WHAT WE'RE UP AGAINST
WHY CHANGING "OWNER" TO "GUARDIAN" IS NOT A GOOD IDEA
Changing the way the law treats pets and the people who care for them from ownership to guardianship raises many questions about how pets will be cared for in the future. If pet owners today become, under new legislation, pet guardians, a number of things could happen:
Animal rights organizations or meddling neighbors could petition courts for custody of your pet if they don't approve of the way you care for your pet.
The treatment options you and your veterinarian decide on could be challenged by the local animal rights organization or other self-appointed experts.
It could be illegal to spay or neuter a pet because it deprives them of their "reproductive rights."
Veterinarians and pet guardians could be sued for providing what another individual might regard as inadequate care.
Guardianship laws also could have negative consequences for animal care and control organizations, which already have limited resources. They could be forced to deal with changes in euthanasia policies, increased responsibility for investigating animal abuse charges or responsibility for monitoring guardians.
It's important to understand that the attempt to replace ownership with guardianship is part of a broader agenda sought primarily by some animal rights activists. For them, this change is the first step toward placing animals on the same legal plane as people, and they see that step as more important than the fact that such changes will significantly reduce the rights and choices currently available to pet owners to provide for and protect their pets.
Pets are important and valued companions. That's why laws that protect pets from abuse are already on the books. Changing the laws to refer to pets in the same way we refer to family will not provide further protection to pets, but rather will limit the ability of pet owners to make decisions about the care and treatment of their pet.
Reproduced by courtesy of the Animal Health Institute (AHI)
AVMA policy Ownership vs Guardianship
Terminology Describing the Relationship Between Animals and Their Owners
(Oversight: CHAB; EB 05/2003; TF Legal Status of Animals-EB Revised 04/2005; reaffirmed 04/2010)
The American Veterinary Medical Association promotes the optimal health and welfare of animals. Further, the AVMA recognizes the role of responsible owners in providing for their animals' care. Any change in terminology describing the relationship between animals and owners, including "guardian," does not strengthen this relationship and may, in fact, harm it. Such changes in terminology may adversely affect the ability of society to obtain and deliver animal services and, ultimately, result in animal suffering.
In Defense of Dog Breeders
How Animal Rights Has Twisted Our Language
AVMA: Mandatory Spay/Neuter a Bad Idea
Filling Empty Pounds
7 things you didn't know about PCRM
PCRM "charity" scam
CMSN Punishes the Breed Not The Deed
What Pet Overpopulation?
Shelter imports from Caribbean to Minnesota, MO, GA, FL, NY, IL, IN
Another group that imports dogs, in addition to Save a Sato, Save a Mexican Mutt, and Compassion Without Borders......"Pets for Paradise"....what about all that dog overpopulation?
Click here to read
HSUS is not your guardian of animals
A Gathering Storm
Big things often come from small beginnings
By Dr. Carmen L. Battaglia
"This is a continuation of last month's discussion of the gathering storm and
how it has already begun to impact the world of purebred dogs. The winds that
are fueling this storm were identified as the undefined labels that are used by
the animal rights movement. As stated in Part I, their efforts have gained
wide-spread acceptance among the breeders which in turn have impacted AKC
registrations and the gene pools of thirty-five breeds some of which may soon be
facing extinction. Related to all of this is the fact that hardly anyone is
noticing how effective and dangerous this storm has become. As discussed in Part
I, there are many examples that show how, through the use of undefined labels,
the animal rights movement has negatively impacted breeding and registrations.
The REAL Facts Re: HSUS
Contrary to what most people think, the real facts about HSUS is far
different than what is displayed in countless TV ads and pamphlets and
flyers that are distributed on a national basis. We at CFODC have been
involved in trying to stem the tide of HSUS funded attempts to completely do
away with any contact whatsoever between humans and animals for whatever
purpose. See http://humanewatch.org/images/uploads/2010-06_NOT_YOUR_LOCAL_HUMANE_SOCIETY.pdf
I urge you to read this article thoroughly and support whatever organization
that is involved in trying to maintain the human/animal interaction and
bond. Our heartfelt thanks to Humane Watch for keeping us all informed
about HSUS and its goals.
Whiney Wayne's Action Plan to Raise More Money,
We Need To Do The Same
Humane Watch's David Martosko's Ten Easy Lessons
Shape up breeders, big brother is watching you!!
The Hoax of the Animal Radicals Movement
Animal Radicals call for Wayne Pacelle to Resign
The Endangered Owner
How Animal Rights Has Twisted Our Language
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
The Power of Language
HSUS 100 point change agenda - The Change Agenda for Animals
ANATOMY OF BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION By Dr. Carmen Battaglia
Puppies and Dogs Being Imported From Mexico
"Blowing stuff up and smashing windows" is "a great way to bring about
— Bruce Friedrich, a People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals vice
“Did we euthanize some animals who could have been adopted? Maybe.”
— PETA's Domestic Animal Issues & Abuse Department director Daphna
Nachminovitch, in The Virginian-Pilot
“In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.”
— Newsday, Feb 1988 Ingrid Newkirk
“The bottom line is that people don't have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats... If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind.”
— Animals, 5/1/93 Ingrid Newkirk
“I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or
burn them down.”
— "National Animal Rights Convention", 6/27/97 Ingrid Newkirk
“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.”
— Animal People News, 5/1/93 Wayne Pacelle
“Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and
— Bozeman (MT) Daily Chronicle, 10/8/91 Wayne Pacelle
“Arson, property destruction, burglary, and theft are ‘acceptable crimes’
when used for the animal cause.”
— PETA co-founder Alex Pacheco lists the “acceptable” tactics to fight for
animal rights, Associated Press
“We feel that animals have the same rights as a retarded human child because
they are equal mentally in terms of dependence on others.”
— The New York Times, Jan 1989 Alex Pacheco
“You can justify, from a political standpoint, any type of violence you want
— Jerry Vlasak on "Penn & Teller: Bullsh*t!" (Showtime cable network)
“I don’t think you’d have to kill -- assassinate -- too many ... I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives.”
— Jerry Vlasak at the "Animal Rights 2003" convention, advocating the murder of doctors whose life-saving biomedical experiments require the use of animals.
“I don’t have a hands-on fondness for animals…To this day I don’t feel bonded to any non-human animal. I like them and I pet them and I’m kind to them, but there’s no special bond between me and other animals.”
— Wayne Pacelle, HSUS President, quoted in ‘Bloodties’ by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p. 251
...AND WHY YOU SHOULD CARE
Permission kindly granted by Walt Hutchens of
http://pet-law.com/ to reproduce
What is ‘Animal Rights’
...and why should you care?
This article is also in the
Future of Dogs section. It is the first thing you should read if you are
new to Pet-Law or to the fight to protect
the rights of pet owners. Please visit the
Articles section for more information.
Imagine that some people think we humans just aren’t good enough to own or
use animals. In fact they’re so convinced of this that they have formed
large organizations that work tirelessly around the clock and around the
world to eliminate animal farming, eating of meat, use of animals in
research, hunting, circuses, zoos, and yes, as pets.
This isn’t just a bad dream -- it’s real. Those people are called the
‘animal rights’ movement. While there probably aren’t more than a thousand
people in the U.S. who accept the whole idea -- that humans should be
completely separated from our animals even if that means that many species
become extinct -- they are supported by many more who support important
parts of the movement.
For example many believe that eating meat is wrong. Some think that medical
research using animals is unnecessary and cruel. Other thousands believe
most pet owners are irresponsible. And it is those people, the ones who
support small parts of animal rights, who are carrying the movement forward.
This is America: It is our right to believe whatever we want and to try to
convince others of what we believe. However the AR movement goes beyond
that. The biggest thing they do is pass laws that make animal use, breeding,
and ownership steadily harder and more costly.
happens in several steps:
1. They invent problems or magnify small ones. The real problems generally
are much less than the good that comes from the same activity but what we
are told about is only the problem.
For example: “Hunting is cruel and unnecessary” -- never mind that for many
species hunting is a main way of controlling population to prevent
starvation and other problems.
“‘Pet overpopulation’ leads to the tragedy of euthanasia” -- although the
animal shelter euthanasia rate has been falling steadily for decades, is
probably now only 10-15% of what it was 30 years ago and many areas of the
country now actually have a shortage of dogs.
“Pet breeders are just exploiting animals for money” -- although if there
were no breeders there would be no pets, and it’s almost impossible to make
money if you breed as a hobby.
“Animals are dangerous and cause human health problems” -- though most of us
have pets, serious problems are rare and study after study shows that pet
owners are happier, have lower stress levels, and may live longer than other
“Animal farming is cruelty” -- though cruelty is already illegal and the
practices being attacked are ancient and often inspected and specifically
approved by the government.
The attack will always fall where most people will say “Oh -- that’s not
something I do” or “That’s not important.” Only 7% of the population hunts,
something like 2% farms, and much less than 1% breeds dogs at home. Because
many important animal practices are unfamiliar to most of us, we may not see
what’s wrong with these AR campaigns.
2. The animal rightists batter public officials to ‘solve’ these problems.
Although they are a small minority, they never stop complaining.
Los Angeles, for example, is on its fourth well qualified animal control
director in five years. Why? Because no director delivered the ‘no kill’
shelter they demand -- an unattainable goal for a properly run municipal
shelter in a large city. The shelter’s statistics are not bad and they are
improving rapidly -- but that’s not good enough.
3. When officials say “Okay, tell us what to do,” the ARs are there with
examples of laws passed in other places. They cite misleading or phoney
statistics, even outright lies about the success of the law and if pressed
on the issue, simply repeat their views.
For example when they’re proclaiming “horrible pet overpopulation” they
promote laws requiring all pets to be spayed or neutered and requirements
for hobby breeders to get expensive licenses and permits. “This law was a
big success in San Mateo County,” they say.
If you tell them “This law did not work in San Mateo County” they say “This
law was a big success in San Mateo.”
If you answer “But the shelter euthanasia numbers went UP in San Mateo” they
say “This law was a big success in San Mateo.”
Surprisingly, when the subject is unfamilar, the bigger the lie, the more
likely people are to believe it. This ‘big lie’ tactic isn't often
encountered by lawmakers and since doing independent research is
time-consuming for them, they usually end by accepting the lies.
4. Since the new laws never solve the ‘problem,’ the ARs seek greater
punishments and new laws that will help enforce the old ones, such as a
requirement for all pets to be microchipped with the numbers in a government
database. They talk only of the good effects -- “This will help more lost
pets get home” -- although the real purpose is to catch people who are
violating their other laws.
They can nearly always find important organizations that will support the
proposal because (for example) “Veterinarians can’t be against a law that
just improves enforcement of something that’s already the law.” (Quote from
legislative liaison of the Virginia Veterinary Medical Association when the
VVMA supported an animal rights bill requiring veterinarians to report
rabies vaccinations -- with owner's name and address, breed, spay/neuter
status, etc to county treasurers.)
5. As one law becomes common, the next step begins -- go back to #1, above.
Here are some quotes from leaders in the AR movement:
Ingrid Newkirk, president and co-founder of PETA: “I am not a morose person,
but I would rather not be here. I don’t have any reverence for life, only
for the entities themselves. I would rather see a blank space where I am.
This will sound like fruitcake stuff again but at least I wouldn’t be
Michael W. Fox, Scientific Director and former Vice President of HSUS: “Man
is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish, and unethical animal on earth.”
"Les U. Knight" (pseudonym), "Voluntary Human Extinction," Wild Earth, Vol.
No. 2 “If you haven’t given voluntary human extinction much thought before,
the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But, if you give
it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo sapiens
would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species
... Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and
Wayne Pacelle, President of HSUS: "One generation and out. We have no
problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human
This is sick stuff: The truth is that animal rights is mental illness
masquerading as philosophy.
There are no longer any nationally known organizations that just want good
care for animals; from 1980-on, they were all taken over by animal rights
zealots who continue to operate them under the "animal welfare" banner.
Today, HSUS, PETA, the ASPCA and dozens of less familiar organizations spend
about $200 million a year sent by people who want to help animals, working
against animal ownership. Never give money to any of these organizations! If
you want to give to help animals, give directly to your local animal
shelter: they nearly always use contributions to provide real care, and they
always need more than they get.
What’s going on is a quiet, mostly non-violent war for the future of
America. The major battles are just starting and will be fought and won by
one side or the other over the next five to 10 years. For example, between
the end of 2005 and mid-2006, Long Beach California, Los Angeles County, and
Albuquerque, New Mexico all passed new laws making it much more difficult to
own and breed pets. Each of these new laws was in turn the worst ever seen
in the U.S. and we are likely to see yet worse in the months ahead.
If those who believe that humans and animals belong together don’t turn the
tide, then 20 years from now our country will have many fewer good pets and
will be less happy and less prosperous than it is today. None of us asked
for this war, but if we do not fight and win, the losses to future
generations won’t be undone in a century.
A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE:
By DR. RONALD E. COLE
Re: OPPOSITION TO PROPOSITION AB 1634
Several years ago I came across the following definition in an old (1980)
edition of William Safire's Political Dictionary, subtitled the New Language
of Politics: BIG LIE: a falsehood of such magnitude and audacity that it
is bound to have an effect on public opinion even if it is not given
credence by a
majority; a propaganda technique identified with Adolph Hitler.
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf: "The size of the lie is a definite factor in
causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths
of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and
intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a
more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell
little lies but would be ashamed to tell big ones.
Something therefore always remains and sticks from the most impudent lies, a
fact which all bodies and individuals concerned with the art of lying in
this world know only too well, and hence they stop at nothing to achieve
The discussion went on to cover the McCarthy era hearings and the lies
perpetrated by them. What does all of that have to do with AB 1634? The
rationale for this misguided proposal is based on false and misleading
figures. Can I provide you with correct figures? No. No one can, but,
the proponents of this bill are making false and misleading claims because
reporting on euthanasia and shelter surrenders is neither accurate nor
complete in this state where there is no standardized or uniform reporting
from each shelter in the state. Those of us who have been observing these
figures over time see, even with the inaccurate and incomplete data, a
steady downward drop in euthanasia and in shelter surrender, even though the
human population has risen precipitously over the past three decades. We
also know that several districts, beginning with San Francisco, which paved
the way, have achieved a no kill goal without any adverse dog and cat
Richard Avanzino, whose innovative and marvelous ideas led to this
breakthrough, has since left and moved on to administer the Duffield
Foundation's Maddie's Fund, which helps poorer districts replicate this by
providing advice and funds with the qualifying proviso that there must be no
adverse dog /cat legislation in that district. Passage of AB 1634 would
effectively cut off those funds. The secret to vanzino's success lay in
free and reduced cost neutering and spaying for dogs, cats and feral cats as
well as lots of public education. He was neither judgmental nor
confrontational, and this attitude and willingness to work with all factions
(animal welfare and animal rights) of the pet world set the tone at the SF
SPCA, resulting in record amounts of donations in both volunteer hours and
in monetary contributions. He formed a partnership with the public, rather
than setting up an adversarial role, as most adverse dog and cat legislation
is apt to do. His example, not that of Santa Cruz, the single district that
passed a mandatory s/n law, is the one we should all be emulating.
The Big Lie is that there is no statewide pet overpopulation problem in this
state. There are some districts that have not yet reached no kill that have
local pet population problems, and in all of them the numbers of adoptable
dogs and cats that are euthanized are going down without adverse
legislation. Notice, I said "adoptable dogs and cats," because those are
really the only ones we should be counting. There will always be
euthanasia because there will always be animals too old, too sick or too
vicious to be placed in a family home environment, and there will always be
owner surrendered animals.
The exaggerated, inflated, and fabricated numbers of animals put to sleep is
not something new. It has been going on for many years, now in fact,
since 1990. The original San Mateo proposal was just such an outrageous
attempt at change with its complete moratorium on breeding to be followed by
mandatory neutering and spaying of each and every dog and cat (with no
exceptions), as well as to make it illegal to transport animals for the
purposes of breeding. This 1990 proposal was made in San Mateo County, and
the County Supervisor, Tom Nolan, and Peninsula Humane Society (PHS)
Director, Kim Sturla, posed for T.V. cameras in front of barrels of dead
dogs and cats with paws and tails grotesquely hanging over the barrels. They
claimed that 10,000 animals were being euthanized yearly. Fortunately, no
action was taken, and two task forces were formed that met
regularly. I monitored one of them. "Where did that figure of 10,000
come from," we asked? After getting the data we requested, we discovered
that the animals were eliminated to reveal about 650 adoptable dogs had
been euthanized. Today that figure has been reduced to zero in San Mateo
County, and without mandatory n/s laws.
So, what about the claims of the proponents of AB 1634? First of all, this
is not a statewide problem and is not in need of statewide solution because
one size does not fit all. The Big Lie is being used to try to convince
law makers that it is a problem, and we can prove this unequivocally, and
without playing our opponents' "numbers game."
Fact: Shelter euthanasia has been going down statewide, even in the worst
Testimonial Truth: In the City of Los Angeles at a recent public meeting
(May 2, 2007) the following was revealed in a report to the Public Safety
"Since 2000, ASD has reduced the euthanasia rate by 20 percent using
licensing incentives, promoting adoption programs and strengthening
alliances with the animal rescue community. In addition, ASD has reduced the
number of impounds by a similar percentage through aggressive voluntary
From Assemblywoman Shirley Horton from San Diego County: The primary
reason I opposed AB 1634 is because it is overreaching. For example, about
7 years ago, San Diego County adopted a voluntary spay/neuter program with
education as a centerpiece. They had the chance to adopt the Los Angeles
model, which was very similar to what AB 1634 does, but they chose to take
the less forceful, voluntary route. This has, in fact, reduced the
adoptable pets by 100% and is one of the most effective programs in the
Supply and Demand Proof: The numbers of adoptable dogs, especially the
medium, small and toy sized dogs, in many district shelters have been
reduced so much that the demand far exceeds the supply, forcing shelters
like Animal Care & Control in San Francisco to send employees to the Central
Valley shelters to find and bring back adoptable dogs. Some shelters and
some prospective owners have even gone so far as to import these dogs off
the streets of Mexico and Asian countries, all without health inspections.
Sickly dogs have been reported imported from Eastern European countries,
Yet, the hobby breeder, who will be most adversely affected by this bill, is
the least responsible for dogs and cats winding up in shelters. A
responsible breeder checks out the home of the prospective buyer before
selling a dog and always is willing to take the dog back if things don't
work out. The irresponsible breeder probably is one who does not license a
dog (less than 20% of dog owners buy licenses) and undoubtedly won't follow
this law, either. The tariff on each intact dog will not only raise the
cost of these dogs to the average buyer, but will make it impossible for
many breeders to keep extra intact dogs to preserve the gene pool. It will
result in more breeding of closely related specimens with more genetic
diseases as a result. Some of the rarer breeds will probably disappear.
Epidemiological studies in 4 major universities, including U.C. Davis, have
shown that hobby breeders are the least likely source of shelter surrenders.
They also provide a setting where a buyer can inspect the source (sire, dam
and breeder) of a prospective puppy and check on its genetic background and
its early socialization.
AB 1634 does not begin to address the feral cat problem, which in San
Francisco was much improved by a policy of aiding the feral cat caretakers
by providing free cat fixes to ferals that were brought in to the shelter.
These cats are then placed back in the colony, which keeps other ferals from
moving in, and which stabilizes and eventually reduces the size of the
colony. In all probability (without complete data), feral cats are the
single largest number of animals being euthanized, and these are all without
So, even without accurate reporting figures, we can accurately state that
the proponents of AB 1634 have been perpetuating the Big Lie that has been
part of their propaganda since 1990. We know that the ultimate aim of the
Animal Rights groups is the complete elimination of purebred dogs and
pedigree cats through the elimination of breeding of these species. This
bill goes a long way towards that goal. I still remember the chilling sight
of a young man in his twenties sitting in the front row at one of the
hearings in San Mateo in 1990 wearing a tee shirt with the letters "ALF"
emblazoned on it.
AB 1634 is also draconian and outrageously manipulative, as was the similar
proposal in San Mateo in 1990 which frightened hobbyists and breeders into
seeking compromise. Social scientists in the mass communications field have
found that the size of a requested opinion or behavior change is important
to the degree of change effected. Herbert Adelson, of Opinion Research
Corporation observes: "The more extreme the opinion change that the
communicator asks for, the more actual change he is likely to get." In
other words if you want to produce a change, the more outrageous or extreme
the requested change, the more likely you are to get it. The original San
Mateo proposal was just such an outrageous attempt at change because some
who opposed the mandatory n/s proposal thought that compromise of a lesser
sort would help prevent the original proposal from being adopted. And, so
the unincorporated part of San Mateo County got an ordinance that included
breeders licensing, something that would have had little or no chance of
passing had it been the original proposal.
John Hamil, DVM, a past president of the California Veterinary Medical
Association, founder of the California Council of Companion Animal Advocates
that sponsored biannual Pet Overpopulation Symposia (now the Animal Care
Conference), member of the American Veterinary Medical Association Animal
Welfare Committee and the National Council on Pet Population Study and
Policy, author of the CVMA and AVMA positions on early spay/neuter, is
undoubtedly the leading authority on this subject. The following quotes
are made with his permission and should effectively debunk the proponents'
propaganda, adding considerable weight to the list of proofs cited above. He
has stated that "The number of animals being euthanized in California
shelters has dropped steadily for more than two decades despite the
continuous population increase in families with pets. Importantly, the
numbers continue to drop faster in shelters that are in jurisdictions that
do not have mandatory spay/neuter."
He further states: "The majority of dogs euthanized are medium to large
mixed breed individuals .. belonging to irresponsible owners who are hard to
identify and who will never comply with this law and are noncompliant with
many other community laws. The number of young,healthy, well socialized,
adoptable animals euthanized is much smaller than the humane and sheltering
community has claimed.
The number of animals euthanized continues to decline each year and varies
greatly from area to area within the state.
Why do we need a coercive, punitive and intrusive "broad brush" state law,
when this is clearly a local issue?"
And the answer to that last question is a resounding We do not need such a
law. It is totally unnecessary.
One of the more preposterous claims is that it will reduce the costs of
shelters and to the public throughout the state. Dr. Hamil effectively
debunks this spurious argument:
"Even if it was possible to 'turn off the faucet', as Assemblyman Levine
likes to say; there would be little reduction in the cost of shelter
As hospital owners know, most costs are fixed (facilities,administration,
trucks, equipment, etc.) The shelter can't even reduce staff as we can in
private business. Unfortunately, a reduction in the numbers of animals
entering the shelter will only effect a small reduction in the overall cost
to the taxpayer. This is demonstrated by the steady increase in animal
control budgets over the last two decades despite the number of animals
entering the shelters and the number of animals euthanized decreasing
The method of accounting, linking the overall cost of animal control to the
number of animals euthanized, exploited by the sponsors of this bill is very
misleading. Using this method, the cost of each euthanasia goes up as the
number of euthanized animals goes down. The use of this tactic is dishonest,
disingenuous or, at best, misinformed."
They would also have us believe that this would save the state millions of
dollars because of reduced euthanasia. Not so. The animal control
shelters and pounds would not close their doors. Euthanasia is a miniscule
cost in the overall picture of animal rescues, rabies checks, animal abuse,
dog fighting, reuniting pets with owners, etc. that animal control officers
engage in every day.
It is time to set the record straight and to tell the truth .The truth is
that there is a pet population problem in some parts of this state, but not
statewide. The truth is that those areas having problems should emulate the
techniques and efforts made in the successful areas, and perhaps the state
should contribute money to assist with more public education and more low
cost and free spay and neuter clinics in those areas having problems.
A special aside to Democrats, many of whom seem to support this bill: The
truth is that the public is tired of big lies, whether they be about
mushroom clouds, W.M.D.'s and other false reasons for going to war, or about
a supposed pet overpopulation problem and use of propaganda, based upon
inflated, incomplete and inaccurate data. Dog and cat owners come in all
sizes and belong to all political parties. We are united in our desire to
see the truth prevail. We are tired of propaganda and spin, and we will
cross party lines, if needs be to vote against those who propagate it.
Every poll I have seen shows that the public overwhelmingly opposes this
overly intrusive bill. If it were brought to a vote in this state, it
would most certainly go down to defeat. We should be able to count on our
elected representatives not to perpetuate the Big Lie and not to enact such
an unpopular and unjust law.
A THOUSAND SNAKES IN THE GRASS
Permission to reprint.
Written by Margaret Anne Cleek for
The Alaskan Malamute Club of America Newsletter
"Better the dragon you see than a thousand snakes in the grass." This
Chinese Proverb should be recognized and heeded by pet owners and fanciers.
THE MYTH OF PET OVERPOPULATION
There are dogs, puppies, cats and kittens killed every week in this country’s animal shelters. These deaths are a sad and inexcusable fact.
From NCRAOA, Click here to read more
UNDERPOPULATION: THE PET SHORTAGE IN THE US
by Loretta Baughan
Last month, I had the opportunity to be a
guest on a talk radio program discussing recent pet legislation efforts in
Wisconsin spearheaded by a small group of animal rights extremists. Some
callers to the program realized the threat to pet owners and breeders such
legislation poses and expressed concern. Many callers, however, were frantic
about the "pet overpopulation" problem and thought laws were needed to stop
Listen up! The notion that there is a "pet overpopulation" problem is
nothing more than a figment of the imagination of the anti-pet, anti-pet
owner, anti-pet breeder animal rights fanatics.