Another Government power grab of your rights: Dog Ownership

Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States ^ | Cherie Groves, chairwoman

[harrowup]

...There are a whole lot of dogs, in the United States, tens of millions. Of the 400,000,000 of us human beings...

According to http://www.census.gov the population of the U.S. is 298,767,824 so perhaps this knucklehead is adding in all the illegal aliens the anti-immigrant blobby claims? And of the dozen or couple dozen humans killed how many are illegals and/or how many of the dogs were chihuahuas?

[Gabz]

She Lion - I think this is a good one for both of our lists. It's a long article, but it smacks of so many of the same arguments we have been using in regard to the smoker bans.

[Gabz]

Nanny State PINGGG...............

[Imnotalib]

I admittedly didn't read the whole article - it's way too long and long winded.

However, if you follow this logic, then the gov't shouldn't be allowed to bar citizens from owning bears, tigers, cheetahs, chimpanzees, and so on.

It is clear that some breeds of dogs present enough risk that some limitations should be imposed. Maybe not an outright ban on ownership, but security requirements to protect others.

FYI, my dad owned a Rottweiler until it died recently of bone cancer. It was a very friendly dog, but I was amazed at the damage the animal could inflict on large bones, boards, and other items it took a notion to chew on.

I'm sure I'll catch HE-double hockey sticks for this post, probably will be accused of being a liberal or a fan of big government...

[Calpernia]

Law offices actually training agents of said animal laws:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1562040/posts
NJSBA Animal Law



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1562040/posts?page=1#1
NJ new Animal Laws written by actually ALF activist from Texas

---

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1280305/posts
Animal task force shows claws

---

State of NJ State Commission of Investigation of the SPCA...That went no where???

http://www.state.nj.us/sci/pdf/spca.pdf

Excerpt from that PDF:

The SPCAs are accountable to no governmental authority. Because there are no standards, rules or guidelines governing their composition, operation, training or activities, there is no consistancy or uniformity in their make-up, functioning or enforcement of the laws. These autonomous organizations present a true hodgepodge of extreme diversity and a danger to the state's structured system of law enforcement. Once individuals in a county receive a charter from the state SPCA, they control the selection, discipline and removal of their members, officers and agents; the election of terms of office of members of the board of directors; the content of any by-laws; the formulation of any rules or regulations; what training, if any will be provided; how they will enforce the animal cruelty laws, and how they will spend the income. As a result, the SPCAs run the gamut in effectiveness of operation, scrupulousness in financial matters and enforcement of the cruelty laws. While some are operated in a highly professional manner, according to set rules and regulations, others are run as the personal domain of a well entrenched few who discard the rules on whim. Many individuals involved in these societies are dedicated to the welfare of animals and committed to functioning within an organized, structed environment, while others are 'wannabe cops' or motivated by personal gain. Because the SPCAs operate outside the realm of government, they have become havens for those who cannot obtain legitimate law enforcement positions.

Excerpt:

The movement [SPCA] had its roots in the efforts of Henry Bergh, a European aristocrat who, following his appointment in 1863 to a diplomatic post at the Russian Court of Czar Alexander II, championed the cause of animals against inhumane treatment. Bergh soon immigrated to America, but only after stopping in London to confer with the president of England's Royal Society. In February 1866, Bergh delivered an impassioned speech at New York City's Clinton Hall before an audience that included influencial government and business leaders.

In recounting the horrific practices in America of the inhumane treatment of animals, he emphasized that the protection of animals had neither class lines nor political boundaries. Bergh's speech was covered extensively by the press. Recognizing that anti-cruelty statutes were meaningless in the absence of enforcement, Bergh's approach was two pronged. His efforts culminated in the New York Legislature's passage of a charter incorporating the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals on april 10, 1866, and nine days later, of an anti-cruelty law that vested the society with the authority to enforce it. Bergh, whose successes were due largely to his political and social connections, was elected as the society's first president.


Excerpt:

The Honorable Reginald Stanton, J.S.C., recognized, but refrained from ruling on, the issue of the constitutionality of the statutory scheme. His comments are compelling:

"The powers granted under the various statutes [regarding the enforcement of the animal cruelty laws, adoption of a common badge, making of arrests and carrying of weapons] are significant law enforcement powers. It is important to note that all of the members of the state society and the county societies are self-selected. They are simply private persons who are interested in protecting animals. They are not selected by the public. They are not subject to managerial control by any public. They are not subject to managerial control by any public officials. They are not subject to any publicly imposed training standards or discipline.

At an early stage in this litigation, it occurred to me that the broad grant of powers to the state society and to the county societies might involve an unconstitutional delegation of governmental powers to the private persons...

...Although I have serious misgivings about the wisdom of granting extensive law enforcement powers to private persons, there is, of course, a vital difference between what I might view as an unwise legislative policy and an unconstituional policy. Furthermore, the record in this action is particularly ill-suited for making a sound adjudication on the issue of possible unconstitutionality of the statutory scheme. I have decided to refrain from any ruling on constitutional issues in this case."


Excerpt:

ARREST POWERS: The legislative provision governing arrests for violations of the animal cruelty laws is contained in N.J.S.A. 4:22-44. It empowers only the state society and not the county societies. Arrests may be made with a warrant or without a warrant when the violation occurs in the individual's presence. Since the provision was first enacted in 1880, the power to arrest has been conferred not only upon the NJ SPCA's officers and agents, but also upon its members. However, nowhere in the statutes governing the societies is the term 'member' defined. Therefore, it includes dues-paying members and those members of the Board of Directors who are not agents or officers. These individuals receive no law enforcement training.

Excerpt:

POWER TO CARRY WEAPONS: Perhaps the most disturbing area of unbridled authority bestowed upon SPCAs is the ability of their officers to carry firearms without being subject to governmental oversight or to most of the stringent requirements governing legitimate law enforcement officers. While some SPCAs do not allow their officers to carry weapons or do not use the designation 'officer' in order to eliminate the firearms issue, the officers of nine SPCAs are armed. Both county and state SPCA officers are exempt under NJSA 2C: 39-6c(7), which empowers SPCA officers to carry weapons in the actual performance of their official duties.

Excerpt:

SPCA Officers in the Bergen and Warren County societies admitted that even though they did not investigate any cruelty complaints and owned no guns before joining the SPCA, they purchased numerous weapons after they became qualified to carry as SPCA officers.

---

NOTE, same law office from first link in my post that trains agents to enforce these animal laws.


FIREPAW, Inc. - ALF Newsletter 2002
228 Main Street, #436
Williamstown, MA 01267-2641


ANIMAL LAW FORUM-New Jersey
May 8 (2002) - The NJ Bar Association Animal Law Committee FREE Forum Held at the Law Center in New Brunswick. This forum has two parts: the first will cover the laws on companion animals in housing - every type of housing: public, private, apartments, homes, co-ops and condos. We will have a special presentation on the laws regarding service animals, including those animals who provide emotional support. The second part will cover planning for companion animals in the event of the caregiver’s absence, incapacity, or death. The presentation will include information on disaster planning. To view the entire program and list of speakers, visit the website of the New Jersey State Bar Foundation at: http://www.njsbf.com/release.cfm?press_id=414 According to the Washington State Bar Association an increasing number of lawyers are now specializing in pets and animal rights in that state. The field has grown beyond animal cruelty laws to include custody and animal rights cases. The four-year old animal law section has around 100 members.

Feeding foxes and coyotes is now against the law in the metropolitan area of Denver, Colorado. The reason for the new law is to prevent humans from getting bitten. People who feed foxes or coyotes will receive a warning the first time they are caught. Those who persist will be fined $68.

[Jack Black]

Ridiculous. Of course there are dangerous breeds. Look at this malarkey from the article "It is unreasonable to mete out criminal labels to animals, i.e. dangerous, or potentially dangerous.". Why? To me it seems totally reasonable. I don't want a Tiger in the backyard next door.

I'm sure the author is a well meaning person, with a long history of responsible dog ownership, and so are his friends.

The sad reality is not everyone is like him. Big, mean Pit Bulls, trained to fight are the "in" accessory for gang bangers, wanna-bes, ghetto hoodlums and other city-scum these days. Oh, yeah, I forgot homeless. They seem to have picked up the trend.

A vicious dog, unlike a gun, *IS* semi-autonomous, and may just wander away and bite someone.

Even under the most basic lassie faire philosophy Dogs often do go to where "my nose ends", sadly, and are a fitting target for regulation if anything is.

[Szent_Adam_Kiraly]

Just as long as they dont phone tap our dogs...

[ventana]

Well, I think you have raised one point of view, however those are all zoo animals. We are talking domesticated animals which are legal as are farm animals, and to be fair legal with some zoning restrictions-one typically needs a certain amount of property to own a horse. So I think you are entering the fray with an argumentation misstep as we are arguing two different things: the right to own an approved class of animals: domesticated animals.Agree re: the article's length.
V's wife.

[Smokin' Joe]

Free the Mad Cows Now!

Wait until they calm down a little, willya?

[Publius6961]

Dogs are property. As such, crimes commited with dogs, and torts involving dogs are the fault of the property owner -- the dog owner.

Sorry, but I just ain't buying that; and I say that as a dog owner.

Once your "property" has torn a child to pieces, or ripped a woman's face off, it is a rather serious and permanent injury --- torts or not. Specially in the case of deaths it's clearly irreversible.

These sad cases are totally preventable, and sadly the least responsible owners are usually the least able to meet their legal and financial obligations, even if that were a possible substitute for the loss of a loved one.

[Liberal Classic]

Dog fighting is a crime in all fifty states. Therefore this is a human problem, not a breed problem. Furthermore, before Pit bulls became fashionable among the criminal element, the Rottweiler was the dog of choice among the thug set. Many of the same arguments made about Pitts were made about Rottweilers in years past. People are falling for the anti-pit-bull media frenzy the same way people fall for the assault weapon frenzy. All large-breed agressive dogs need discipline. Any large-breed agressive dog that suffers neglect or abuse can be dangerous.

[Smokin' Joe]

Absolutely. But the dog owner should have the Right to sue you for payment for the fertilizer.

I'd be glad to return it to them.

[chit*chat]

Get a dog, not a gun was the gun control theory of the last decade. Now the do good through legislation crowd wants to remove that source of protection from the homeowner.

Soon the homeowner will have to offer a snack as well as the welcome mat to those who want to invade their home.

[frogjerk]

May I prosecute the owners for letting their dogs poop on my lawn?

Tell me about it...The jackasses that live across the street from me claim their dog (I think it is half pit-bull) "escapes" their yard at least twice a week. My wife talked to the "owner" once during the day and after previous apologizing about the incident she then claimed that dogs are no different from cats and should be able to roam. She also screamed "What, we can't own a dog!"

I know it is not the dogs' fault because they never walk her but I will be looking for a Korean restaurant in the yellow pages shortly.

[Smokin' Joe]

POWER TO CARRY WEAPONS: Perhaps the most disturbing area of unbridled authority bestowed upon SPCAs is the ability of their officers to carry firearms without being subject to governmental oversight or to most of the stringent requirements governing legitimate law enforcement officers. While some SPCAs do not allow their officers to carry weapons or do not use the designation 'officer' in order to eliminate the firearms issue, the officers of nine SPCAs are armed. Both county and state SPCA officers are exempt under NJSA 2C: 39-6c(7), which empowers SPCA officers to carry weapons in the actual performance of their official duties.

So if you want to pack a weapon in New Jersey all you have to do is join the SPCA?

That is a lot easier than most CCW programs.

[doc30]

It is clear that some breeds of dogs present enough risk that some limitations should be imposed. Maybe not an outright ban on ownership, but security requirements to protect others.

I disagree. Aside from neurological disorders, the behavior of a dog is directly linked to the responsibility and care provided by the owner, regardless of breed. I'll use pit bulls as an example since they are the focus of much breed specific legislation. Traditionally, the bully breeds (since there are several breeds lumped together as 'pit bulls') are typically extremely friendly to people by nature. However, some, like any breed, can exhibit dog aggression and if not properly socialized, exhibit a wide variety of behavioral problems. But that is not an innate characteristic of the breed. The only thing I would say about pit-types is that they are more stubborn, in general, than other breeds but that does not make them good pets. I've worked with behavior issue pits before, as well as other breeds, and each and every one responded to good training. It was owners who essentially abandoned the pshycological needs of their animals that created what people would call monsters. And there are owners who do not even try to control their animals in public. These are the PEOPLE who are responsible dog problems. I've also heard (but don't have a link) that Goldens and Labs bite more people than bully breeds do. Should they be banned? The only difference is that pits are a physically stronger breed.

The bottom line is that banning dogs because they are dangerous is like banning guns because they are dangerous. In both cases, it's irresponsible owners who are putting people at risk. The sad part is most of those owners don't even realize they are being irresponsible with their dogs.

[Jack Black]

I agree about Rottweilers and think they deserve to be included in the same legislation. You admit such dogs need discipline. What happens when one that has not been given discipline or love, but rather used to fight, is then dumped in the streets.

This is not theoretical. At that point the dog, regardless of where the owner is, become everyones problem. Especially kids.

Your admission that some dogs require more discipline is a defacto-admission that all dogs are not the same fuzzy harmless creatures that we wish for.

[Calpernia]

Think on this real hard.

Blue state, most citizens disarmed.

SPCA agents being trained and have carry and arrest powers.

SPCA agents have no power over them.

Major investigations....sweeped under rug.

Group was formed by foreign agents(?).

[Calpernia]

SPCA agents have no power over them.

Was suppose to be:

State authorities have no power of SPCA agents.

[org.whodat]

Soon the homeowner will have to offer a snack as well as the welcome mat to those who want to invade their home.

I think the Senate and George have been hard at work doing that for the past few days.