Nailed to the wall in Louisville: Testicle Wars rage on Preliminary reports from Louisville showed that Cheri Hamilton Bryant and the Democratic Metro Louisville City Councilmembers pulled a classic bait-and-switch in the wee hours of the morning. Disregarding the property interests of all Louisville's dog owners, blowing off the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the U. S. Constitution, Bryant--a lawyer--and her Democratic Party cohorts stuck to their guns and furthered an agenda offered to them by the Humane Society of the United States. This morning's Louisville Courier-Journal reported that the City Council enacted yet another revised version of Councilwoman Bryant's mammoth dog law proposal. A summary of the various shiny new requirements for all Louisville dog owners follows. The portions of the proposal allowing breed profiling were dropped, but the Testicle Wars continue unabated, now in Louisville. Dog owners and lovers, we've been sucker punched once again. Louisville residents get ready for a visit from the Gonad Nazis The new ordinance includes the following:

Pet limits on dogs outdoors--3 dogs on up to .5 acre; 7 dogs on up to 2 acres and no limit on tracts greater than 2 acres.

Revaccination/relicensing requirement for all dogs/cats removed from a kennel or cattery at any time.

Prohibits use of invisible fencing for unaltered dogs.

Requires 6 foot fence with one foot underground for "dangerous" and "potentially dangerous" dogs, 4 foot leash, and microchip for unaltered dogs.

Defines "potentially dangerous" dogs as any dog that bites, scratches or bruises a person "in an aggressive manner."

Mandates spay/neuter for any unaltered dog that is impounded for any reason before the owner can reclaim the dog.

Requires vets to report rabies shot information to Metro Animal Services so that dogs which got a rabies vax but not a license can be impounded.

Allows dogs to be impounded for "irritating" or "perturbing" ANYONE.

Prohibits ownership of ANY animals by anyone who has two violations within 5 years-no matter how minor.

Requires reporting of all litters, including brief description of all puppies.

Requires reporting of all sales of all dogs, with buyers name & address to be sent to Metro Animal Services, even if buyer is not local.

Requires dog license # to be published in paper in any advertisement.

Watch your balls, boys.

The Testicle Wars are coming your way. Will the Democratic Party continue to be the greatest asset and ally of Best Friends, HSUS, and other animal rights organizations dedicated to eliminating domestic animal ownership? The Republican Party looks better each day to this born-to-vote-Democratic resident of a very blue state.

Louisville's Dirty War On Dogs The latest version of Louisville, Kentucky's massive animal control proposal has been published. And the American Kennel Club and its local ally, the Louisville Kennel Club, duly released their analysis .

This ordinance will have a devastating effect on dog owners and breeders in Louisville and may have a dramatic impact on the Kentuckiana Cluster, the largest dog show cluster in the country.

They're right, of course. The proposed changes will have a devastating effect. But they are too kind. And way too polite.

The "dramatic effect on the Kentuckiana Cluster" doesn't mean jack to me.

Let's get down to it. This ordinance will. . .

Screw the average dog owner to the wall

Its painful to watch Metro Louisville City Councilwoman Cheri Bryant Hamilton, a woman with a law degree, a person of color, a Democrat representing a district that is both predominantly black and predominantly poor try to strip the citizens of Louisville of their civil rights and take their dogs away from them.

Cheri Bryant Hamilton hates dogs.

You knew that. She's a client of the Humane Society of the United States.

But she hates her constituency, too. Her proposal invents more ways to take their dogs away from them than you would have thought possible.

For example:

Limit laws: 3 is the magic number

Under the proposal, no matter how well you care for your pets, the limit is three dogs if you live on less than half an acre of land.

Now, I ask you: Who, generally speaking, lives on the smallest properties in Louisville and will be disproportionately affected by this limit law?

What option will caring and responsible dog owners have for pets they have loved and cherished over the years when, under the new Louisville ordinance, they are "over the limit"?

What will happen to those middle-aged, blameless pets whose owners can't afford more land? Many of them will be surrendered to shelters. Most of them will die there. Its very hard to find new homes for older animals. And if Louisville's limit law goes into effect, there will lots of older, displaced pets looking for new homes.

How "humane" is that?

Limit laws have been found unconstitutional in a number of places. Depriving people of their pets (their private property) based solely on the number of animals they own is wrong. There are fairer, more democratic ways to address any sanitation or noise issues, through nuisance noise ordinances and enforcement of sanitation laws.

But Cheri Bryant Hamilton isn't interested.

She's too busy making it hard for poor people to own a dog.

"Tethering": How much does good fencing cost in Louisville, anyway?

Tethering is a huge buzz word in the "animal protection" biz at the moment. And let's face it, no one likes the thought of a dog tied up 24/7.

On the other hand, good, solid, dog-proof fencing is expensive. Really expensive. Many caring dog owners-- who worry about their dogs getting over or under a shaky fence-- tether their dogs. And like many things in life, there's a "good way" and a "bad way" to do it.

But the Louisville proposal makes it impossible. Under Councilwoman Hamilton's proposal:

It would be illegal to use anything shorter than a 10 foot tether. So if you're in the habit of tying your dog's leash to a parking meter while you go in to pick up a loaf of bread, forget it. That would be illegal.

It would be illegal to use anything other than a tether with a swivel on each end. So if you like to take your dog with you when you picnic in the park, tying her to a tree or bench while you eat, forget it. Also illegal under the Louisville proposal.

Do you enjoy tying your dog to the nearest tree while you work in the yard? You had better work fast. Under the proposal, your limit is one hour out of each eight. Anything more than that is illegal.

It would be also be illegal to tether a dog between the hours of 8:00 a. m. and 6:00 p. m. So if you want the dog outside while the baby naps in the afternoon? Forget it. You have to build a fence.

So start saving up for fencing now, Louisville residents.

Over 100 pages of proposals: a disaster waiting for every Louisville dog owner

There's lots more in that proposal. Fees go up dramatically. Negative profiling and stereotyping of not only dogs, but DOG OWNERS is perpetuated. Allowing your dog to "irritate" people is against the law. Police state powers for the Metro Animal Services. Due process rights of dog owners discarded. It goes on and on and on.

The Humane Society of the United States suggested and endorsed the breed specific laws and has guided Cheri Bryant Hamilton at every turn. HSUS remains one of the very few organizations which actually support the proposal.

Louisville will become a war zone for dog owners, and HSUS isn't complaining about any of the above proposals. HSUS is leaving good dog owners to scramble for cover.

It will be a long, long time before I donate to the HSUS.

And longer still before I vote for Cheri Bryant Hamilton.

Dems hate dogs, love profiling Louisville Dems are profiling us because of our dogs Negative stereotyping of dog owners: business as usual for Democrats in Louisville. Just what the hell is the Democratic Party thinking? Is the dog owner equivalent of "driving while black" now official Democratic Party policy? While Republican members of the Louisville City Council stand up for the civil rights of law-abiding and caring dog owners, Dems seem too busy snuggling up to the Humane Society of the United States' bank account to notice that they are pissing off their own core constituency. Forget sticking up for the little guy! Cuddle up to special interests instead? Dems are whizzing in their own cornflakes ! Let me spell it out for Councilwoman Cheri Bryant Hamilton, sponsor of the 100+ page long Louisville dog ordinance proposal that would enable authorities to profile dog owners based on what their dog looks like. And as of the last round of revisions, also. . . Make it almost impossible for the owners of hunting dogs to participate in trials. Prohibit veterinarians from treating sick or injured dogs if the dogs aren't licensed. Prohibit people from finding new homes for dogs they can't keep. And more. Much, much, more. A recent opinion survey conducted by My Dog Votes found overwhelming opposition to dog-breed based profiling among registered voters. In fact, 92.9% of respondents reported that they would cross party lines in a local or state election to preserve their right to own the dog of their choice. So take a good look at your constituency, Cheri. I bet at least 45% of them own a dog. And I know they don't support negative stereotypes like the drug dealing, gangbanging, urban thug Pam Rogers of the Humane Society of the United States used to scare legislators into supporting your proposal. Hero of the Day: Republican Metro Louisville City Councilmember James Peden Maybe its his background as a teacher and student of history. I don't know. But when it comes to civil rights, James Peden, accompanied by his fellow Republicans, is eating the lunch of Metro Louisville City Council Dems. Councilmember Peden gets it: Discrimination is wrong. Its just plain wrong. And a 100+ page long dog ordinance that makes owning a dog more complicated, more onerous, and subject to more restrictions than operating a day care center, is ridiculous. Its no substitute for reasonable and fair laws for everyone. No matter what HSUS's Pam Rogers says. Democratic Party politics leave dog owners out in the cold The Louisville Courier reports: "Democrats forced the vote over the objection of Republicans, who wanted to continue talking about the ordinance at a future committee meeting. . .But the Democrats, who hold a 4-3 advantage on the committee, blocked an effort to table the measure and then passed it on a party-line vote. Peden said he expects his GOP colleagues to try to send the measure back to committee when the council meets next Tuesday. Short of that, he said they will try to amend the legislation on the floor of the council chamber. " Boots are made for walking

Former Clinton advisor on domestic policy Bruce Reed got it in a heartbeat.

His November 16 piece in Slate Magazine explained that the demographic reached by the My Dog Votes survey was--listen up, Metro Louisville City Council Democrats, cause this is important--the group that put you in office.

The My Dog Votes survey respondents were primarily middle-class women between the ages of 25 - 54, representing an almost even split of political party affiliations. Most viewed themselves as moderates, regardless of political affiliation.

Do I have your attention yet, Cheri? Still think that discriminating against parts of your own constituency is such a hot idea?

Louisville: Take it to the steps of City Hall.

I mean it. Take your dogs. Take your kids. Take your sleeping bags. Light candles. Make posters. Do it NOW.

And let's not kid ourselves. Its not just Louisville dog owners in trouble here. This 100+ page long, animal rights-inspired train-wreck of an ordinance is a problem looming on the horizon for all of us, wherever we live.

Don't live in Louisville? Write to the members of the City Council and let them know you don't support the politics of scape-goating and discrimination.

Lend a hand, everyone. Do it today.

Gentlemen: Start your engines (and hang on to your balls!) The Tacoma, Washington Gonad Battle is ON! Quick update to the Testicle Wars: The American Kennel Club advises that the December 12 Tacoma City Council meeting will address the issue of mandatory spay neuter of all dogs in Tacoma, Washington. You're going to feel a little pressure Actually, you're gonna feel a LOT of pressure. Particularly in the vicinity of your Bill of Rights guaranteed protection of private property. The U.S. Constitution says the government cannot simply strip you of what you own. Like that quivering little chunk of your dog. You might feel a significant twinge around your WALLET, too, if -- for any reason whatsoever -- you don't want to have your dog(s) surgically sterilized. Bidding begins at $55 for an annual "intact animal license". And then you have to pay for a breeder's license (at a yet-to-be-determined additional cost). Yup. Even if you have no interest whatsoever in breeding your dogs. The idea is to make you pay until it hurts for the privilege of leaving your dog the way he or she was born. Cash strapped? Fixed income? Putting your kid through med school? Tough shit. The privilege of owning intact dogs apparently does not extended to people with a limited income. Ya gotta pay the piper in Tacoma Now there's a "liberal" idea: discriminate against the poor. Good going, Councilwoman Anderson! Excellent! Does being poor mean you aren't good enough to own certain [intact] dogs? Is that the idea? Cause I got a problem with that. I'm also wondering if the Gonad Nazis will be going door-to-door inspecting dogs for the presence of unlicensed balls in the nicer parts of town. Or will they mostly scrutinize dogs in the poorer neighborhoods of Councilwoman Anderson's new, improved and de-testicled Tacoma? I sure don't see them ringing doorbells and peering between legs in the high rent districts. Do you? Doling out testicles, one by one. . .

There's plenty more to dislike about the Tacoma proposal. For example:

Limit laws would be testicle-specific. Four balls per household. Two intact animals per customer only, please. If you're a little old lady for four elderly Pug dogs that happen to have their balls still attached to their bodies. . .you've got a problem. Or two out of your four dogs sure do.

By the way, will Tacoma foot the bill if your dog(s) don't make it out of surgery? Cause I really don't see that happening, either. One strike and you're out in Tacoma Dogs picked up stray will be surgically sterilized in Tacoma. Doesn't matter how they got loose. Even if you have invested in all the permits and whatnot. Your property rights will NOT apply. The dog that goes into the pound will NOT be the same dog that comes out. Now where have I heard that idea before? Was it. . .the Institute for Animal Rights Law's website? Or maybe Animal Farm Foundation? Cause their "Five Point Approach to Community Safety" is just about in lock step with Tacoma's master plan to rid the city of gonads. Is everybody on the same page? Hell, no. The most comprehensive source of funding for spay-neuter programs, Maddie's Fund, does not fund government-mandated programs. Maddie's Fund only does voluntary programs. So who's gonna pay for all that surgery? The tax-payers of the City of Tacoma? Cause someone sure is. What's the plan, Councilwoman Anderson? Inquiring minds want to know! Write the City of Tacoma a letter. The sooner the better. Folks, I believe the Tacoma City Council is waiting to hear from you on this matter. And don't forget to drop Julie "owning-an-intact-dog-is-no-longer-a-right" Anderson a note, too. I don't understand how or why Julie thinks that blowing off property rights guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution is no big deal, but she does. She needs to hear from people just like you: Julie.Anderson@cityoftacoma.org