Sounds of Silence

Sounds of Silence

The Future of Pets in America
Carole Raschella
Director, California Federation of Dog Clubs

For the past three decades or so, unlike any other country in the civilized world, the United States has been brainwashed into believing that the only good pet is a sterilized pet. No one with even a rudimentary knowledge of biology has ever thought to question the outcome of this bizarre idea, and we are now beginning to suffer the consequences.  There is now a shortage of pets in many parts of the country, although so far, this truth is obscured by several factors. Shelters with an overflow are transporting animals to fill the demand, as are rescue groups, many of which are also bringing in strays from other countries. In addition, hundreds of thousands of dogs are imported every year from third world countries, and thousands more are smuggled in across the border.

The source of this ideology is the Humane Society of the United States, the best known of several extremist animal rights groups, all of which have the same agenda, to eradicate animals from our lives. Their strategy is to work within the political system to lobby for seemingly innocuous, seemingly beneficial, laws, which are designed to make pet ownership more difficult, more expensive and ultimately out of reach. The irony is that, under the guise of helping animals, these groups are funded by those with the most to lose. America’s misguided pet owners.

The most obvious of these laws is the popularity of mandatory spay/neuter legislation. In a country which is already conditioned to spay or neuter its pets, encouraging laws to make sterilization a requirement and not a choice has generally been well-received. Owners who pay a discriminatory high fee to keep their dogs intact find they no longer have a choice. If these owners also breed their dogs, permission to do so now requires an expensive permit, as well as stringent kennel requirements, which, if the current APHIS proposal to the USDA is enacted, will be impossible to meet, and will end most home breeding of healthy American dogs.

Many other regulations are becoming common due to HSUS pressure. Certain breeds, usually pit bulls or any dog that resembles one, are now banned in many areas as dangerous, and other breeds are gradually being added to that list. In addition, an increasing number of apartment owners and housing associations refuse to allow pets, and recreational areas that once welcomed them are no longer doing so.

The latest, and possibly most oppressive, attacks are on the sale and transfer of pets. Most pet shops are no longer allowed to sell live animals at all, which removes an option for pet buyers, and the most recent attempt is to forbid sales of pets sight unseen, supposedly intended to prevent internet sales by suspected “puppy mills,” but also affecting breeders who sell their puppies to buyers in other states.

Last year in the California legislature, Senator Ted Lieu introduced AB1122, a bill which would prevent the sale or transfer of animals in public places, a law which would, among many other things, create difficulties for those who prefer not to allow strangers into their private homes. Fortunately, although the proposal passed through the various committees and was approved by both houses, Governor Schwarzenegger refused to sign it, saying that he was “concerned with the scope and unintended consequences of this bill and that it does not assure the humane and ethical treatment and welfare of animals.”

Undeterred by our former Governor's comments, Senator Lieu revived his proposal the following year as SB917, and this time got it pushed through successfully. In the meantime, Los Angeles Animal Services has devised its own way of creating obstacles to the process by imposing a newly created “Transfer Permit” of 120.00 on anyone who sells, transfers or gives away an animal. So, if  Susie wants to give a kitten to her dear aunt in San Diego and arranges to meet her halfway at a restaurant, it will cost her 120.00 for the privilege of doing so. Her other option, I suppose, would be to leave the cat at her local shelter, which would cost her nothing. They’ll even kill it for free. Unintended consequences.

Where will it end? Will we continue to fumble along, ignoring what is going on around us, perhaps expecting someone else to take care of it, until the day comes when we are ready for that next obedience prospect, that conformation hopeful, or just a new pet for the family…and instead of the charming squeals of a puppy, all we get is a resounding silence?

Canine racism

In the early 20th century German Shepherds were reviled. They were regarded as aggressive, mean and untrustworthy. The mental association of the breed with German Nazis didn’t help its image either. What turned the tide in the negative public perception of this breed was the advent of a nationwide television hero named “Rin Tin Tin.” Suddenly, a breed that was shunned, feared and hated became adored as a family pet and admired for its courage and loyalty.


Every era needs its scapegoat, and so it goes today, with the popular media and even some so-called “dog bloggers” (who really should know better) railing against “pit bulls.”

For decades, one of the most popular types of dog in this country has been the “bully”-type breeds. This type of dog has served as the mascot for the “Little Rascals”, the logo dog for “Target” stores, the dog listening with rapt attention to the RCA Victrola, and the “Spuds Mackenzie” dog in beer commercials. Helen Keller owned a beloved bull terrier. Millions choose dogs of this type when selecting a family dog, and why not? According to aficionados, the Bull Terrier was known in Victorian times in England as the “nanny dog” because it was so reliable with children. Whether the legend about this nickname was true or not, it certainly COULD have been true. Bully breed dogs are smart and loyal and brave, known on many occasions to save the lives of their owners. Just like all dogs of all breeds.

Breeds that are popular tend to be over-represented in shelter statistics and bite statistics. This only means that there are more of them around, not that they are a problem based solely on their type of breed. There are a lot of Chihuahuas in shelters too, and they figure way up at the top of the list for dog bites as well. The most pressing concern about dog bites is the risk of rabies, and that risk is the same regardless of whether the bite came from a bulldog or a Chihuahua.

It's amazing that people who would be immediately offended if a human racial slur was slung are so willing to fall into that sort of insulting and ignorant activity when it comes to dog breeds.

Now we are seeing unsubstantiated claims thrown about that “pit bulls” are a large percentage of shelter intakes and deaths. To illustrate the fallacy of this idea, here is a message I just received from a friend of mine in response to an article I posted about shelter stats on our breed club list:

“I am not sure where they get the information on "Pit Bulls" - it seems to me that pretty much anything large can get that designation. A neighbor's AKC Labrador escaped and was impounded. They swore they had not had any Labs brought in, yet there he was. But he was a Pit Bull. Good job she went and checked personally instead of just taking their word for it.”

This is a typical scenario. Shelter workers are conditioned to be disgusted at the sight of “pitbulls” and to watch warily for them at every turn. And all those misidentified dogs are lumped into the statistics claiming that “pit bulls” are rampant in shelters.

The California Federation of Dog Clubs has produced a Breed ID workshop for shelter workers. There is a quiz included with pictures of dogs of many breeds, and quite a few of them look similar to so-called “pit bulls”. In fact, according to the CFoDC, there are 25 purebred breeds that are commonly mistaken for “pit bulls” including Boxers, Rottweilers and (yep) even Labrador retrievers.

Try for yourself and see how easy it is to identify a dog breed just based on appearance alone:

www.stopbsl.org/bsloverview/impossibleid/
www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

At the risk of sounding trite, how we can treat man's best friend this way? He gives his all for us, and we villainize him, outlaw him, and kill him. 

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:
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/07/19/what-makes-spot-vicious-la-county-to-seize-dogs-for-chasing-people/

Hollister passes mandatory sterilization for Chihuahuas and "pit bulls"

No kidding! What do Chihuahuas and "pit bulls" have in common? They are both now in the crosshairs of the new MSN ordinance in the City of Hollister, California.

Update from the Save Our Dogs website, posted here with permission of the author.

"There was a great turnout for last night’s Hollister city council meeting about the mandatory spay-neuter ordinance. The room was packed with more residents than the council had ever seen before on any issue."

"Only one person in the audience spoke for the ordinance. ALL of the others in the audience who spoke, at least two dozen of them, were opposed. Unfortunately the ordinance passed despite this unprecedented level of constituent opposition, by a 3-2 vote."

"Thank you to Mayor Gomez and Vice Mayor Valdivia for voting no."

"Council members Friend, Emerson, and Sanchez voted yes."

http://saveourdogs.net/2010/10/16/hollister-mandatory-spay-neuter-ordinance/

Breed specific legislation-Arkansas

The City of Hot Springs, Arkansas is voting on a breed specific law this coming Tuesday, December 1st. Bad idea. Worse than that, terrible idea. Why? Here's what I wrote to the city directors, Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau:

No breed is inherently aggressive. Unacceptable behavior of individual DOGS, not breeds, is caused by OWNERS, whether through abuse or training or neglect. Owners. The breed itself is not relative. Statistically, smaller dogs are the most frequent biters, and in the majority of cases, victims are family members, typically children, who have never been taught that animals are not toys.

Other than the fact that I would no longer participate in Arkansas’ dog shows should these laws go into effect, my residency in another state is irrelevant. What matters is that breed specific legislation does nothing to change the actions of irresponsible or oblivious owners. The only result of such laws, every time, everywhere and in every situation, is that a large group of innocent dogs is condemned to death by virtue of its appearance.

Is that really your intention?>

If you agree, by all means let Hot Springs know, but be wary of your own legislature too. If they haven't passed a similar law already, you might want to keep track and make sure they don't. All of these anti-pet laws result in the deaths of more dogs. The opposition will tell you different, but the statistics prove it's true. Every community, town, every city, every state, everywhere that has or had breed specific laws, mandatory spay/neuter laws, limit laws...etc., ends up killing more dogs.