This is Margo Milde's perspective on the Chicago Spay & Neuter
proposal for you to examine from the IL-Pet-Law List.
*********************************************************** Now that I have
my own mailing list set up for Chicago alerts, I
decided to do a formal article on this subject, which I wrote and
sent out to everyone on my own lists yesterday, encouraging them to
forward to other clubs and dog owners that they know.
Since I've done a lot of talking on this subject in the past week to
fellow purebred dog owners, I can tell you that these dog people are
really shocked when told of the details of the LA MSN law, and that
it would apply in a similar fashion to Chicago. AKC dog people always
thought that "responsible owners" would be given a way out, which is
not provided in these laws. It's absolutely critical that this
message gets out to everyone involved in purebred dogs.
I am posting it here for anyone who wishes to crosspost and forward
it on to others (permission granted.)
Margo Milde
FORWARDING PERMITTED AND ENCOURAGED
LET'S GET THE WORD OUT!!!
Proposed Chicago Mandatory Spay/Neuter (MSN) ordinance to be modeled
on Los Angeles MSN ordinance
Ramifications will be tremendous for all owners and breeders of
purebred dogs throughout the United States
by Margo Milde
July 25 2008
Chicago aldermen have repeatedly told us, in the past several weeks,
that the Chicago ordinance will be based on the new Los Angeles
Mandatory Spay/Neuter (MSN) law, which will go into effect in Los
Angeles on October 1 2008. Therefore, it's very instructive to
examine the new Los Angeles MSN law to learn what's in store for us
should our proposed Chicago MSN not be defeated.
I guarantee you won't like what you see. I sure didn't and neither
will anyone else who values their dog ownership and breeding rights.
Under the Los Angeles law it will be impossible to get the
spay/neuter exemption permits required. That's because a registry
would have to be qualified first, and no registry in the United
States or Canada would be able to meet the specified requirements.
We are quite certain that Animal Rights groups such as Humane Society
of the United States (HSUS), which had input into the Los Angeles law
and have been busy helping to write the proposed Chicago ordinance,
intended it to be that way. This is not some technical mistake that
will be quickly remedied. They know what they are doing.
Therefore, since no dog or cat in Los Angeles would be eligible for
the exemption permit once the law goes into effect on October 1, all
dogs and cats over four months of age would have to be spayed or
neutered. It would be impossible to lawfully keep intact, let alone
lawfully breed, your pets after October 1 in Los Angeles (yes, true
even for valuable purebred show animals; yes, even those animals
belonging to "responsible breeders" ; yes, even for individual dogs
of "rare breeds" for which conservation of the gene pool is critical
to the breed's future!)
Pause for a moment to let this sink in.
Now, let's look at the details. I've attached at the end a very
recent article from The Animal Council which explains the specifics
(scroll down to the section entitled "EVOLUTION OF DISCRIMINATORY
FACTORS IN CALIFORNIA DIFFERENTIAL LICENSING, PART II:") where you
can read the whole sordid affair for yourself, but I'll emphasize a
few points here relating to the Los Angeles law which, as they
happily keep telling us, we would undoubtedly see here if our Chicago
MSN passes.
Under the Los Angeles law, AKC and other registries must first apply
to Los Angeles for official "recognition" with Los Angeles before any
breeders can apply for the intact dog permits for dogs registered
under the AKC (or other registries). Should other municipalities pass
a similar law (how many municipalities are there in the U.S. ?!) AKC
and other registries would have to apply to each and every
jurisdiction individually for recognition. And, under the Los Angeles
law, they must apply every three years, and that only if
no "requirements breach" would occur during those three years! But
this is irrelevant, because, as you'll see, no registry in existence
can meet several of these requirements, which include:
1. "Maintains and enforces a code of ethics for breeding that
includes: (etc)"
NO registry in existence can meet that requirement!
Some parent clubs have a COE (which, by the way, is often hard to
enforce except for the most egregious offenses), however, the AKC,
UKC, Canadian Kennel Club, and probably every other valid kennel club
you've ever heard of in the US or Canada does not involve itself (nor
should they!) in telling people how to make decisions regarding
breeding the dogs they own. That's because they act as a registry for
the dogs themselves; *you* do not belong to the AKC. Yes, if you
falsify a registration and get caught, or are convicted of a serious
animal cruelty offense, the AKC will suspend your privileges for a
certain length of time and/or fine you. But this is significantly
different than what is implied under a COE for breeding.
2. "Under no circumstances allows, endorses, or engages in any
activity that is determined to be intentionally harmful or
detrimental to the health and/or safety of animals or humans."
The AKC and other registries permit and encourage field trials and
hunt tests, in which the game is killed. (Maybe, since we're dealing
with the twisted Animal Rights mind that wrote these requirements,
they may even state that earthdog tests and herding trials constitute
an intentional harm to the safety of animals.) Therefore, this would
make any registry having hunt tests or field trials, such as the AKC,
ineligible as a recognized registry if this is interpreted verbatim -
which I'm certain is the intention of its Animal Rights authors.
3. "Proposes a method for assessing and certifying dogs or cats in
conformance with LAMC (Los Angeles Municipal Code) that can be
verified."
The AKC (and UKC, and Canadian Kennel Club etc) does NOT "assess and
certify" dogs but operates strictly as a registry. Again, to "assess
and certify dogs" is NOT a function of a registry, nor should it be.
You are probably asking at this point: Why is this taking place?
Wayne Pacelle, today's Chief Executive Officer of the HSUS, was
quoted as saying the following:
"We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of
livestock produced through selective breeding ...One generation and
out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals.
They are creations of human selective breeding."
source: http://www.activistcash.com/biography_q ... m/bid/3366
I guess it's time we believed him.
The HSUS and other Animal Rights groups are doing everything in their
power to shut down ALL pet breeding across the U.S. Passage of such
laws by misinformed representatives (supported by the even more
misinformed popular media and the general public) will in effect make
pet breeding an illegal activity -- no matter was the elected
officials thought they were passing. This is a well-thought-out
systematic plan, devised by the Animal Rights groups, and should
definitely not be taken lightly. As cities and even states fall one
by one, the Animal Rights extremists will methodically and inexorably
move towards their goal of eliminating domestic animal ownership and
breeding entirely across the United States and Canada .
But it's even worse than this, due to the limited breeding lifespan
of our dogs, and the limited gene pools of many of our purebred
breeds.
Lawsuits regarding this ordinance have already been filed in Los
Angeles against that City. However, it will probably take many, many
months of legal wrangling (if not years, maybe not ever) for the Los
Angeles ordinance to get worked out to the point that pet breeding is
once again a lawful activity in that city. So what will happen to our
purebred dog breeds in the meantime?
The maximum breedable age is probably for a bitch is generally
considered to be 10 years, and 12 years for a dog (and that's
generous for many of our larger breeds, who usually don't live even
that long.) The type of anti-breeding laws passed in Los Angeles and
which is now being proposed in Chicago would in effect make pet
breeding - even by "responsible breeders" - an illegal activity. Shut
down breeding in several major metropolitan areas and/or a couple of
large states using these laws for any length of time (even for as
short a period as five years), and you would have effectively
eliminated sufficient gene pools for maintenance of number of our
rarer breeds, as well as a number of lines of better known breeds. As
long-time Health Education Chair for an AKC parent breed club
(Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of America), I can assure you from a
health standpoint that there is a great need to preserve genetic
diversity even in our more populous breeds, and this need is extreme
in a number of our rarer breeds, or even in some of our more popular
breeds in which only a handful of breeding lines predominate. Even
just three to five years of these types of anti-breeding laws in just
a few major cities or a larger state or two would make a tremendous
dent in our purebred and working dog populations in the US, and
possibly send some breeds beyond the point of no return.
Don't think for one moment that the Animal Rights activists don't
recognize the limited breeding lifespan of our dogs. What's our most
optimistic guess for the return of legal breeding once again to Los
Angeles, even if the courts issue opinions in our favor? Three years?
Five years? That's about how long it will take to legalize animal
breeding in Los Angeles, even if the lawsuits all work out for our
side. Many large breeds have an average lifespan of only eight years.
And even if this Los Angeles law is eventually overturned, breeders
will be forced to get all of their breeding stock from elsewhere
since all of their animals would have been spayed or neutered under
law, so there would have an even longer time before breeding could
effectively resume. See, the Animal Rights people have this all
planned out.
I'll repeat: The official word from the City Aldermen/women is that
the Chicago MSN ordinance is being modeled on the Los Angeles law.
They're not planning anything less onerous for us here. And, when
Chicago falls, who will be next? There will be no escape. Proponents
of this type of ordinance are trying to encourage other
municipalities and counties in California (and elsewhere) to adopt
this type of law. So, after reading this, the next time you hear
someone say that they believe that MSN, with "responsible breeder"
intact dog permits, is good for purebred dogs (and won't
hurt "responsible breeders"), you will have a very educated reply for
them with reasons why MSN, even with "permits", is NOT in the best
interests of the continuation of our purebred dog breeds, nor our
purebred dog ownership and breeding rights.
And, with the Chicago situation, we are talking directly about the
HSUS. They have been instrumental in the passage of anti-pet
ownership and anti-breeding laws in many other states, counties, and
cities. Mr. John Yates brought up scathing confirmation of the direct
HSUS involvement in the writing of our proposed Chicago MSN in his
article "Chicago Spay/Neuter Mandate Based On Lies" that he wrote
back in May. I sent it out to everyone earlier this week as an
attachment; if for some reason you didn't read it, you can access it
at this link:
http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... hp?t=53622
I also posted additional information on this topic on May 23 on the
il-pet-law list.
How much do you value your rights to own (and even breed) your
purebred dogs? If this is important to you, it's time to stand up and
be counted. If Chicago is intentionally going down this path of
illegalizing all pet breeding, with help of the HSUS, we need to
expose this every inch of the way as part of their overall game plan
to eliminate pet breeding in the U.S, and with it our cherished and
valued purebred breeds. This is absolutely critical to any future
successes we will have in fighting Animal Rights' (especially HSUS')
attempts to limit our pet ownership and breeding rights.
And don't forget to show up on Tuesday July 29 2008 and tell `em what
you think at Chicago City Hall :
http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm
Thanks, everyone.
Margo Milde
AKC Legislative Liaison - Rand Park Dog Training Club Inc
AKC Legislative Liaison - Agility Ability Club of Illinois
Health Education Chair - Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of America
UPDATES FROM THE ANIMAL COUNCIL
July 16, 2008
Last publication date 7/11/08
Preserving Our Right To Own And Breed Animals Is Your Responsibility
IN THIS ISSUE:
* PASADENA CA SB 861-BSL PROPOSAL TO FULL COUNCIL, NEW REPORTS
* STANISLAUS COUNTY CA BOS HIKES FEES, $150 UNALTERED DOG LIC.
* EVOLUTION OF DISCRIMINATORY FACTORS IN CA DIFFERENTIAL LICENSING,
PART 2
NOTE, additional information on these and other local California
matters at
http://www.theanimalcouncil.com/Current ... erial.html
CITY OF PASADENA (LOS ANGELES COUNTY), CALIFORNIA City Council Public
Safety Committee met yesterday, July 15 and sent to the full Council,
without recommendation, the proposed Breed Specific (SB 861)
Mandatory Spay and Neuter Ordinance to require American Pit Bull
Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and Staffordshire Bull
Terriers or mixes thereof to be spayed or neutered at 8 weeks of
age. The support documents for this meeting are now available at our
above URL. These include a Memorandum from Takashi Wada, M.D., MPH,
Director of the Pasadena Public Health Department and background
information from the city's animal services contractor, the Pasadena
Humane Society. Dr. Wada leans to comprehensive mandatory
sterilization, albeit at "additional significant cost to the city",
while Pasadena HS & SPCA details the significant additional costs
just to implement the BSL proposal and notes a 6-8 week backlog of
their own sterilization program, currently lacking facilities to
serve the general public. Date for the Council agenda is pending.
*****
STANISLAUS COUNTY , CALIFORNIA Board of Supervisors yesterday July 15,
2008 approved the increases to unaltered dog license and many animal
services fees as detailed in our July 8 publication. The unaltered
dog license will be raised from $100 to $150, but the more
contentious increases involve the spay and neuter voucher program
with voucher costs to the public raised to $72 for "low income" and
$140 for others. Supervisors were perplexed by the apparent lack
of "success" in tackling "overpopulation" when the county had
allocated an additional $200,000 to the voucher program last year.
Dave Young, again serving as interim animal services director after
the departure of Mike McFarland last year, convinced the Board that
county fees were actually too low and the vouchers a "bargain".
*****
EVOLUTION OF DISCRIMINATORY FACTORS IN CALIFORNIA DIFFERENTIAL
LICSENSING, PART II: In our July 11 publication, we detailed the
progression from the 2005 Stanislaus County unaltered dog license
differential discount for a qualified rancher with working dog or
owner of registered dog belonging to a club and participating in
events to the Sacramento version for "Competition Dogs and Cats and
Working Ranch Dogs" where the discount prohibits breeding to the
still evolving Southern California variants requiring owners to meet
complex participatory requirements in order to keep an unaltered dog
(or sometimes cat). These categories of requirements have been
presented to lawmakers as feasible for at least some owners to
qualify for despite wide latitude given to the enforcing agencies to
approve individual applications as well as registries, clubs,
documentation of membership and participation as required.
Lawmakers, and ostensibly enforcing agencies, responded
to "proactive" opponents of the most draconian proposals who describe
all the ways they themselves are "responsible" owners, usually with
disregard of the widely varying practices, registries and
organizations devoted to dogs or the incongruities of wholesale
application of these ideas to pedigreed cats.
These self-descriptive factors, originally presented to
distinguish "responsible" from "irresponsible" animal owners, become
codified as requirements to exclude the "irresponsible" from owning
an unaltered dog (or sometimes cat). The latest twist in this
progression is the possibility of enforcing agency interpretations
that would exclude even the most "responsible" .
For example, the Los Angeles Animal Services Department presented to
the Board of Animal Services Commissioners on April 14, 2008, a
document, "Solicitation of Qualified Dog and Cat Registries and
Associations for Approval of Exemption from Spay or Neuter
Requirements" . The Commissioners, being unfamiliar with registries
thought this was a routine step in preparing to implement the newly
enacted city mandatory sterilization ordinance by October 1 and
approved the proposal. (Note, a legal challenge to the ordinance by
Los Angeles residents was filed and served later in April and is
still pending.)
The Department proposed that registries apply for "recognition" as a
step in the process of exempting certain dogs and cats from the spay
or neuter requirements:
"The application process will include affirmation that certain
minimum requirements can be met, the provision of key information
about the registry or association, and an explanation of the
procedure that a dog or cat owner would follow and criteria to meet
for the registry or association to issue a certification.
Those organizations which meet the minimum requirements below and
appear to have valid backgrounds would be submitted to the Board with
evaluation comments, for the Board's consideration. This process
will produce an initial list of recognized registries and
associations, but the application process will remain open on a
continuous basis. The minimum requirements for a registry or
association to be recognized for the purpose of spay/neuter exemption
certifications are:
. Established for three or more years.
. Maintains and enforces a code of ethics for breeding that includes:
- Knowledge of the breed standard, the basic principles of genetics,
and the pedigrees of prospective stud and matron;
- Restricting the breeding of animals that are not physically or
temperamentally sound or have defects and life-threatening health
problems that commonly threaten the breed;
- Requiring that animals are thoroughly examined by a veterinarian
before breeding to determine that they are healthy, mature, and
suitable for this purpose;
- Denying, suspending, or revoking membership of any breeder in
violation of its code of ethics or who is proven to have been
convicted of a crime against an animal.
. Under no circumstances allows, endorses, or engages in any activity
that is determined to be intentionally harmful or detrimental to the
health and/or safety of animals or humans.
. Participates in, sponsors, or organizes bona fide competitions or
shows that make awards based on merit.
. Proposes a method for assessing and certifying dogs or cats in
conformance with LAMC that can be verified.
. Will hold the City of Los Angeles harmless from any liability
relative to certifications or failure to certify a dog or cat as
exempt.
Depending on the number of registry and association applicants
received periodically, and upon dog and cat owner requests, additions
to the Recognized List may be brought for the Board's consideration
quarterly or more frequently. Likewise, if new information comes to
staff regarding a previously approved registry or association that
has breached any of the requirements for recognition, and the
registry or association is unable to correct the breach within 30
days after written notice by staff, that registry or association will
be suspended pending reconsideration of the status at a subsequent
Board meeting.
Other than if suspended or terminated as mentioned above, recognized
registries or associations will remain in good standing for three
years, at which time they may reapply for recognition. Registries or
associations not recognized at this first round of review will be
allowed to re-apply at their discretion.
Subsequent to action by the Board and review of the City Attorney,
staff will send solicitation of interest letters to known cat and dog
registries and associations, and at minimum advertise the application
process on the Internet and with the larger associations. This
process, with its on-going character, is the most fair and impartial."
The foregoing does not strike us as describing any dog or cat
registry currently in existence and, if implemented, would negate the
related ordinance exemptions. LAAS General Manager Ed Boks attended
The American Kennel Club's invitational dog show in Long Beach last
December and is acquainted with individuals associated with
registries. Had Mr. Boks been acting in good faith despite
ignorance, he could have informally obtained some reality checks just
from personal acquaintances before presenting this document in a
public forum. That it was approved by the Board without public
objection may say more about us than the proposers.
*****
Copyright © 2008 The Animal Council. Updates From the Animal
Council is a time-sensitive publication e-mailed to members of our
Yahoo Groups or those who have provided an e-mail address for
receipt. Permission to forward in its complete format to interested
individuals, aligned groups and email lists is granted, but no part
of this publication may be otherwise stored in a retrieval system or
incorporated within other publications without the prior written
permission of the publisher, theanimacouncil@aol.com
*a service of THE ANIMAL COUNCIL, P.O. BOX 168, MILLBRAE CA 94030
Contact us at < TheAnimalCouncil@aol.com >
URL < http://www.theanimalcouncil.com/ >
Incorporated 1991, tax exempt under IRC Section 501(c)(4)
Online news updates published sporadically since 1997.
Legislative tracking subject to change.
Find your own CA legislators
http://192.234.213.69/lmapsearch/framepage.asp