become aware of these proposed laws and fight them, before they become laws, so that we can preserve our rights to own our pets and care for them as we see fit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,477 Posts
Ugh, all I do lately is fight proposed legislation. I think it's time for normal pet owners to push for a lobbying group. Fire with fire and all.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
335 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
The AKC has a lobbyist, but I don't know how "normal" pet owners would go about getting one. Maybe go through the AMBOR organization?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,477 Posts
Yeah, I'm not well versed in lobbying either. My default stance is against it. But with the immense power groups we are now up against, I can't think of any other way. I know the two of us are doing everything we can to stop this assault. I've never seen anything like this before. My only guess is they saw an opportunity within the confines of economic distress and took their agenda forward with little vetting from our elected representatives. Maybe, just maybe I can learn fast enough and use my sales skills well enough that I can devise a plan of action. These groups are years (if not decades) ahead of us though... Just keep fighting from every angle you can, I do.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
335 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Obama is an animal rights supporter, although the jury is still out on if he understands what that means or not. The HSUS lobbying faction endorsed him as a candidate. PeTA has purchased a building in Washington, D.C. This wave of legislation is a well-orchestrated move, based on opportunity. Believe me, it's no accident.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,423 Posts
Sorry, I can't. Most of the laws are reasonable to me....noise laws....dogs barking...making it a crime for less than basic care....cities giving the right to own multiple pets. I don't believe in free range and everything/anything goes when you own a pet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,519 Posts
Uhh.. I must be missing something. What's so wrong with the proposed bills? I read through the Minnesota ones and I thought it sounded pretty reasonable. They want breeders to register and have annual inspections of their facilities, they want to have those with dogs deemed dangerous (dogs who have previously bitten) to take a responsible dog owner class, and they want those with dangerous dogs who rent property to notify their land lord of the dog. They also mentioned having a dog park permit that would be good for 3 years. I don't see any of this as a problem? Infact they all seem to be quite good things.. What am I missing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
I thought it was an interesting site. It didn't appear to me that the site was opposed or endorsing the various legislations. It seemed more informative. I think we should be aware of the happenings. I was interested in the tidbit regarding our local shelter and rescues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,605 Posts
So, I had to scroll a ways to find it, but the one for where I live is on there, and I am going with fellow citizens to the city council tonight. The law you can find online there for Plano TX has some points that are good, but also has stuff I opose. The site summed it up nicely;

Plano - proposed changes to Chapter 4 Animal Ordinance provisions for Mandatory Spay/Neuter and Microchips for all dogs and cats over 4 months upon transfer of ownership and other anti-breeding anti-pet provisions

I read the entire thing and it does have good points about animal abuse. However it also limits the number of animals (intact and altered) that you can own.

It also has a part that would allow the sale of puppies as early as 6 weeks, and I think we can all agree that it should be 8, not 6, yes?

It defines a commercial breeder as someone who has more than 2 litters a year. (I don't quite understand the wording, at first it looks like just any owner who breeds at all - that would mean less than 2, so it's confusing to me) It says "Commercial Breeder means any owner who breeds animals and/or transfers ownership of more than ... 2 litters ..." so you can see my confusion

The problem with that is (afaik) commercial breeders have to keep their animals in cages, rather than in the house. So anyone who has three litters is treated as a puppy mill, has to keep their dogs in kennels away from the home, in cages.

Lastly the mandatory s/n would keep me from getting a dog to show unless I buy him before he's 4 months old. Even if I wanted to keep a pet dog intact I couldn't if I got them after 4 months old. Different dogs have different needs and s/n has risks and even if I choose to s/n, the LAW shouldn't be making me. Sadie is spayed and both my male cats are neutered. By MY choice. When I chose to. The only person who has a say is me, my husband and my vet. Not the law enforcement!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,140 Posts
Uhh.. I must be missing something. What's so wrong with the proposed bills? I read through the Minnesota ones and I thought it sounded pretty reasonable. They want breeders to register and have annual inspections of their facilities, they want to have those with dogs deemed dangerous (dogs who have previously bitten) to take a responsible dog owner class, and they want those with dangerous dogs who rent property to notify their land lord of the dog. They also mentioned having a dog park permit that would be good for 3 years. I don't see any of this as a problem? Infact they all seem to be quite good things.. What am I missing?
Ok I didn't read look through all the stuff on the site yet. I will go through it later.

As to the part in bold, not all breeders want to have to keep their dogs in facilities. Some actually want to keep them in home like family pets. Not everyone who breeds is a commercial or for profit breeder who would like their dogs living in cages defined by the state. So I can see a problem with that. I know not everyone shares this view but I'm sure at least some people do. A breeder should have a right if they want to have a kennel dog or a house dog.

If there is anything I don't oppose then I won't fight it. Stuff that I do I will. It seems to be very informative and using judgment would be obvious. Some laws are needed with animals as always. If there isn't anything to disagree with I don't think your missing anything. This site just shows the new bills coming up, not that all are bad I think.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,968 Posts
The thing many people miss: Requiring hobby breeders to be licenced and legally considered 'commercial kennels' in order to keep and breed their dogs will force them to comply with CURRENT USDA REGULATIONS for commercial breeders.

That means, you CANNOT keep your dogs in your home. They MUST be in cages outside, plus many other rules that most of us would find horrific for any dog lover to keep their dogs by. Current USDA rules condone puppy mills and should never be used to judge or control small scale responsible breeders. The USDA needs to be kicked OUT of the pet breeding business, period.

These new laws do NOT solve any breeding cruelty issues. What must be done FIRST is to remove dog/cat breeding from USDA jurisdiction, or else all these laws do is punish good dog owners and breeders. A small scale breeder does not make the kind of money a Puppy Mill does, (many Mills make over $100,000 a year in puppy sales) therefore, charging the same licensing and taxes to anyone who breeds dogs will drive small scale breeders out of business because they cannot afford the fees and taxes that a Puppy Mill (being a 'for-profit' business) can.

The flaw in most of these laws is that they do not address real problems, and are written by people who are either hostile to breeders in general, or who are ignorant of what constitutes 'ethical breeding practices'.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,140 Posts
Exactly Pai, good way to put it. You don't have an option. They must be kept in cages of the specified design. Then the fact which USDA has changed to less and less # of dogs in many states. 2 or more intact must comply with the requirements in some places. Its almost unbelievable if it wasn't true. I think they should at least separate small responsible/hobby breeders from true commercial breeders. Instead they lump the responsible breeders with the commercial ones. So right they don't solve anything. Actually perpetuate the over population problem and many dogs being over bred and kept like nothing but livestock.

All part of the AR movement. Hurt responsible breeders, allow provisions for large commercial kennels, so they can scream and holler about how breeding dogs are abused and there are too many dogs being bred (because of all the mills). Way to help their agenda. That way it will be good to outlaw all breeding and mandatory s/n for all dogs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,477 Posts
I've said many times before that I am NOT a lawyer. But I'm paranoid enough to believe that the placement of words as simple as "of", have significant meaning and implication. That's what I look for in things like this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,519 Posts
The thing many people miss: Requiring hobby breeders to be licenced and legally considered 'commercial kennels' in order to keep and breed their dogs will force them to comply with CURRENT USDA REGULATIONS for commercial breeders.

That means, you CANNOT keep your dogs in your home. They MUST be in cages outside, plus many other rules that most of us would find horrific for any dog lover to keep their dogs by. Current USDA rules condone puppy mills and should never be used to judge or control small scale responsible breeders. The USDA needs to be kicked OUT of the pet breeding business, period

Hmm.. well that seems significant enough to cause this to not pass. How would one go about informing law makers of the issue and coming up with a better law? Honestly most of the things in there I think are very good for the welfare of our furry friends, but I wouldn't want to see every breeding dog outside in a 'facility crate' or anything. There must be a clause or something they could make for people to keep them indoors as you would your normal pets, so long as they comply with all the other good care standards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
I haven't read through every one of the bills behind the summaries, but note that the summary's hide a multitude of sins. Consider this bill --

HB667 - AN ACT RELATING TO ANIMALS; BROADENING THE DEFINITION OF "DANGEROUS DOG"; ADDING NEW REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS; CHANGING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROSECUTION UNDER THE DANGEROUS DOG ACT.

Contains language legally requiring the owner of any pitbull or rottie to register with the state and submit to random warrantless searches.

The devil is always in the details.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,534 Posts
The thing that NEEDS to happen is the BREED CLUBS and BREED RESCUES need to get ORGANIZED and fight these ordinances. The breed clubs already have the organization and people to do this, they just NEED to get together and quite their infighting. The need to kick the AKC in backside as well to get them in action..
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
335 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Found on Craigslist:

Have you been affected by BSL?! < HeidiCH47 > 02/18 16:55:31

I am involved with a group that is making a genuine effort to have BSL removed from the city and county of Denver. We have the interest of a very prominent and effective law group, but they would like to know who will testify against DMAS and the city/county of Denver before they proceed. I have been featured on Fox 31 news and in the Denver Daily News and have volunteered to testify with my own story.

Has anyone experienced issues with Breed Specific Legislation directly? Are you a registered voter and/or resident of Denver? There is a very good chance that this is the time to change the hearts and minds of people everywhere. If Denver falls, the rest are sure to follow. We all know that everything from Greyhounds to Husky mixes have been erroneously seized as Pit/Pit mixes due to ignorance or the gestapo tactics of our neighbors calling to turn in supposed Pits.

This is your chance to tell your story and help us to stop the insanity. Email me at [email protected] or please visit www.denverkillsdogs.com. Join us in boycotting Denver with our "Spend No Dollars In Denver" petition and also in supporting Campaign Kickout 2010!!!
If you live in Denver or know someone who does, please take note of this group. I'm not saying that you should consider donating or becoming involved or anything like that, but awareness of this kind of activity is always good. It's a bit of an emotional appeal, so you'll want to use a little critical thinking on your own to decide if this message is a good one. (btw, I don't buy into the HSUS supporting the movement, since they were probably behind the original BSL, but they have to keep their name in the news).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,850 Posts
I've said many times before that I am NOT a lawyer. But I'm paranoid enough to believe that the placement of words as simple as "of", have significant meaning and implication. That's what I look for in things like this.
The thing to be aware of is where legislators put in a catchall for expanding the law. The head of an agency or dept. can make regulations or change definitions, and they have the full effect of law. Agriculture, EPA, BATF, FAA, and others have done plenty of that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,977 Posts
From what I can tell from that site, I didn't see anything horrible for Virginia, in fact one of them had a clause stating that no dog is dangerous/vicious just because of breed, etc.

Not sure I agree with the registry thing - but then again, I don't agree with it for sex offenders only. Either make it for ALL crimes or none, but that's a different issue.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top