dog legislation thoughts > GSP Forum

Unanswered Active Topics

Forums Search

Forums > Mailing Lists > gsp-l

Subject: dog legislation thoughts

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Author

Messages

chexsix

MH
Posts:313

06/12/2007 3:46 PM
As I read some of the emails about the most recent legislation in CA and having just gone through a couple of bouts here in TX I would like to offer the following insight. One would think by looking at the overwhelming percent of individuals voting against spay/neuter which is at the heart of most legislation that local Lawmakers would be listening. Unfortunately they are but its to the wrong people. Concerned individuals that own pets of any kind need to go to PETA and HSUS websites and read very carefully what they are and what they do. Pay close attention to PETA's website on education in the schools and receiving college course credit. Also pay close attention to the fact that the money they raise does not go to help animals but for legislative efforts. They are well organized and well funded and they don't care if the legislation passed is ever enforced as they are on to the next local city or state to do more of the same. Individuals that push this type of legislation will use a mantra of "facts & figures" that just don't exist but are meant to overwhelm and shock the caring person's senses. They argue from emotional issue points and nine times out of ten the individuals pushing for these types of legislation are not versed in the animal areas by which they accuse others of being the offenders. For example here in San Antonio, TX there is a committee that is in the process of re- writing the City's Code as it relates to all animals, pet related facilities, rodeo, boarding kennels, research facilities, etc. This committee is made up of 8 appointed individuals and of the 8 only 1 person has 16 years of background and expertise to deal with the local issues. Of the remaining 7, 4 are primarily interested in the feral cat population with 2 of the remaining 3 either in charge of a privately run animal shelter or a statistician. Of the 7 a majority believes that a spay/neuter ordinance along with restrictive breeder permits is the only way to deal with the City's animal problems while refusing to take into account actual stray figures and the city demographics. Considering the large diversity of what this city Chapter covers one wonders how this skewed representation happened. Animal rights activist learn early how to position themselves in places of influence. Go look at PETA and HSUS websites again, its all there. In the meantime the average pet owner has no idea of the massive movement underway to strip away their right to own a pet. The proponents for spay/neuter ordinance, limiting numbers and breeder permits use the average pet owner's "donation to help animals" against them by hiring lobbyist to target specific Lawmakers. They do their homework, they find out which lawmaker is leaning which direction and work on them from that angle. Sometimes its nothing more than a trade off vote for this means support for that and that is how the common man loses their right to own and make decisions about their pets. Had it not been for two local purebred dog breeders that also happened to be TX licensed attorneys in addition to the help of a lobbyist via one of the targeted "vicious" dog breed organizations the average pet owner would never had gotten some of the amendments added to the recently passed "Dangerous Dog Bill" in the TX legislature. Helping research facts and figures for the current rewrite of SA's City Code for Animals and sitting through many hours of testimony on both the state and local level I can't tell you how many times references were made to other cities that had spay/neuter ordinances. These were being used as the model regardless if those cities had since rescinded the ordinances because they couldn't enforce them or their shelter kill rates escalated because individuals couldn't pay or were afraid they would be subject to search and seizure. All eyes are on CA because of the ripple affect it will have in 2007 just like the first spay/neuter ordinance passed in CA did in the early 90'ies. Patte Titus CheckSix Shorthairs

mflkstovall User is Offline

Posts:3

06/14/2007 1:24 PM
These are good points. In Kentucky HSUS even has a spay neuter license plate that you can get. Guess who gets the donations? According to our local county clerk deputy the HSUS. these guys are very tricky. Everyone has to be on there to this catch slogan. Most of us believe in spay/neuter (I hope for the pets we have), but we need to be careful and not fund HSUS's revenue generating machine. Michael Stovall ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nate & Patte Titus" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 4:25 PM Subject: dog legislation thoughts > As I read some of the emails about the most recent legislation in CA and > having just gone through a couple of bouts here in TX I would like to > offer the following insight. One would think by looking at the > overwhelming percent of individuals voting against spay/neuter which is > at the heart of most legislation that local Lawmakers would be listening. > Unfortunately they are but its to the wrong people. > > Concerned individuals that own pets of any kind need to go to PETA and > HSUS websites and read very carefully what they are and what they do. > Pay close attention to PETA's website on education in the schools and > receiving college course credit. Also pay close attention to the fact > that the money they raise does not go to help animals but for legislative > efforts. They are well organized and well funded and they don't care if > the legislation passed is ever enforced as they are on to the next local > city or state to do more of the same. > > Individuals that push this type of legislation will use a mantra of > "facts & figures" that just don't exist but are meant to overwhelm and > shock the caring person's senses. They argue from emotional issue points > and nine times out of ten the individuals pushing for these types of > legislation are not versed in the animal areas by which they accuse > others of being the offenders. For example here in San Antonio, TX there > is a committee that is in the process of re- writing the City's Code as it > relates to all animals, pet related facilities, rodeo, boarding kennels, > research facilities, etc. This committee is made up of 8 appointed > individuals and of the 8 only 1 person has 16 years of background and > expertise to deal with the local issues. Of the remaining 7, 4 are > primarily interested in the feral cat population with 2 of the remaining > 3 either in charge of a privately run animal shelter or a statistician. > Of the 7 a majority believes that a spay/neuter ordinance along with > restrictive breeder permits is the only way to deal with the City's > animal problems while refusing to take into account actual stray figures > and the city demographics. Considering the large diversity of what this > city Chapter covers one wonders how this skewed representation happened. > Animal rights activist learn early how to position themselves in places > of influence. Go look at PETA and HSUS websites again, its all there. > In the meantime the average pet owner has no idea of the massive movement > underway to strip away their right to own a pet. > > The proponents for spay/neuter ordinance, limiting numbers and breeder > permits use the average pet owner's "donation to help animals" against > them by hiring lobbyist to target specific Lawmakers. They do their > homework, they find out which lawmaker is leaning which direction and > work on them from that angle. Sometimes its nothing more than a trade > off vote for this means support for that and that is how the common man > loses their right to own and make decisions about their pets. Had it > not been for two local purebred dog breeders that also happened to be TX > licensed attorneys in addition to the help of a lobbyist via one of the > targeted "vicious" dog breed organizations the average pet owner would > never had gotten some of the amendments added to the recently passed > "Dangerous Dog Bill" in the TX legislature. > > Helping research facts and figures for the current rewrite of SA's City > Code for Animals and sitting through many hours of testimony on both the > state and local level I can't tell you how many times references were > made to other cities that had spay/neuter ordinances. These were being > used as the model regardless if those cities had since rescinded the > ordinances because they couldn't enforce them or their shelter kill rates > escalated because individuals couldn't pay or were afraid they would be > subject to search and seizure. > > All eyes are on CA because of the ripple affect it will have in 2007 just > like the first spay/neuter ordinance passed in CA did in the early > 90'ies. > > Patte Titus > CheckSix Shorthairs > > > > > > >

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Forums > Mailing Lists > gsp-l > dog legislation thoughts

ActiveForums 3.7