Archive for the ‘Pet Politics’ Category
Examiner.com (always a font of questionable journalism) ran a story last week about an appellate court in Pierce County, Washington that ruled the county’s “dangerous dog” policy to be unconstitutional. In fact, the headline reads “Dangerous dog policy in Pierce County deemed unconstitutional.” If only the story were that simple.
Now, I would be the first to welcome a bit of constitutional scrutiny of our dangerous dog laws. I’ve represented dog owners in dangerous dog proceedings, and I hope it doesn’t seem like too much of a pun to say they are frequently not much better than kangaroo courts. State, county, and municipal laws set out standards for how a determination of “dangerousness” is made, a hearing is scheduled, a judge or a panel of officials hear evidence from the dog owner, the victim, and others, and a finding of “dangerousness” almost always results. Because, at the end of the day, it is usually an injured person versus a dog, and the human almost always has more political clout.
Of course, I’m generalizing, but this has been my experience.
Now then, back to the constitutional question. The case in question involved a Great Pyrenees and a Pomeranian. I’d rather not get into the details of how that turned out, but suffice it to say the Great Pyrenees was the one on trial. The dog’s owner had to pay a fee to the county simply to obtain a hearing on the decision, made without her input at all, that her dog was dangerous.
The court in Washington did not rule that the county’s policy vis a vis the dogs themselves is unconstitutional. They ruled that the practice of charging fees to the dog owners to challenge determinations made by the county animal control authority to be unconstitutional. In short, if you live in Pierce County and you wanted to have an actual hearing on whether or not your dog is “dangerous,” you have to pay the county $250. That’s the fee for an “informal” hearing. For a “formal” hearing, you need $500. If you couldn’t afford the fee, the county could declare your dog dangerous, and you couldn’t do a thing about it. A “dangerous dog” designation could obligate you to obtain extra insurance, keep the dog confined at all times, or lose the dog entirely.
Charging a three-figure fee just to have a day in court, quite frankly, is crap, so the Court of Appeals did the right thing.
As for the policy towards the dogs themselves, unless and until the law starts to view dogs as something more than just chattel with teeth, it won’t be improving any time soon.
It discusses how the words we use to support pit bulls and to try to educate people about them carry more weight than we often realize. People tend to hear what they already believe in other people’s words, and some of the words used to describe pitties have more than one interpretation.
You should read the whole post (go ahead, I’ll wait), but here are the highlights:
Don’t call them American Pit Bull Terriers.
Don’t call them bullies or bully breeds.
Don’t say “it’s all in how they’re raised.”
Don’t ascribe attributes — good or bad — based solely on appearance.
Here are my own thoughts on these points:
Most dogs now described as “pit bulls” aren’t pit bulls at all. They’re mixes of many, many other breeds.
For a very long time, I took the term “bully breed” at face value. I thought it meant that these types of dogs were more likely to be “bullies” in a schoolyard sense. That’s not what it means at all.
It’s not how they’re raised at all. It’s how they’re being treated right now.
Any dog can be the nicest, sweetest dog in the w0rld. Don’t judge a book by its cover, duh.
In New York City, a dog can help you testify in court but can’t help you drown your sorrows in a bar. Via Volokh Conspiracy comes the story of how the NYC health department is stepping up enforcement of a long-neglected ban on canines in the vicinity of food prep. Since booze is legally considered “food,” dogs aren’t even allowed in bars that serve booze but not food. They’re not even allowed on outside patios.
For once, I’m actually inclined to agree with the libertarianish arguments in the Volokh post, in that dogs are an easily-minimized risk in a business like a bar, and that people can certainly make an educated choice as to whether to go to a dog-friendly or dog-prohibited bar. It’s also quite a blow to the social opportunities offered by dogs. Not everyone is a dog person, but dog people tend to be social, and they might like a place to gather with their dogs besides a dog park. For a city that prides itself on its many social and cultural offerings, it seems unfortunate to make such a drastic prohibition.
I’m staying in Austin no matter what, but now I feel even better about it. We allow dogs on patios.
Today is a great day for my blog. A day many bloggers can only dream of.
Today I get to write about porn.
Most bloggers wait in vain for some legitimate reason to blog about porn. Well, bloggers who aren’t named Marc Randazza or Michael Fattorosi, anyway. This week, I found such a legitimate reason. (I should probably mention the NSFW status of this post. Proceed with caution.)
But first, I have to talk about PETA.
I have conflicted views on PETA. On the plus side, they have done some excellent work investigating cases of animal cruelty.
- PETA spearheaded an investigation into U.S. Global Exotics, an Arlington, Texas-based exotic animal distributor, leading to the rescue of over 20,000 animals and the largest animal cruelty prosecution in U.S. history.
On the minus side, they have a very bad track record on many issues of animal rescue.
- This rather snarky infographic (h/t BigMikeInAustin) shows some stats on their rescue efforts and the activities of their spokespeople.
- PETA advocated for Michael Vick’s dogs to be put down.
Norfolk-based People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals cautioned that people may seek to adopt the dogs for the wrong reasons, such as boasting of having a “Michael Vick dog” or returning the animals to the dogfighting pits.
“In most cases, pit bulls seized from dogfighting rings are euthanized, and as sad as that is to all of us, it may be the best thing to do for everyone concerned,” PETA spokesman Dan Shannon said.
Note that the concern is over what may happen to the dogs if they live. Also note that nearly all of the dogs were rehabilitated and successfully placed in adoptive homes.
- PETA has not been much of a friend to pit bulls at all. This puts them at odds with me.
- A PETA “sheltering adviser” offered a remarkably weak, alternative-solution-free criticism of Austin’s no-kill policies recently.
They also make widespread use of nudity in their ad campaigns and protests. I am torn as to whether this goes in the “plus” or “minus” side, as I feel it distracts attention from the important issue but at the same time features naked people.
I’m serious. And it sounds delightful:
The bizarre site will aim to raise awareness of veganism by offering pornographic material alongside graphic footage of animal mistreatment.The porn site will illustrate the horror of life for animals on factory farms, will pictures and video shot undercover by the group’s hidden camera investigations.
Spokesman Lindsay Rajt told the Huffington Post: ‘It will have enough adult content to qualify for the XXX domain site but also some other graphic images of animals that viewers may not expect to see.‘We live in a 24 hour news cycle world and we learn the racy things we do are sometimes the most effective way that we can reach particular individuals.
She added: ‘We really want to grab people’s attention, get them talking and to question the status quo and ultimately take action, because the best way we can help the greatest number of animals is simply by not eating them.’
“Adult content” combined with “graphic images of animals”??? Does PETA, ummmm, know what porn is for??? I mean really, how often do you want to see “graphic images of animals”? Probably not very often. Now think of the absolute last time you would want to see that sort of “graphic” image. You probably thought of a time when you were eating. Now think of what might come in second. You see where I’m going with this.
I fail to see how this could succeed either as effective advocacy or as pornography. There is such a thing as too much controversy. People who aren’t already repulsed by PETA’s antics might finally be repulsed. People looking for new adult entertainment might be in for a rude surprise. Aside from joke fodder, I don’t see much good coming from this.
The Rockwall City Council voted unanimously Monday night to make Rockwall a No Kill community. It’s the culmination of a volunteer-driven campaign by Rockwall Pets, an independent nonprofit, to stop the killing of healthy and adoptable animals at the city shelter. Following meetings between Rockwall Pets board members and city management, the issue was sent to the city council.
The council directed city staff to maintain a minimum 90% live outcome rate at the city’s open-admission municipal shelter. The city must now adopt, return to owner, or save the lives of at least 90% of the animals it takes in. The No Kill Advocacy Center established what has become the industry standard, allowing a maximum euthanasia rate of 10% for animals who are gravely ill or irredeemably aggressive.
“I see the 90 percent, but I’m wondering why not 100 percent?” asked councilman David White, getting into the spirit of the discussion. “I wish that extra 10 percent could be cute little Yorkies.”
It may take as long as two or three months to retool Rockwall Animal Services to meet the council directive. In the meantime, councilwoman Margo Nielsen asked city staff to present a revised euthanasia selection protocol at the next council meeting. Rockwall Pets hopes this overhauled procedure, coupled with ongoing efforts from volunteers, will begin saving more lives immediately.
I applaud Rockwall for taking this step. It looks like they have some good citizen support, which is essential for a no-kill plan to succeed.Austin, of course, was the first Texas city to adopt no-kill, back in March 2010, and we have surpassed the 90% live outcome rate for most of 2011. This is the crucial time of year, when kittens and puppies are brought to the shelter in droves. Austin had a 93% live outcome rate for July 2011, according to the article quoted above, and Rockwall had a 83% live outcome rate. That still puts Rockwall far above many Texas cities.
I got way behind on my Google alerts, so here are some stories from the past 3-4 weeks on animal welfare issues.
In June, the center surpassed no-kill goals, achieving a live outcome of 91 percent, meaning at least 9 of 10 animals that came in to the center left through adoptions, foster care or other placements that kept them alive. So about 1 in 10 died or was put down. And June is not a fluke; the animal center has achieved a live outcome of 90 percent for the past six months, and that is no small achievement considering that the center provides shelter for about 23,000 animals, mostly dogs and cats, each year. In the past, it relied heavily on putting stray animals down to manage Austin’s stray pet population.
Meanwhile, the Austin Chronicle notes “The ‘Unintended Consequences’ of No-Kill’s Success,” as the shelter has spent most of the summer at capacity for puppies and kittens:
The city announced that achievement [6 months of no-kill] in a press release on July 6. Nine days later, it sent out word that TLAC was at capacity and had run out of space for cats. That week, the shelter had taken in 347 dogs and cats. To save lives, the statement said, staff were “setting up temporary cat cages in the administrative conference room.”
So, the question is: Has it turned out that skeptics were right all along in arguing that the attempt to make Austin a no-kill city was bound to result in an animal shelter operating constantly over capacity, with animals living in every available space and staffers overwhelmed by a never-ending flood of new arrivals? The answer, [shelter director Abigail] Smith says, is yes and no.
“No” because animal shelters always see an increase in animal intake numbers in spring and summer, which is breeding season, or “kitten season,” as Smith calls it. A shelter doesn’t have to be no-kill to suffer the ill effects of a breeding season; it comes with the territory. “Yes” because there’s more than a little anecdotal evidence that people feel more comfortable surrendering their unwanted pets to the shelter now that it’s no-kill. Smith calls this an “unintended consequence of success,” one she would like to see vanish.
The shelter has a foster program to get dogs and cats out of the shelter and into homes. Sign up now.
A columnist for the International Business Times takes on critics of no-kill and promotes fostering and adoption:
Some people – even major organizations – still think the no-kill philosophy can’t succeed, in spite of all the evidence that it is succeeding. Only yesterday, a PETA spokesperson wrote in an Austin, Texas, newspaper that:
“It isn’t surprising that since implementing ‘no-kill’ policies, the Town Lake Animal Center is reportedly overcrowded and struggling to find space to house all the homeless animals who pour through its doors … [This] is only the beginning of what is to come, as long as it maintains these dangerous and misguided policies.
“Because there are so many more homeless animals than good homes waiting for them, the only way most shelters can avoid euthanasia is by caging animals for months on end, sometimes warehousing them in stacked crates – which is cruelty, plain and simple – or by turning away animals when there is no more room.”
What’s wrong with assertions like this?
For starters, it’s entirely untrue that “there are so many more homeless animals than good homes waiting for them.” In fact, the opposite is the case.
In other news, Texas is beginning to implement the newly-passed Puppy Mill Bill:
The Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) is taking the first steps to bring dog and cat breeders into compliance with the newly passed HB 1451, also known as the Puppy Mill Bill. TDLR announced that a Licensed Breeders Advisory Committee (Committee) is now in the process of being formed to determine the rules and standards for large scale commercial dog and cat breeders as directed by the passage of HB 1451.
The Committee will be composed of nine members: two licensed breeders; two veterinarians; two members who represent Texas animal welfare organizations; two members of the public; and one animal control officer. Committee applications will be accepted through September 15, 2011.
A writer at OpposingViews offers a criticism of the outright ban on puppy mills passed in Los Angeles,in that it lacks clear definitions :
How many of these breeding factories actually exist within the city limits?
According to L. A. Animal Services veterans, they can’t recall ever finding one or receiving complaints about puppy mills. They say the city’s pet overpopulation stems from careless owners who do not spay their pets and a combination of local backyard and home-based hobby breeders churning out litters which are easily sold through Craig’s List, the Pennysaver, L.A. Times and flyers in pet supply stores or veterinary offices. And, of course, add whatever outlets are used by Los Angeles’ “responsible breeders” who are offended at the mention of advertising , but whose breeding credits are revealed and extolled in dozens of Internet Google references.
Finally, some problems are emerging with a new Texas law allowing pets to be included in protective orders in domestic violence situations, according to a writer for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
Another bill drawing questions is one from state Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, that allows domestic abuse victims to include pets in a protective order against an abuser. During the session, supporters like Davis and House sponsor Jodie Laubenberg R-Parker, said some domestic abuse victims delay leaving an abusive situation out of concern over the welfare of a pet. Battered woman shelters usually don’t allow animals.
The new law is “unprosecutable” in most cases, [Texas District & County Attorney Association analyst Shannon] Edmonds said. At issue is how the bill restricted itself to animals that are “possessed” by the abuse victim. Legally, if a victim leaves their animal while fleeing for safety, the person is no longer in possession of the animal, Edmonds said. He argues that the bill should have referred to “ownership” rather than “possession.”
The moral of this post is as follows:
- Foster one or more shelter animals;
- Don’t breed dogs in your backyard; and
- Don’t commit domestic violence, or, if you are escaping an abusive situation, try to take your pets with you.
There had been controversy around how the Texas Legislature was going to disburse funds collected from the sale of “Animal Friendly” license plates, which are intended to be used to fund spay/neuter programs. I learned today that all funds were authorized by the Legislature for their intended purpose. This came after protests from nonprofits who were expecting funding. The cuts proposed by the Legislature would have barely made a dent in the budget shortfall, but would have been devastating to the organizations that were expecting the money (not to mention the Texans who bought the license plates expecting the money to support spay/neuter). It is always nice when the Legislature does what it is supposed to do.
In my role as chair of the Austin Bar Association‘s Animal Welfare Committee, I have issued the following resolution regarding allocation of funds in the Senate budget bill. It is an important issue, not just because supporting spay and neuter programs is important, but because people need to know that, when they voluntarily contribute money for a specific cause, the money really will go to that cause. Talk to your Senator today.
Why do I love Pit Bulls? Maybe it’s that big, beautiful head, just begging to be rubbed. Maybe it’s those soulful eyes, leading me straight into a wounded heart. Maybe it’s that childlike spirit… full of innocence and hope… despite the harsh realities of the world. Maybe it’s that joyful smile, saying to the critics: “I know you think I’m mean. I know you don’t trust me. But even though you hate me… I still love you.”
Maybe it’s the loyalty… the unwavering devotion in the face of cruelty, neglect, and abuse. Maybe it’s the fact that this very loyalty… this precious gift of allegiance… is exploited every day by evil humans with sadistic motivations.
Maybe it’s the undying will to please their master, the drive for praise at any cost, or the endless desire for compassion of any kind. Maybe that’s what makes them so special…
Maybe it’s the love… the love that waits… often for an entire lifetime… to be given. The love that dies… in the dogfighting ring… on the end of a chain… or at the pound. The love wasted, the lives forsaken, the beauty forgotten… Maybe that’s what I see in them…
Maybe it’s because the media has inaccurately and wrongfully demonized one of the most loving, loyal, and incredible breeds on Earth—the Pit Bull. Maybe it’s because the public believes these mistruths and joins in the bashing. Maybe it’s because Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) has enacted laws banning these amazing creatures… laws that seek to destroy every last living, breathing Pit Bull in America. Maybe it’s because, for the lucky few Pit Bulls in loving homes, BSL rips them away from their families and sentences them to death. Maybe it’s because these precious souls can’t understand why this is happening to them… as they cry out for their families, just before they are killed… Maybe that’s why I fight for them… (read the full post here)
Some of the most amazing dogs I’ve ever encountered have been pit bulls. I just want to take a moment to appreciate how awesome they are.