Ohio Dog Law: Who Pays?

eaglerock814 · Post by **eaglerock814** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:45 pm

Good Guys And Dogs Will
Pay For Proposed Ohio Law

by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org

COLUMBUS, OH – Legislation revising Ohio’s animal control laws is designed to penalize law-abiding dog owners and burden kennel owners by making them pay for the cost of enforcing the law against people who don’t comply with it. Law-abiding dog and kennel owners would face a fivefold increase in the cost of licensure, plus greatly increased burdens of paperwork.

Other changes in the law will greatly increase the number of dogs killed in shelters, give county auditors unrestrained power to revoke kennel licenses in violation of constitutional guarantees of due process, promote medically dangerous sterilization and vaccination practices, mandates breed-specific euthanization, and make it harder for good Samaritans to help stray pets.

For dog owners, the legislation boils down to this: Responsible dog owners and innocent dogs would have to pay for the sins of people who don’t obey the law.

Rep. Shawn Webster (R-Columbus) is the prime sponsor of House Bill 446. We urge Ohio dog owners to contact Rep. Webster before Tuesday, March 11, when he is scheduled to meet with representatives of the Ohio Valley Dog Owners (OVDO) to discuss problems with this legislation. Rep. Webster’s email address is district53@ohr.state.oh.us. The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly supports OVDO’s vital work to improve this poorly conceived legislation, and we urge all Ohio dog owners to do the same by emailing Rep. Webster today about your concerns.

Please feel free to use any information contained in this report, and also to cross-post it and forward it to your friends.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance is the unified voice of sporting dog owners and professionals in America. We work at the grassroots level to defeat unfair legislation and policies that are harmful to dogs and the people who own and work with them. Our work to protect your rights is supported solely by the donations of our members. Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org.

In Ohio, ASDA also is currently working to defeat proposed kennel legislation that would severely burden if not destroy responsible hobby breeding, and to defend the rights of people who hunt with dogs or compete with them in field trials.

House Bill 446 would require county registration (licensure) of all dogs, and puppies that are eight weeks of age or older, and also criminalize the sale or transfer of any puppy or dog that is not licensed. Current law requires registration at the age of three months.

Registration fees for each dog and puppy would be increased from $2 to $10. In addition to these individual fees, owners of kennels would see an increase in their county license costs from $10 to $50. Anyone who raises dogs for hunting, or offers dogs for sale, is considered to be a kennel owner. Raising dogs for hunting is specifically singled out.

The purpose of these greatly increased fees is to pay for the cost of animal control in Ohio. The unfairness and irrationality of this approach is that responsible dog owners and breeders, who are perhaps the least likely cause of the problem, are the people who are being forced to pay for it.

Breeders and owners of purebred dogs rarely burden animal control agencies and animal shelters. Moreover, purebred puppies almost never are found in municipal animal shelters. This legislation makes responsible dog owners and breeders the “cash cow” that will be milked to pay for animal control efforts directed at irresponsible people who ignore the law. ASDA regards this as the unethical exploitation of law-abiding citizens.

People who actually violate the law should pay for the cost of enforcing it, through fines and other penalties. This cost should not be borne by law-abiding dog owners. We should not be held responsible for the actions of others, over which we have no control.

A particularly onerous part of the legislation gives county auditors the unrestricted power to revoke kennel licenses (this includes anyone who raises a single litter of hunting dogs) for unproven allegations of animal cruelty. County auditors do not have the qualifications to make judgments about animal cruelty, and the guilt or innocence of a dog owner facing such accusations should be determined only in a court of law.

This power is given to auditors “if the auditor determines” that a violation of animal cruelty statutes has occurred. No limits are placed on this power, and the legislation does not define any criteria for an auditor to use. In fact, the law gives an auditor the power to revoke a license if he/she simply feels that a kennel owner may have violated cruelty statutes, or even extra-legal personal opinions about what constitutes cruelty.

This is a clear violation of constitutional protections of due process of the law.

The legislation allows animal control officers to confiscate any dog or puppy over eight weeks old that is not wearing a collar and license, even inside its owner’s home or kennel, or if it slips its collar or the collar is chewed off by rambunctious littermates. Officers also would be given the power to sell or kill a dog or puppy that is not wearing a collar and license, and its owner would have no recourse.

Good Samaritans would have a tough time under the legislation. Many kind-hearted people take in a stray dog, care for it and try to locate its owner. If they cannot locate the owner, they often try to find another person to take the dog, take it to no-kill shelters where the dog might be given a second chance, or keep it themselves.

The legislation would require good Samaritans to notify the county within two days of finding a stray dog, and deliver it to a municipal shelter within 10 days if the owner cannot be located. Most municipal shelters euthanize most of the unclaimed dogs that they receive.

This would eliminate the option of placing the dog with a rescue group or shelter that does not kill dogs. It also would prohibit finding a home for the dog with a neighbor, friend or family member. For many dogs that good Samaritans would help, the result would be death for an innocent dog in a municipal gas chamber.

ASDA believes that this provision serves no legitimate purpose, while hindering people who want to help stray dogs and sentencing many of those dogs to death.

County animal control officers also would be given the legal authority to kill any “nuisance” dog for which proof of rabies vaccination by a veterinarian cannot be produced, if a rabies quarantine has been declared. There is no definition of the key word “nuisance” in the legislation.

Under the existing law, it appears that a dog would not be able to play in its own yard, go hunting or compete in a field trial if a rabies quarantine is imposed in the state, as it would have to be penned, leashed or confined inside of a home or kennel. This unnecessary restriction should be removed from the law.

In 2007, the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) declared that rabies has been eliminated from domesticated dogs everywhere in America. A CDC statement said that no dogs with rabies have been found in American kennels for more than 10 years.

ASDA believes that the current rabies prevention program is working and should be continued. However, there is no rational justification for more strict rabies controls in light of the CDC findings.

The legislation also requires rabies vaccines to be administered only by a licensed veterinarian. This is an unnecessary burden on dog and kennel owners, and especially on people who own several dogs. Dog owners should be permitted to administer the vaccines themselves. Veterinary expertise is not required to successfully vaccinate a dog.

Potentially unsafe medical practices also would be encouraged under the legislation. The age for making people pay higher license fees for dogs that are not spayed or neutered was lowered from nine months to six months. Many veterinarians believe it is potentially harmful to spay or neuter an immature puppy, and an increasing body of research suggests that sterilizing dogs carries many significant health risks for the dog. Moreover, female dogs typically don’t reach reproductive maturity until they are around 11 months old.

ASDA objects to any law that would penalize serious breeders of purebred dogs, as they do not contribute significantly to the problem of unwanted pets. Most breeders take great pains to assure that the puppies they sell go to good homes where they are wanted and valued. The vast majority of unwanted puppies come from accidental matings of dogs that are owned by negligent people. Research also has shown that most dogs in shelters are there because of other reasons, such as a landlord’s objections, personal illness, or job transfers to other states.

In addition, most dogs that will compete in dog shows, field trials or performance events, or that will be used for hunting or farm herding, cannot be fully evaluated for their fitness for competition, hunting, herding or breeding until they are a year or two old.

The legislation’s definition of a dangerous dog automatically includes all “pit bulls.” It would make it illegal for anyone to transfer any “pit bull,” except for the purpose of euthanasia. ASDA strongly opposes any breed-specific legislation, which would deny due process of the law and equal treatment under the law to people who show purebred American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Bull Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers and other breeds.

One of the major reasons why ASDA opposes breed-specific legislation is that we see a strong tendency for legislation to include hunting breeds. The proposed federal Pet Animal Welfare Act, for example, includes all hunting dogs with pit bulls for much more intensive regulation. The Ohio legislation also takes a major step in this dangerous direction by requiring anyone who raises a litter of hunting dogs to obtain a county kennel license.

Hunting dog owners also know that we are next on the list for the extremist animal rights groups, who strongly support this kind of legislation. We cannot let down our vigilance.

For these reasons and more, ASDA urges all Ohio dog and kennel owners to voice their strong opposition to this legislation by contacting Rep. Webster immediately.

Please visit us at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org.

Post by **ezzy333** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:54 pm

If you are working from the grassroots lets see a show of hands of the 2000 of people on this board that have been polled or asked for their opinion on any of the subjects you have briught to this board?

The American Sporting Dog Alliance is the unified voice of sporting dog owners and professionals in America. We work at the grassroots level to defeat unfair legislation and policies that are harmful to dogs and the people who own and work with them. Our work to protect your rights is supported solely by the donations of our members. Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org.

This sounds more like you are deciding what we should be thinking and on top of that you are begging for donations. Makes one wonder a little about who is speaking for who!

Ezzy

bh99 · Post by **bh99** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:38 pm

Just this year my county raised dog tags from $13 to $20. The problem I see is to many people don't buy tags. One way to get people to buy them would be to make you show proof before a vet will treat or see a dog.

gar-dog · Post by **gar-dog** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:44 pm

bh99 wrote: tags. make you show proof before a vet will treat or see a dog.

Sounds a bit like our immigration problem.... maybe one should show residency status before getting medical treatment..... but no one would turn away a human in need, probably not a dog either.

splucinski · Post by **splucinski** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 5:39 pm

ezzy333 wrote:
This sounds more like you are deciding what we should be thinking and on top of that you are begging for donations. Makes one wonder a little about who is speaking for who!

Ezzy

I agree with Ezzy. I'm new here so maybe I'm stepping out of line. If I am, please accept my apologies. I just went to the website that is mentioned in all of his posts. It does request donations and memberships, which I really don't have a problem with. But then I went to the forum. It talks about the compensation for John Yates. Here is a copy of that post:

Here is an outline of the compensation package for ASDA founder and Director John Yates. Mr. Yates is a full-time professional bird dog trainer who is nearing retirement. He feels strongly about the issues that are addressed by this organization, and wishes to devote as much time as possible to our cause. Here is the proposed compensation package that will allow him to do this.

Mr. Yates will work as an independent contractor and will receive a commission. He will not receive a benefits package. The purpose of the commission is to compensate Mr. Yates for the time he spends in the service of this organization. This service will include direct political action, public relations, coordinating political and legal action, membership recruitment, preparing written and oral testimony, and travel on behalf of our membership.

The first $50,000 in revenues per calendar year will be divided 50-50 between Mr. Yates' commission and general operating expenses, which are budgeted by our advisory board.

All revenues in excess of $50,000 per calendar year will be divided 75% for operating expenses, and 25% for Mr. Yates' commission.

Please review this schedule, feel free to discuss it here, and vote to accept or reject it in the poll section.

Funding retained for operating expenses by the organization will be used for website development, Internet and telephone expenses, correspondence, paying expenses for attorneys and expert witnesses, paying expenses for leaders of state delegations for travel and testimony, purchasing equipment and supplies, clerical assistance, if needed, and related expenses. No less than 90% of the organization's budget will be allocated directly to accomplishing the goals of the organization, and fund-raising expenses will not exceed 10%.

The issue I have with it is the fact that they are raising money to benefit us as dog owners and yet 50% of the first $50,000 in revenue goes to Mr. Yates, then 25% of the amount after 50K. IMO, that's a pretty hefty chunk of change.

eaglerock814 · Post by **eaglerock814** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:00 pm

I will respond to the criticism in this thread once.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance is very responsive to the opinions and concerns of its members. There is no organization in America that has more open lines of communications with members and non-members alike.

Moreover, our advisory board consists of 35 people from 22 states, and many of them represent many other organizations that work for sportsmen and dog owners. Our board members come from every walk of life, and work with virtually every breed of dog used for hunting, and hunt virtually every species of game. Everything I do is done with the advise and consent of my advisory board. Most of my analyses of legislation is done through consulation of our legal team.

Our website has an open forum, and any person (even if you are not a member) can express an opinion on everything we do. We answer every posting. No other organization has this kind of openness.

In addition, no other organization openly lists the compensation package of it's leader. This package received the unanimous approval of all of our board members, and our members were polled and gave it an 86% approval rate. None of you ever have belonged to any organization that was this open to its membership.

My earnings figures are theoretical. My actual earnings probably will be about $30,000 this year. In comparison, the head of the Humane Society of the United States makes almost $300,000 a year, and the PETA guy makes half that. Moreover, they have hundreds of other people woking for them.

I earn every penny I make from this organization, and then some. I gave up my business as a bird dog trainer to do this because I care deeply about it. I put in a minimum of a 12-hour day. Today, for instance, I was writing the Ohio report I posted here at 5:30 a.m. Now, it's 9 p.m. and I'm still working. None of the people who criticise me here work half as hard, and they probably make twice as much.

I know this. The people who object to my postings are not doing a single thing to help dog owners fight the very real threats of animal rights activism. They aren't lifting a finger.

Like Nero, they are fiddling while Rome burns.

Thus, I will continue to post here. If I am banned, so be it. If my postings are lockd, so be it.

But I won't stop trying my best to fight for the rights of hunters and dog owners. I have no intention of quitting.

If you lookj at what ASDA actually is doing, there is no other organization out there that is doing even a fraction as much. I know that to be a fact.

I welcome your membership, and I will earn every penny of the 50% of your dues that will be my income that is required to make ASDA work. The other 50% will go toward the costs of fighting the people who would ban dog ownership and eliminate hunting. No other organization can claim this high or a percentage.

Post by **ezzy333** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:01 am

I have no quarrel with the purpose of the organization. I do have a problem with you deciding where you are going to post and where you are not. This happens to be a private board that operates under a set of rules and at the owners discreation.

You Mr. Yates do not decide where you can post and where you can not. And to set your mind at ease most of us here are as concerned about these issues as you. I am amazed that someone in the PR business would set themselves up in a manner that disturbs many people. You are losing support rather than gaining it.

I don'tthink anyone wants to ban you or your posts but again I ask that you conform to the policies of this forum or you will lose the priviledge you have now. We are not a bullitin board but rather a community of dog owners. If you want to discuss some of the issues feel free to join in the discussions but we are not the place to post your bulletins without our approval.

Ezzy

Ricky Ticky Shorthairs · Post by **Ricky Ticky Shorthairs** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 7:26 am

I'm kind of confused. What exactly did Eaglerock do wrong? It sounds to me like he is trying to help all of us before legislaition like this starts popping up all around the country.

Once one of these bills passes, it will be much easier for everyon else to jump on the bandwagon to pass even more.

Once again, I'm not too smart when it comes to these political issues, but I don't see the problem. If it's that his org. is asking for money, how is that different from people asking for money to research skin diseases?
(Which has happened recently, and nobody objected except me, after which I was scolded by the moderators.)

I'm not trying to start anything, but I guess I'm still trying to figure out what can be posted on here and what can't. It kinda sucks when you feel passionately about something, but are concerned about posting, because of situations like this.

I guess I missed the part about what subjects you can and can't post. How is anyone supposed to know if you need permission to post certain subjects on here. Someone please enlighten me.

And, no Ezzy, this isn't sour grapes from being scolded about the skin disease post. I really am confused, and would like a clarification.

It sounds to me like Mr. Yates is trying to help us. And yes, I think that he is probably earning every penny of what he makes.

NO, I"M NOT A MEMBER OF ASDA OR DO I KNOW MR. YATES. NOR DO I KNOW ANY MEMBERS OF ASDA.

It sounds to me like he is trying to inform the rest of us about the crazies out there that we are up against, and that we need to stick together.

Confused,
Doug

Windyhills · Post by **Windyhills** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:14 pm

Seems like an issue of where you draw the line. This appears to be the beginning of an endless # of posts which are basically news releases from one viewpoint of one organization. I suspect most of us would agree with most of his positions--but from what I have seen, I would say not all of them.

And what's to stop someone from starting to routinely post news releases from the NRA? League of Conservation Voters? Or any of a number of other organizations some members of the board wouldn't agree with, and would lead to topics blowing up!

shags · Post by **shags** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:29 pm

John Yates' posts concern dog laws that should concern us all. The antis, HSUS, PETA etc are very active in destroying or severely limiting dog ownership, not to mention hunting and other birddog activities. We have no organized voice in legislature. I'd bet not one in fifty of us have any idea of the proposed laws that threaten activites we love. IMO we should be grateful that someone is willing to inform us so that we can take some kind of action on our own local levels; otherwise someday a we'll find that what we had assumed would go on forever has been restricted or abolished, and we'll wonder how in the world that happened.

I'm a new and infrequent poster here, and I appreciate the forum. But there are usually threads that I don't have an interest in, so I ignore them and move on. The authors' incomes and what they do to earn it are irrelevant.

IMO it's irresponsible of us as sportsmen/women and birddoggers to bury our heads in the sand and to refuse to recognize the threats to our pursuits. We ought ot be thankful that someone is giving us a simple easy way to keep abreast of those threats.

eaglerock814 · Post by **eaglerock814** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 4:43 pm

Here is an update to the report I posted last evening about Ohio HD 446, which will affect all Ohioans who own or raise dogs.

On Wednesday March 12, at 8:30 A.M., the House Committee on Local and Municipal Government and Urban Revitalization will hold a public hearing on this legislation in Columbus. Please send a letter to each legislator on this committee. The following link will direct you to the committee members’ individual websites, which contain their email addresses: http://www.house.state.oh.us/jsps/Committee.jsp?ID=21. This committee will play a major role in deciding whether or not to send the bill to the full House for a vote.

This legislation revises Ohio’s animal control laws is designed to penalize law-abiding dog owners and burden kennel owners by making them pay for the cost of enforcing the law against people who don’t comply with it. Law-abiding dog and kennel owners would face a fivefold increase in the cost of licensure, plus greatly increased burdens of paperwork.

Other changes in the law will greatly increase the number of dogs killed in shelters, give county auditors unrestrained power to revoke kennel licenses in violation of constitutional guarantees of due process, promote medically dangerous sterilization and vaccination practices, mandates breed-specific euthanization, and make it harder for good Samaritans to help stray pets.

Post by **ezzy333** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:14 pm

Eaglerock,

Now this is a good post. Info that we can use without the canned preprinted article with all of the advice on how we should think included.

Ezzy

Post by **ezzy333** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:45 pm

Doug,

I'm not trying to start anything, but I guess I'm still trying to figure out what can be posted on here and what can't. It kinda sucks when you feel passionately about something, but are concerned about posting, because of situations like this.

I have nothing against passionate but reprinting a canned preprinted article that tell us what to think does not in any way spell passionate. Rather it spells a prepared statement that an organization is putting out trying to influance our opinions and consequently the outcome of the issue. Like I said before, most everybody agrees already so we don't need the political rheteric when a simple post telling us about the issue will do. We are and will try to be in the future a private place where people can come and talk to people and not an advertising board where other organizations come to post their material.

It sounds to me like Mr. Yates is trying to help us. And yes, I think that he is probably earning every penny of what he makes

I hope he is trying to help and he is more than welcome to do that at any time. But I don't think notices from an organization sounds like a personal post from John Yates. It sounds to me like an organization telling us how and what to think about an issue. When you post representing an organization, you have given up any personal identification and it becomes a post from the organization. And since we are just individuals that post here we want to keep that individual friendship without dealing with the politics of any organization.

If you look you will see the last post came from John and not his employer. Hope you all noticed the difference and can appreciate how much better it feel to be talked to by an individual instead of being advised by an organization who is involved politically and wants donations to represent us and our opinion without asking what our opinion is.

Does this help or just confuse everyone more.

And Doug, you can post anything you want and I am sure someone will complain and tell you about it if they think you are out of bounds. And if that someone happens to be me it is done without any personal grudges held.

Ezzy

Post by **topher40** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:47 pm

I have said it once and I will say it again. Maybe time for eaglerock to have his own spot on this forum. If people want to read and updated themselves with the going ons in the animal politics world then let them. I havent seen ONE bit of information from him that suggest that he has anything more than political agenda to add to the this forum. So the moderaters have a dilema before them, ban eaglerock or give him somewhere to preach his agenda!
I am not disagreeing or aggreeing with eaglerock although this forum has never been one to enter into the politics of the bird dog buisiness and that is why its the best forum on the web.

gar-dog · Post by **gar-dog** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:57 pm

I don't care about posts like this occassionally. But I wouldn't want him to swamp the forum with them.

I am an NRA activist, and can often raise a little cane when gun rights are concerned. But I don't think you guys would want me re-publishing articles here from the NRA website. I am here to get help with training my new Brittany, and on the rare occassion when I can, help someone else. I might pop in a little gun control activism when appropriate, like when we had to straighten out that fellow on the guns & ammo thread recently.

I am all for a political section. There is so much going on out there with the Brady campaign and PETA that it definitely affetcs us and we should stay informed, but in the general section I'd rather talk about force fetching and whether or not bearded dogs are ugly.

eaglerock814 · Post by **eaglerock814** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:32 pm

I am asking permission to continue to post material from The American Sporting Dog Alliance on this site.

It's all personal, as I am the person who researches and writes all of the postings I make. It's "canned" only in the sense of efficiency. I need to get this message out to a lot of people, and often I need to do it fast. The ohio situation is an example. There is a meeting Tuesday and a hearing Wednesday.

I need your help. I need to get this message out to as many knowledgeable sportsmen as I can, because I honestly believe we are fighting for our lives.

I like the Gun Dog forum a lot. I am impressed by the knowledge, experience and dedication to hunting with dogs that I see here day after day. YOU are the kind of people I want to reach, and I need to reach.

Yes, I hope you will join ASDA, because we need the support of many people to survive and have political impact. Everytime I talk with a politician, one of the first questions I ma asked is how many people I represent in his state. Numbers do count.

But, more than that, I need your participation. I need YOU to take an active role on your own. I deliver the news and give suggestions about what you can do. But mostly we all need you to actually do it. We need you to write to your elected officials, attend hearings and convince your friends to do the same.

Sportsmen and dog owners are literally in a fight for the life of what we love. The antis will not leave us alone.

I will make two promises. First, I will remove any references to joining ASDA from any postings I do on this site. Second, I promise never to spread discord in any way.

Thank you.

bh99 · Post by **bh99** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:35 pm

I wouldn't mind a political section on this forum. Maybe Grant could setup a poll for us to vote on adding a political section. Without eaglerock's post I wouldn't have known about this issue and it's in my backyard.

WildRose · Post by **WildRose** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 9:16 pm

You know I have yet to see where Eagle has posted anything that says "Please send me money".

Whether some of you find all of this repetitive and somewhat boring (as I do) he's not promoting candidates or parties, he's making people aware of legislation or proposed legislation that has a direct impact on us as dog owners.

Everyone here is making a political statement just by being a member of this forum, they are stating that they are outdoorsmen/women who hunt, or participate in field trials.

We all have a choice when we see a topic posted. We can look at the topic and who started it and decide whether or not to view it. We then have another choice, we can decide whether or not we want to respond to it.

If you aren't promoting or decrying a specific party, individual candidate, or purely political view point it's not a "political" post per sey.

I think Grant and the Moderators need to rethink this tack. CR

Reech · Post by **Reech** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:59 am

I come here looking for information. I am a novice when it comes to training and upland hunting. There are people here who have helped me train my gundog by reading the info here. I thank you all

This is a very open and honest board. Please keep it that way.

Just my .02

Reech

dan v · Post by **dan v** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:56 am

WildRose wrote:You know I have yet to see where Eagle has posted anything that says "Please send me money".

Whether some of you find all of this repetitive and somewhat boring (as I do) he's not promoting candidates or parties, he's making people aware of legislation or proposed legislation that has a direct impact on us as dog owners.

Everyone here is making a political statement just by being a member of this forum, they are stating that they are outdoorsmen/women who hunt, or participate in field trials.

We all have a choice when we see a topic posted. We can look at the topic and who started it and decide whether or not to view it. We then have another choice, we can decide whether or not we want to respond to it.

If you aren't promoting or decrying a specific party, individual candidate, or purely political view point it's not a "political" post per sey.

I think Grant and the Moderators need to rethink this tack. CR

CR,

The anti's will win in the long haul. We, as dog people are far too fractionated to beat them. The replies to John are indicative of the problem.

Post by **ezzy333** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:05 am

Wyndancer,

I dont believe you can get anymore solid than shown on this forum where there has not been one post diagreeing with the ASDA posts. And no one has even hinted at a disagreement with the few posts John has made. However, if you think the antis will win I am sure they will. You can't win unless you believe.

Ezzy

Gun Dog Forum

Ohio Dog Law: Who Pays?

Ohio Dog Law: Who Pays?

Response to Criticisms

UPDATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A request