Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Los Angeles now to kill dogs for their "potential"

Los Angeles just doesn’t seem to have enough pressing issues to keep the board of supervisors occupied. Now they are busily dreaming up new ways to harass dog owners, and looking for excuses to seize and kill more dogs.

KNX 1070′s John Brooks reports animal control officers will now have the power to seize an animal simply for chasing someone.

“There doesn’t necessarily have to be a bite,” said director of animal control Marcia Mayeda. “But if a dog’s charging at you down the street and you jump on top of a car to get out of the way, that’s a potentially dangerous dog.”

But if a dog is determined to be a “significant threat to the public health, safety and welfare,” animal control personnel can destroy the dog under the new ordinance.
OK let me get this straight. If my dog does the job that it’s bred for and chases off a burglar, it can now be declared a dangerous dog? And destroyed? Hey, why stop at a dog that chases? Barking, growling and baring teeth can also be considered menacing. I suppose if an AC officer tries to enter my property and is chased, then the dog will be subject to a death penalty?

The law also sets up a more cost-effective administrative hearing process, one that won’t call on the Superior Court to resolve disputes over whether the picked-up dog was in fact dangerous.

Heck yeah. Why worry about whether the dog is in fact actually dangerous? Just kill him. An uneducated animal control officer is obviously going to do a better job adjudicting these matters than an actual REAL judge.

Is there any place on the planet more dog-unfriendly than Los Angeles? Perhaps a good candidate for the title would be the People’s Republic of China, where they club dogs to death by the thousands instead of vaccinating them for rabies.

But hey, give LA time. They'll get down to clubbing dogs soon enough. Or maybe shooting them where they stand. After all, that would be way more cost-effective than impounding them. 

Not surprisingly, the People’s Republic of Los Angeles is travelling down the same path as the People's Republic of China.

My dog sure as heck better chase anyone who is a threat to me and my family. And for the government to suggest that he should be killed for doing his job is obscene.

Full article here:


  1. So the Chi who chased the robbers, who's video went viral deserves to die?​ch?v=AVucCy6QBAI

  2. Poor Paco the Chi who saved his owner from robbers. His act of visousness was caught on camera. It Law also is not about what a dog does but the perception of the person making the complaint. So your neighbor sees your dog play chasing kids. The "friendly" neighbor who has nothing but the public's safety in mind can have your family dog destroyed. Lovely.

  3. This is unfortunately the new "hope and change" May the Gods help us and our animals! The robbers will sue the chi's owners and this "new world" We really need to protect our animals, and take back our country!!!! It's getting quite late in every sense of the word.

  4. Many, many of us have said that the goal of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and PeTA is to incrementally take away all pets and eventually force us all into a vegan diet by removing all animals from agriculture. No one believed us. Do you believe us now?
    HumaneWatch on Facebook

  5. Unfortunately, there’s a grain of reality here. I’ve had experience of loose dogs that regularly charged people & cars who passed by on the street. These dogs had clear intent to harm. And eventually, both bit people – seriously. So it IS understandable that people who are fed up with dogs that do this want some kind of solution. The problem is that one ALREADY exists. It’s existed for DECADES. It’s called the “LEASH LAW”. These dogs were outside their own yard, off lead, not under control of any person. They were out in the street being a traffic hazard – those who swerved to avoid hitting them and those who took evasive action to being bitten. It shouldn’t HAVE to require that one wait for a bite for Animal control to deal with such dogs. Proper enforcement of the “in your yard or on a leash” rule would have sufficed to keep these animals from threatening anyone. It isn’t necessary to have a NEW rule about animals “chasing” people – and in fighting this proposal, perhaps it should be pointed out that proper enforcement regarding LOOSE dogs would solve the problem without any new rule, fines, licence fees or door to door harassment of those whose dogs ARE in their yards.

  6. This ruling means that if your dog even runs at someone, or someone's dog, or chases away an intruder (IOW, doing its JOB), it can be deemed vicious
    (and btw, put to sleep if the PTB think it appropriate). The dog doesn't have to touch the other person in any way, just appear to be scary, and if
    the so-called victim has heart palpitations and rushes to the doctor, your dog may be deemed vicious. And no need to hear your case in court - an
    administrative hearing with any animal control officer will be sufficient.

    Because of course, saving the department time and money is far more important than justice, or the life of your dog.

    The noose is tightening, folks. If you can be at City Hall on Tuesday at 9:30, make the effort.

    At the very least, contact your supervisor and voice
    your opposition to this horrible idea. It's not just about vicious dogs; it's about the concept that animal control can make arbitrary legal decisions concerning your pet. First it's vicious dogs, then what?