[ventana]

Their coming to take your rights away...V's wife.

[Liberal Classic]

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

Beware of people complaining about "bad breeds" and "assault dogs".

[muawiyah]

Yes, dogs really don't understand. That's why we must take pains whenever a dog kills a human to take the owner out an dexecute him immediately.

It's so rare that I can find anything in these transparent justifications for keeping pit bulls with which I can agree, but there it is.

[Glenn]

Free the Mad Cows Now!

[rattrap]

Ping!

[Red6]

Jet ski's kill people. So do horses, and hang gliders. Rock climbing defaces our parks, as do off road vehicles and snow mobiles. Down hill skiing is unsafe and the rest of us with insurance have to pay for the broken bones. Private or General Aviation is not really needed and very wasteful/polluting. Guns are dangerous and thousands die at the hand of them. Motorcycles are dangerous and cripple thousands each year. Scuba diver damage the coral reefs, mountain bikes the wilderness, campers in our parks leave waste. You should not smoke, and the sun gives you cancer.

There is a wacko out there trying to ban everything and anything. Screw them!

[DonGrafico]

Responsible dog owner, the rarest breed of all. If only that breed was as common as pit bulls, rotties, chows, etc...

[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.

[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.

[CSM]

Doggie list woof (ping)!

[HairOfTheDog]

Ping!

Other articles with keyword "DOGGIEPING" since 12/29/04

[jsh3180]

This may be a bit off topic, but my local County Commission (Monroe County, Fl) passed a law about two months ago requiring dog and cat owners to have their pets neutered by six months of age. The only way around it was to obtain a "kennel" license at a cost of $500 per animal per year. They also passed law stating that you were allowed no more than five pets per household, with fines beginning at $500 for each animal over their limit.

Well, local citizens got up in arms and flooded the next County Commission meeting, the CC then backed off and put the laws on hold, pending "further study".

[Arrowhead1952]

Here are two articles about an incident that happened near Austin TX last year. The state is currently considering new laws dealing with the owners of such dogs.

Thorndale 'killing frenzy' investigated (TX Armed Citizen halts vicious dogs)

Woman, 76, killed by dogs in front yard

[fish hawk]

I am not in favor of the Government passing new laws about dogs, or any other law, as far as that goes but I do think that the responsibility is on the dog owner. If your dog kills or maims someone, YOU should be "put to sleep". I am so tired of reading articles where some ones pit bull tore of the face of the little girl next door. If you want a law about it, let's have Jessica's Law for bad dog owners.

[RushCrush]

Wow interesting article, thanks for posting.

They can't take anything away from me, I have guard animals :)

[John Robertson]

Wow...that's a whole lotta big words to support the "rights" of selfish hysterics who want to own killer pit bulls. Yeah, yeah, somewhere in Finland in 1936 a Labrador killed an old lady...and it's not the poochie, why, it's the owner. The fact that so many pit bulls maim, shred and kill so many people is just an astounding coincidence. And if we let the "statist" government take our 80-pound animals that cripple people or take their lives, why, before you know it, they'll be after our goldfish and can openers.

[rd1tx]

I personally have owned and own american pit bull terriers. 1 when I was growing up, which she never attacked anyone. 2. I own one now, a male which is a big baby. American Pit Bull Terriers (APBT) are very protective of their owners and their owners property. I have my dog to help my wife protect our property, while i'm away on business, along with other security devices. Not to mention my 2 APBTs have both been very lovable dogs, and show a lot of affection. But then again i'm not raising mine to fight. I've been bitten by a dog growing up, it was a Beagle! Also have been chased by a Doberman before. I've never encountered a viscious Pit Bull, although I have encountered some rather mean Labs, chiuahua, Dobermans, and German Shepards. So say what you will, I love my Pit, and have no worries that he will get out and attack anyone. Now if they get in my backyard, then by all means their fair game, and the dog will be the least of their worries.

I'd just like to share this article with you if I may.

taken from (http://www.nyx.net/%7Embur/apbtfaqtoc.html)
APBT's are born mean and can't be trusted. Is this true?
No, this couldn't be further from the truth. Most people who think or say that "Pit Bulls" are inherently mean, have most likely never met one and rely on the inaccurate media hyped portryal of "Pit Bulls" as the basis of their opinions. Like any other breed of dog, the key areas of focus for ensuring a happy, well adjusted American Pit Bull Terrier as a pet are: owner education, proper breeding, socialization, and training. A break down in any one or more of these areas could lead to problems down the road.
The APBT is, contrary to popular belief, very human-friendly and will not naturally be aggressive towards humans. The APBT is, however, very loyal and eagar to please, so that if an owner wants a dog to be aggressive toward humans and reinforces this behaviour from an early age, the dog will most likely be aggressive towards humans as an adult.

Many people equate or confuse aggressivness towards other dogs with aggressivness towards humans. I have seen newspaper reports in which "concerned neighbors" are quoted saying things like, "This time it killed a stray cat; tomorrow it may be my children." Yet animal-aggressiveness is an entirely different thing from human-aggressiveness. There is no reason to infer from its killing a cat that a dog--any dog, not just an APBT--will ever show aggression toward human beings. Dogs can and do discriminate, even if irate neighbors cannot.

One of the most enduring urban legends involving dogs is the one about Doberman Pinscher's supposed tendency to suddenly "turn on" their loving owners. This violent change in behavior is said to be precipitated by a natural swelling of the dog's brain at a certain age (the exact age differs according to the retelling). Of course this legend has no basis at all in fact. The "pit bull" has replaced the Doberman Pinscher as the stereotypical "vicious breed," but the same human ignorance and credulity is behind the persistence of such legends.