August 28th, 2010 by Editor
What’s in a name? Plenty. So when animal rightists disguised as normal, rational human beings say things like this,
“We needed to change the language [from "owner" of pets to "guardian"]…My feeling* was the term ‘owner’ denigrated the animal companions we share our lives with.”
it sounds reasonable. But guardianship is anything but reasonable.
The above quote is from retired veterinarian Elliot Katz who also happens to be the president and founder of In Defense of Animals, an animal rights group. Hmm, Elliot Katz is a retired veterinarian? I wonder if his former colleagues know that “Doctor” Katz said this:
“It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership.” — Elliot Katz, President, In Defense of Animals, Spring 1997.
So, in other words, it sounds like he’s trying to put his former colleagues out of business. I wonder if they know that. I wonder if they also know that when you change out the word “owner” for “guardian” you strip owners of their property rights to their pets. Read the rest of this entry »
August 26th, 2010 by Editor
From the Victorville Daily Press:
A consultant working with Barstow to update its vicious-dog ordinance recommends that the city consider a mandatory spay-and-neuter law. But whether that law would require all dog owners to fix their animals or only to pit bull owners is up to city officials, he says. Read the rest of this entry »
August 25th, 2010 by Editor
Heavens to murgatroid, what is becoming of this country? On the one hand we have very power-drunk nanny-staters who push overly-bureaucratic legislation like breed bans, and on the other hand we have racist podunkers who pass the same breed-specific legislation only with a racist bent. The former, the nanny-staters, we lobby against every day because they are so busy pushing impotent breed-specific legislation it’s enough to keep a body quite busy. But in a disturbing recent trend, we’re starting to see a lot more blatantly racist legislation involving pets too. Read the rest of this entry »
August 25th, 2010 by Editor
Visitors to this site have frequently noted the alarming frequency with which law enforcement officers shoot dogs first and apparently have to answer no questions later. For instance, if a law enforcement officer feels threatened by a dog, s/he apparently has the “right” to use deadly force against the animal. But are these officers trained in reading canine warning signs so that they know when a dog is actually a threat? Or are they simply taking out any and all dogs that could potentially be “pit bulls”? Do law enforcement officers have “pit bull” shoot-to-kill orders…or is it just “pit bull” shoot-to-kill allowances?
And I shouldn’t even limit it to “pit bulls” (though I should clarify that “pit bull” is not a breed). Earlier in the month, a federal officer who works at Fort Myer in Virginia apparently shot dead a Siberian Husky at a dog park because the officer misread the Husky’s playfulness with his German Shepherd. Charges are pending, and rightfully so, against the officer for animal cruelty and improper discharge of a firearm. Ok, so what makes this situation any different from all the reports we frequently hear where police officers indiscriminately shoot “pit bulls”?
More:
Rally held for dog allegedly shot by animal control officer
Detroit cop aims at “pit bull,” shoots animal control officer in raid
August 21st, 2010 by Editor
Editor’s note: Again, what is a “pit bull”? There is no such breed. And since what folks refer to as “pit bulls” often runs the gamut of actual breeds and their mixes, it’s clear that Colerain Township has a free-roaming dog problem, not a “pit bull” problem. As we have seen time and again with municipalities seeking to push breed-specific legislation (BSL), a free-roaming dog problem, especially in this economic downturn, is usually due to a lack of Animal Control enforcement.
From Cincinnati.com:
…Colerain Township Trustee president Dennis Deters said he’s received at least five complaints about the dogs from residents in recent weeks. That follows an incident last month in which Colerain Township Police Officer Steven Karwisch was bitten by a stray pit bull and eventually shot and killed the dog. Read the rest of this entry »
August 16th, 2010 by Editor
Editor’s note: Since there is no breed “pit bull” statistics from this non-existent “breed” are meaningless. Also, while breed bans themselves have been found to be unconstitutional, banning “pit bulls” from owners who owned their dogs prior to legislation being passed is a serious ex post facto violation.
From KAIT 8:
…”We’ve had seven attacks already this year,” says Batesville Council member Fred Krug, who is now looking to pass an ordinance to ban pit bulls within the city limits.
…The ordinance would give pit bull owners 60 days to find the dog a new home. Read the rest of this entry »
