A new round of local animal ordinance issues has started, not just in
Texas, but around the country. This is an interesting message about
how these ordinance proposals get so far along in the process -- as
the one in San Antonio did -- before the public knows enough about
them to get involved in the process. Right now, in Texas, as many of
you know, Dallas is one of the targets.


February 8, 2008
This article describes in detail what is happening in Texas cities and
elsewhere.
____________________________________
Permission to crosspost,

but please note from the Alaskan Malamute Club of America Newsletter._ _
A THOUSAND SNAKES IN THE GRASS
By Margaret Anne Cleek

"Better the dragon you see than a thousand snakes in the grass."
This Chinese Proverb should be recognized and heeded by pet owners and
fanciers. Currently anyone who breeds animals is the target of animal
rights activists who wish to abolish the purpose breeding of pets, and
in some cases pet ownership in general. While we are made aware of
federal and state legislation threatening our ownership of our
animals, for example PAWs and the Animal Welfare Act at the federal
level and CA's AB 1634, mandatory S/N bill, and broad-based opposition
is launched, I believe that the greatest threat is from
local legislation enacted as quietly as possible. The threat is
greatest at the local level because a small special-interest group of
animal right activists is following a quiet plan to rob us of control
over our pets and their reproductive capacity and enacting this plan
community by community.
Programs on how to enact legislation have been developed by special
interest animal rights organizations. Action steps are outlined on
websites with literature, sample wording, canned letters, and a plan
showing how to proceed. They are told not to reveal that a new
ordinance is the objective, but rather to form a taskforce to address
animal welfare or to decrease shelter euthanasia. Also the advice is
given to remain informal as this keeps you from being subject
to "sunshine laws" which may exist to assure open and public process
and to lay the groundwork and assure support from staff before going
public.
Thus the public is not aware that behind closed doors special interest
groups are drafting an ordinance to suit their agenda. A group is
formed and under the guise of being a coalition which
includes all "stakeholders" participants further their plan. Some
participants are well-meaning, some know precisely what the real
agenda is. In any case, the MSN or `pay or spay" ordinance is drafted
with city or county staff co-opted as a participating member. Senior
staff, legal, and council or board members are now inundated with
information in private one-on-one sessions. The perception of a crisis
is cultivated and the only solution is to enact legislation forcing
people to pay huge fees to own intact animals or criminalize the
ownership of intact animals. Data is provided which is either false or
misleading about the success of mandatory S/N legislation.
They may show a decline in euthanasia, but fail to note that greater
declines were achieved in communities without such an ordinance. They
may show an increase in licensing with coercive legislation, but fail
to mention that enforcement costs exceed revenue. In my municipality
I found that success was even claimed in a community that had no such
legislation.
(For a comprehensive article on MSN legislation's results please see:
Do mandatory spay/neuter laws reduce shelter intake and euthanasia?
by Laura Allen http://www.ab1634.com/Files/ARE_MSN.pdf

Breeders are vilified as being responsible for the deaths in shelters
under the simply appealing but logically false premise that the birth
of a wanted pet causes the death of a shelter animal. Breeders are
pimps, heartlessly exploiting animals for money, causing the death of
wonderful shelter animals and costing the municipality tremendously in
animal control costs. A huge number is manufactured and becomes
the lost revenue to the county because all breeders are tax evaders
making tens of thousands of dollars and costing the community in
animal control costs for the surplus animals they produce.
Apparently someone failed Econ 101 as there can either be a crisis of
surplus desirable animals OR breeders selling pets for thousands of
dollars. You cannot have both. There is rampant emotional
manipulation. Pictures will be shown of darling puppies. Then the
numbers of animals killed in the shelter will be given. This leads
the targets of the message to believe that these darling puppies are
killed. In fact, the number presented includes wildlife injured and
brought in, small animals, reptiles, owner surrender for euthanasia
because of age or illness, feral cats and unweaned kittens, and
dangerous dogs. They present as if the community is killing huge
numbers of adoptable animals, but when the data is examined, the
numbers of adoptable animals is revealed to be very low. Many shelters
cannot meet the demand for puppies and smaller dogs and only have
large mixed breed, often pit type available in any numbers for
adoption.
Anyone who gathers this data is dismissed, because now the numbers,
which were once touted as so compelling, are "not important". The
council members or supervisors are sold "the big lie." The Big Lie is
a propaganda technique. It was defined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925
autobiography Mein Kampf . It is a lie so "colossal" that no one would
believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so
infamously".
In the case of pet overpopulation the Big Lie is promoted over and
over to city officials and the public, to the point of where they no
longer can process logical arguments against the lie and accept it as
fact without question. They come to fully believe that there is a
crisis of pet overpopulation, that the public has not responded to
education and the problem is getting worse and worse and we must
enact coercive and draconian legislation because all else has failed.
Breeders are unethical and unregulated and need to be controlled.
Intact animals bite and run at large while altered ones do not. Every
intact animal is a ticking time bomb and a single female cat can
produce 470 thousand cats in seven years and a single female dog 65
thousand dogs-everyone knows this to be true!
In fact, there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of pets
euthanized. The most reliable data available indicates between 3 and 4
million animals were euthanized in shelters last year. This includes
feral cats, ill and infirm animals, dangerous animals, and owner turn
in for euthanasia. These numbers are a far cry from the 25 million
estimated 30 years ago and these numbers have decreased in spite of an
increase in the number of total pets and a doubling of
the expected lifespan of dogs in homes (mostly due to leash laws). It
is estimated that voluntary S/N rates for cats are around 90% and 75%
for dogs (numbers from HSUS, American Pet Products Manufacturer's
Association and Animal People). Spay/neuter for pets is an easy sell
and represents one of the most successful social change efforts of
this generation.
Before dog and cat fanciers are aware that such legislation is even
being considered, senior staff and legislators have been indoctrinated
to believe that there is a crisis so great and so intractable that
extreme coercive and punitive action must be taken, that breeders are
the scum of the earth, that a single intact animal is a threat to the
community and thus vets must report animals not
neutered by 4 months to animal control, that the community supports
this draconian legislation, and that it has been hugely successful
every where enacted. Any evidence to the contrary is dismissed as
false information from breeders who are trying to protect their
"business". Anyone who opposes the ordinance is demeaned as a selfish
and heartless "special interest" while the so-called coalition is
presented as representing the interests of the larger
community and the animals.
The legislation is then presented to the municipal legislative body by
staff as the extensive work of a "taskforce", all "stakeholders" have
been involved, and it is specially designed to meet the needs of the
community. In fact, the legislation is the "canned" product of an
animal rights group and these taskforces are rigged, and anyone who
does not agree with the agenda is not invited to the private meetings,
or if initially involved but not with the program, "chilled" out of
the proceedings by the dominant group.
The real kicker in all of this is that the agenda and legislative
lobby work of a special interest group (possibly with a 501c3 status
which means they should not be political) is presented to the council
members or supervisors as a recommendation of staff. This makes
passing it a knee jerk as councils or boards rubber stamp just about
anything staff recommends in virtually every community. In some cases
a MSN ordinance is not even presented to the public and is attempted
to be snuck through on a consent calendar (Sacramento City August 2007).
It is my belief that the greatest threat to the ownership of pets lies
in the stealth enactment of these ordinances in our communities.
And this is not just happening in California, the land of fruits and
nuts. Hendersonville, NC, Palm Beach, FL, Little Rock, AR, San
Antonio, TX, Albuquerque, NM are some of the communities considering
or enacting extreme AC ordinances.

Responsible Pet Owners Alliance
900 NE Loop 410 #311-D
San Antonio, TX 78209
Phone: (210) 822-6763
Website: www.responsiblepetowners.org
$15 Annual dues (January - December)
To share information, subscribe or unsubscribe,
e-mail rpoa@texas.net.