Saturday, December 08, 2007

ASPCA Marches on Penn Dog Owners Agent Orange drives backdoor assault on civil rights Rude awakening in the City of Brotherly Love. Brotherly love? Uh. Not so much Philadelphia.

Not while civil rights-loving Philly residents must cope with Democratic Mayor-Elect Michael Nutter's promotion of controversial "stop, question and frisk" policing policies which allow police to detain and search individuals if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that a crime may be committed. No warrant necessary. You just have to look wrong.

What's so bad about "stop and frisk"? Try "racial profiling" and "unreasonable search and seizure" on for size, Mayor-elect Nutter.

Up against the wall in Philadelphia: Do you live in one of Philly's "targeted enforcement zones? "

Because the police aren't stopping and frisking a whole lot of people in the 'burbs. Studies show that "stop and frisk" policies disproportionately impact black and hispanic citizens. Documentation from New York City on stop and frisk showed that a high percentage of stops did not meet the legal requirements for "reasonable suspicion".

The NAACP partnered up with the ACLU on a class action suit against Baltimore's stop and frisk policy.

Democratic Mayor-elect Nutter managed to line up himself up in favor of racial profiling and against civil rights. Weird spot for Democrat. . . or is it?

Are we a nation governed by the rule of law? Or we governed by the rule of fear?

ASPCA's very Orange campaign: selling panic, defending market share in turbulent times

Animal rights protection agencies are living through interesting times. As the US Sportsman's Association points out, the Humane Society of the United States is set to swallow up the little fish--and even honking big fish like the ASPCA with its $67 million annual income--in its quest for political power. As the the ASPCA resists being eaten alive by Wayne Pacelle it developed its own national strategy.

Philadelphia is the ASPCA's beachhead in an struggle for marketshare. So, what's ORANGE done for Pennsylvania lately?

Artificial standards allow stopping, frisking -- and now they'll seize your dog.

Just as "wrong-looking"people aren't able to linger in certain parts of Philadelphia without undergoing an unreasonable and unwarranted search of their persons, the ASPCA has a problem with low income Philadelphia residents and their pets.

The ASPCA ran some numbers for themselves:

Philadelphia County demographics (2005):

  • 1,406,000 total human population
  • $32,573 median household income
  • 21 percent of adults live in poverty
  • 669,000 total owned animal population
  • 138,000 owned animals live in poverty

The ASPCA's obvious conclusion from the above exercise: poor people in Philadelphia own pets.

The ASPCA's "solution" is just as obvious: take pets away from the poor. The poor are not "people like us." Anti-tethering laws: excuses to seize dogs from poor people PA HB 1065, as introduced in April, 2007 by Rep. Mario Scavello and as fervently supported by the ASPCA, is designed to facilitate the confiscation of dogs from people who cannot afford to comply with its bizarre requirements. Under HB1065, they can seize your dog because you tied it outside--under optimum conditions, in perfect safety and health--for five minutes, if you happen to choose the "wrong" five minutes. You can lose your dog for using the wrong collar, the wrong tether, for failing to measure the length of the tether. . .and the list goes on. HB 1065 is a litmus test of artificial standards of care, in a state which already defines cruelty to animals clearly and completely: A person commits an offense if he wantonly or cruelly illtreats, overloads, beats, otherwise abuses any animal, or neglects any animal as to which he has a duty of care, whether belonging to himself or otherwise, or abandons any animal, or deprives any animal of necessary sustenance, drink, shelter or veterinary care, or access to clean and sanitary shelter which will protect the animal against inclement weather and preserve the animal's body heat and keep it dry. Agent Orange tells it like it is. NOT. In support of their anti-tethering bill, the ASPCA threw in every piece of internet rumor and junk science available. But what the ASPCA doesn't mention: People have tethered dogs from the beginning of the long, mutually beneficial relationship between dogs and humans. Done properly, tethering is a traditional and humane option of responsible restraint. Tethering, crating, fenced yards, kennel runs, etc., are each responsible options for humane restraint and each may potentially be abused. Dog owners need a full range of choices in order to choose what works best for their situation. Appropriately restraining a dog safeguards both dog and community. It is the hallmark of a good, caring owner.

Racism and dog politics: wheels fall off the Democratic Party wagon HB 1065, and its clones in other jurisdictions, are not based in fact. They do not cover any "gaps" in existing cruelty laws. They aren't even about "tethering". They are a backdoor route to the destruction of civil rights for the most vulnerable members of society. The first victims of the ASPCA's proposed anti-tethering bills--the first to be profiled, unreasonably searched, and suffer confiscation of their private property will be . . . Blacks and hispanics Inner city residents Rural people Elderly, and poor people These groups represent the lowest hanging fruit in the extremist campaign to end pet and animal ownership. Dems kiss off the little guy, stand up for racism Coincidentally, these groups are the traditional stalwarts of the Democratic Party. Or they used to be.

With an increasing politicized dog owning electorate, someone other than the ASPCA is going to run some numbers. Elected officials supporting sneak attacks on the civil rights of their own constituencies face short careers in the public sector. Really short careers. My Dog Votes. [post script: Please scroll through the comments to view a suggestion from Dogs Deserve Better to the effect that a $200 fence is adequate to safely and humanely contain a dog. Any dog.]


Anonymous said...

Socio-economics has little to do with HB-1065; I've seen homeless people provide better care for their dogs than those who tether 24/7. Seems the loss of logic and reason has forced some people to stoop and play the race card; how sad for them....and their dogs.

Anonymous said...

That is some scary stuff.

Unreasonable search and seizure and now junk science and unfounded personal beliefs presented as fact.

Funny how lies sell. Like the one about the AR Kool Aid drinkers and the shelter killers helping dogs and cats...does anybody with an IQ higher than room temperature still buy that?

Oh, right, killing them IS helping them, I forgot...

Caveat said...

I don't think anyone condones tying dogs up round the clock but that's not what this ordinance says.

I agree that tying dogs out overnight is not a great idea for many reasons, so I'm onside with that concept.

However, why is it the government's business how someone cares for their dog, if they are not abusing the dog or creating a nuisance? We already have laws to cover those situations.

Laws like this definitely affect poor people and others who rent rather than own property.

Fencing is expensive, especially proper (non chain link) fencing. If you are renting, you are kind of stuck unless you have a super landlord who 'gets it' and will put up a fenced area for pets.

So, the alternative for bathroom breaks and fresh air outside of walks is being on leash or on a cable of some kind.

That's how the poor are affected - small properties, inability to afford proper fencing and a tendency to rent rather than own.

Get it?

Tammy Grimes said...

Let's be perfectly clear actually costs LESS for a dog to live inside the home than chained don't have to buy a chain or a doghouse, so it's even MORE affordable by the poor. Nice try, though. Tammy S. Grimes, Dogs Deserve Better

note from Blue Dog State:
Since Tammy believes that she's above the law, I'm surprised we're hearing from her. But it looks like when she's not busy trying to defend herself on vigilante dog theft charges, Tammy has time to run other people's lives for them.

Who died and left you in charge, Tammy?

Anti-tethering laws, like breed specific laws, are a pretext for taking people's dogs away from them.

But Tammy just goes out and steals the dogs. How many targeted homes are in your database by now, anyway?

Anonymous said...

No Tammy, let's truly be perfectly clear here...out of sight is out of mind, and prosecution. Dogs that cannot be safely contained to their own yard and must be forced indoors usually end up crammed into an ailine kennel for endless hours, or locked in a basement or bathroom. If they are destructive or not "potty trained" to perfection, they get dumped at the local kill shelter. Quality private breeders cannot maintain an adequate gene pool without having anarchy ensue. You know what happens when you try and force too many pack animals to live 'free range" in your home now don't you Tammy? You get seriously bit at feeding time and have to go to the emergency room...and if you're Tammy Grimes, then you kill the dog for normal resource guarding behavior because YOU, the HUMAN were not smart enough to see the problem coming because you live in fantasy land. Some breeds (sled dogs and Ameican Pit Bull Terriers come immediately to mind) are most safely contained by a PROPER tether. But to the animal rights fascists, no method of containment is proper. Former HSUS media whore Julie Lewin calls it "ratcheting up". The escalating of owner restrictions that will make pet ownership too costly and too complicated for everyone but the rich and famous. But Tammy already knows that because she was involved in Julies new book (a fascists MANUAL for screwing pet owners...)HB - 1065 is just the latest chapter.

Cherie Graves said...

Different dogs have different needs. Some dogs do not do well inside a house. Hound breeds, Arctic breeds among others fare far better tethered, and can be quite destructive when indoors. Some landlords do not allow animals inside of their rentals. Anti-tethering laws try to make one size fit all. It just doesn't work that way in the real world. Tethering is as ancient a practice as is dog ownership. No legislative body is better informed as to the care and maintenance of the individual dog, as is the individual dog owner.
What's next the furniture police? Government is interfering into the private, and personal lives of pet owners. It has gone too far.

Caveat said...

What I meant, and I didn't think the point was that complicated, is that while I don't personally approve of dogs being tied out unsupervised I know that for some people, it's the only option outside of the daily walks.

They can't afford a fence or they rent and can't get authorization to install one.

I used a cable for my now deceased big guy for short breaks outside during the day or if I was out in the yard with him. Why? Because he could hop my 4.5 foot fence to gallop around the neighbourhood and I couldn't afford to replace it at that time.

So, some busybody who thinks they know more than I do (ha ha ha) might come by when he was in the yard for 15 minutes, right outside the kitchen window, and try to steal him because he was 'abused' without knowing how well he was treated, how much exercise he got or anything else.

We have laws for neglect and cruelty, we don't need more laws.

We need enforcement of licensing, leashing, and other simple regulations that are being ignored by authorities.

Far be it from me to question the practices of people who breed and maintain healthy, happy, well cared-for dogs, regardless of their methods - and I know a huge cross-section of dog owners, breeders and trainers of many different types of dogs.

I suggest that people who (for reasons that are unclear) feel they have the moral high ground should take a reality check.

I reiterate that I do not endorse tying dogs out in isolation round the clock, especially solitary dogs. If it's a pack that is accustomed to it and is inacessible to the public, I don't have a problem with it, since I know that those people walk their dogs daily and give them lots of exercise and TLC.

As pointed out above, I'm sure if you asked most dogs, they'd prefer that to being trapped in a cage all day which seems to be the fashion in a certain segment of society.

So, what's next? Breaking into people's houses and 'freeing' the dogs from crates?

Nah, it's easier to pick on minorities and poor people whose dogs are out in plain view, isn't it?

Sandi said...

The next step has already been started. Now is the time that groups with no NO police authority are asking for the authority to walk in and take your animlas. If they can't get it that way they will conspire with your neighbors and lie to get the police to see "reason".
Now if those two do not work they will just tresspass all over your land take what ever pictures they want and call you all kind of slanderous names.
I know, I am a victim of just such an attack.
The goal is for there to be no pet animals. No use or exploitation of any animal.
There needs to be a revolution of the true animal users and lovers. Not those who hide behind the words and try to get rid of all use of animals. JMHO

Tammy Grimes said...

[note from Blue Dog State: Part of this post has been deleted because it encouraged certain dog owners to send Dogs Deserve Better their home addresses. The reason is obvious, I believe.]

I actually received earned income credit for the past 4 years of my life, so I guess that would put me as a member of your 'poor people', at risk of having my dog taken away because I cannot chain them outside. Funny thing is, the first thing I did with my first earned income credit was hire someone to put in a good fence for my dogs. It's about attitude, not socio-economic status. It's about respect, respect for dogs as man's companions; not lawn ornaments to toss out onto the end of a chain to live and die with no hope for human companionship.

[.deleted . .] $200 can build a nice sized welded wire fence, especially when using one side of the house as part of your fence. Give your dog the life he/she deserves, it will bring you happiness as well.

Caveat said...

Listen, nobody loves dogs more than I do and I agree that it is heartbreaking to see a lonely, neglected dog sitting in the yard day in and day out.

I'm pretty sure we're all in agreement there.

My problem is that personal beliefs based on microcosmal anecdotal observations are not a sound basis for sweeping public policy. It's the same problem with people who get into 'rescue', a big fad right now. They see a small cross-section of their area and generalize it to everybody, everywhere. It's unsound reasoning.

Most people, the vast majority, respect and care for their pets properly.

My other problem is that faceless officials do not have the right to dictate to dog owners who are informed and educated - and who are already regulated actors, like drivers.

My bigger problem is the legislation of discrimination, presumption of guilt, restrictions on mobility, invasion of privacy, violation of due process and other civil rights violations inherent in the AR agenda.

My biggest problem is that the lobbying for complex regulations, breed bans, mandatory sterilization and other onerous provisions unsupported by science targets the vast majority of informed, competent dog owners in an attempt to capture a few of the guilty.

A handful of people are incompetent and callous - yet emotionally based laws which use personal opinion and junk science to snow legislators target everyone - regardless of their behaviour.

The hypocrisy of AR outfits is nothing but a bad joke.

I wish they'd just spell it out - nobody can own a dog, cat or other pet because nobody but a select few of us has the right stuff.


Caveat said...

Regarding the $200 to install a fence: LOL!

Let's see, up here in Ontario (Canada is expensive, like California) 4-foot chain link, installed, is about $12.50 a linear foot (we fenced 6 acres at our dog park at $11/ft in '98, I've adjusted for inflation, higher costs, etc). So, if I divide 200 x 12.5 I can install 16 linear feet.

That provides a 4' x 4' square, which migh amuse my Brussels Griffons for about 5 minutes, ie, they like to climb.

Now, if I want a higher fence, say 5', I'd likely pay about $14.00 and up per linear foot. So, with my big $200, instead of groceries I could get about 14 linear feet, or a 3.5' x 3.5' enclosure. A MinPin could really haul it in that space, eh?

If you want a good neighbour (double planks, lets air in) wood fence, you are looking at about $20a linear foot, installed, 5' high with a foot of lattice on top. My $200 windfall would purchase 10 linear feet, or a 2.5 x 2.5' enclosure. Lo quiero Taco Bell?

Or, I can buy a good plastic-coated, 30' long cable for about $30 which provides 2800+ sq feet of space.

Typically specious argument coming from someone with good intentions but no objectivity.

BlueDogState said...

Blue Dog cleans house--

We've received a few comments which haven't been posted, mostly because they are either repetitive or (while possibly well-intentioned) entirely confused. Or both.

--"anonymous" writes:
"HB1065 does not take away anyone's due process of the law. . ." This is either a strawman argument or an example of not understanding what words mean. Either way, the blog does not say that HB1065 is a due process issue.

--Someone wrote on behalf of rural dog owners, saying that people in the country are perfectly capable of not abusing their dogs. Blue Dog lives in the country, too. Tell me something I didn't already know.

--"Monica" writes "Why should people be allowed to slowly torture a dog, day after day, year after year, by chaining it outside in all sorts of weather. . .?"

The obvious response to this is: Cruelty to animals is illegal in PA. Forcing a change in the location abuse takes place from the backyard and into the basement or garage or wherever won't do a thing--except make certain people feel better because they don't see it any more.

--"Pam" asks: "Why adopt a dog if you can't take care of him? Training, socializing, leash walking, vet care - these are all necessary for our dogs." Are you advocating that untrained dogs be seized from their owners and killed next, Pam? Who gets to decide what "trained" or "socialized" is? Tammy Grimes?

--Sadly, "pit-lover" writes: "This bill is geared to the people who leave their dog chained to the porch in a blizzard and claim that the underneath of the porch is their shelter. . ." Wrong, pit-lover, wrong. Tell me, do you really think you could build an adequate fence for your dogs with Tammy's $200 budget?

The bill is written to take dogs away from people. Not helping people provide better care for them. Get the smoke out of your eyes.

Anonymous said...

"Let's be perfectly clear actually costs LESS for a dog to live inside the home than chained don't have to buy a chain or a doghouse, so it's even MORE affordable by the poor. Nice try, though. Tammy S. Grimes, Dogs Deserve Better"

Another lie Tammy? You are full of them after all.

Dogs deserve better than self-important egomaniac frauds like Tammy Grimes. I remember well when she encouraged people on her website to steal any dog that was tied out.

Nice try Tammy. You don't really care about the dogs or their welfare. You arrogantly think everyone should take care of their dogs the way YOU want and will lie, cheat and steal to get there.

eshever said...

Thanks for some sane comments about tethering. What I find just as upsetting as this badly-conceived bill is a Democratic party that has turned on the poor. It's not just in Philly. Levine's SB 1634 in California would have also made it harder for lower income people to keep their pets by requiring mandatory spay/neutering without any community assistance, and higher intact and licensing fees. People unable to pay the fees may have been forced to surrender their dogs to shelters or animal control.

You can't do much worse to people than take their pets from them. For some people that's all they have left -- all that keeps them going. It's a real shame to see this, especially from Democrats.

Anonymous said...

Dog thief Tammy Grimes says:
"Give your dog the life he/she deserves, it will bring you happiness as well."

Except Tammy doesn't really care about our pets. Tammy doesn't think anyone but her knows how to care for them. Tammy wants to make it harder for responsible owners to have them and that means more dogs turned into shelters.

Caveat said...

I have another problem with bills like 1634, breed-specific s/n programs, etc.

There are long-term health and behavioural problems associated with sterlization and there hasn't been enough research into juvenile sterilization to declare it safe.

Every knowledgeable dog owner/breeder/trainer I know, as well as many vets, advise waiting until your dog has reached maturity so they get the protection they need from hormones before sterlization.

Now, who am I going to trust? Gasbag politicians who pander to the ignorant and the media, AR fanatics who play on people's emotions with lies such as pet overpopulation or people with decades of hands-on experience and scientists with credentials?


pit-lover said...

I do agree with you that you cannot build a fence for $200, and I think that limit should be changed if it's going to be mandatory. I know, I had one built. In the long run, it is cheaper to have a chain for the dog to go outside to the bathroom on, but not stay outside 24/7, and that is the main goal. If it was 70 degrees year round, it would be different. I did have a chain for my dogs to go into the yard with before I could afford my fence, but my dogs are house-broken and live inside, which is where I feel domesticated pets should be.