Wednesday, February 02, 2011

Animal Rights Extremists Take Manhattan


New York City Council Backdoors BSL and Screws Responsible Dog Owners

Peter Vallone Jr.'s "humane" triumph in New York City
Heavily restricts humane, responsible containment of dogs

First Casualties of Humane War Against NYC Dog Owners:  

Uno the Beagle and Madison Square Garden ?

Makes you wonder how it all came about, doesn't it? 


Vallone's career as a pit bull hater


NYC's premier pit bull hater, shoulder to shoulder with the city's most elite animal rights types ? 

What's wrong with this picture?

For years, City Councilman Vallone has been an outspoken "pit bull" hater who repeatedly sought to stigmatize pit bull owners as gang-banging lowlife criminals

When his proposal to ban pit bulls from New York City failed, he teamed up with animal rights extremists. 

Why not?

Flash forward to 2011

The ASPCA strongly supported Vallone's Int. 425, a proposal to restrict tethering, along with PeTA, HSUS, the Humane Society of New York and others.  

Can anybody say "quid pro quo"?

Int. 425-A united a fear-mongering pit bull hater with the blind ambition of politicians and animal extremists in a perfect storm of anti-animal, anti-animal owner legislation.

More than one way to skin a cat

Following Vallone's pin-headed logic, if he couldn't ban pit bulls outright, he could kick the legs out from under their owners by making their stereotypical nasty practices illegal and drive them out of the city that way.

Except Vallone doesn't know shit about dogs in general, or pit bulls specifically.  And he cares even less. 

A former Manhattan Assistant DA, son of an ex City Council president and mayoral hopeful, would-be Queens Boro President Peter Vallone Jr. is all about Peter Vallone Jr.

Int-425A had nothing to do with the humane treatment of dogs, and everything to do with his career aspirations. 

And his humaniac co-conspirators on Int-425A?  Heh.  Same comments apply.

Not just pit bulls:  blowback takes out unexpected targets

Heralded by Gotham's strident animal rights community as a "huge success for dog welfare" in reality the new law invents an artificial new class of animal cruelty:  one that has nothing to do with the condition of any particular animal and the care it receives. 

The new law prohibits NYC dog owners from humanely and responsibly containing their dogs by proper tethering and creates substantial penalties for those who do, even if their dogs are perfectly well-cared for and healthy.  All that matters in NYC is the amount of time elapsed.

NYC's new law offers no solutions and zero support for struggling owners who cannot restrain their dogs by other means.  Especially in NYC, quality, dog-proof fencing is expensive and very often prohibited by zoning and/or landlord restrictions.

Dogs previously contained by proper tethering may well wind up in the hands of New York City's Animal Care and Control -- where the chances are pretty good they will sicken and die.

But Vallone's proposal wasn't just about tethering.  Nope.

Hasty amendments on the down-low

On the very morning of January 18, Int. 425 was heard in committee, it was amended and passed by the NYC Council's Committee on Health.

That same afternoon, the City Council voted to enact the amended version.  The ink on the amendments was hardly dry. 

Apparently the group of know-nothings that put the amendments together consulted each other, and no one else.  They made a couple of teensy blunders. . .

Artificial crimes lead to unwitting perps.

Uno the Westminster Best in Show Beagle Pit Bull

The collar Uno so graciously models above? 

The ones worn by virtually every dog exhibited at the world's most celebrated dog show, the Westminster Kennel Club show at Madison Square Garden?

The dog show that brings in tourists, exhibitors and camera crews to New York City from across the country and around the world?

Well, Uno's collar is now illegal in New York City.  Uno just became an honorary "pit bull." 

I guess his owners are now honorary criminal gangbanging lowlifes.  Welcome to the club.

ASPCA "humane law enforcement officers" swarming Westminster?

So, will spectators at Madison Square Garden be treated to the sight of an ASPCA raid?  With something like 2500 entrants at Westminster, virtually all wearing dogfighting paraphernalia . . .um nasty pit bull equipment . . .uh show dog collars no, no make that "prohibited choke collars" it would sure make for a great episode on Animal Planet.   Imagine the royalties.

Go west, kennel club.  Go west. 

To the Members of the Board of the Westminster Kennel Club:  take your show to New Jersey.  Please.

The Meadowlands would welcome you with open arms. 

And the parking is way cheaper.

It's clear that New York City doesn't want you, doesn't value the millions of dollars you bring to the local economy each year and all the positive publicity you generate.

The City Council considers your practices abusive.

Its time to blow that fire trap, and leave the explanations to Peter Vallone Jr. and the ASPCA. 

I'm thinking Mayor Bloomberg, the rest of the City Council -- not to mention the owners of Madison Square Garden and other NYC businesses that will miss Westminster -- are going to be interested in hearing them.

21 comments:

elaine said...

The ordinance prohibits use of choke collars at any time, for any reason? Can you post that part, or a link to the ordinance? I read that it was just using a choke collar WITH a tether. Some might feel that is an inappropriate restriction, but it is not the same as an utter prohibition on any use of a choke collar.

BlueDogState said...

The relevant section reads:

"b. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision a of this section, no person
shall tether, leash, fasten, chain, tie, secure or restrain any animal for any
amount of time with a device that:
(1) is a choke collar or pinch collar;"

The verb "leash" includes restraining a dog from running loose through use of a leash, with or without a tether set up.

Hefty fines and up to three months in prison for violations, btw.

Full text of new law:
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1YSRF3J2kmX8Enu8oArAn7jgfuvGZIcPnBzpSfbP6FJU&pli=1

Julian said...

Not only that, but under this wording it is cruel to take your dog over an edge where it could get strangled or injured. The use of could is favorite AR language to turn potentially reasonable laws controlling actual injurious acts into snares to control behavior not related to cruelty.

BlueDogState said...

Julian, I'll go you one better:

Under this ordinance, it is "cruel" to take your dog on a family picnic and tie her to the picnic table while you eat if your meal lasts more than 15 minutes and you didn't bring a doghouse along.

EmilyS said...

well, you know they're not going to go after the dogshows. These laws are NEVER enforced evenly or fairly.

But maybe you should send a heads up to PETA.. I bet they'd love to do some attention whoring publicity around the show.

Anonymous said...

New York City actually has created conditions that should have had Westminster leaving The Garden for years. Unless NYC can become more favorable for dog owners I personally think that Westminster Kennel Club needs to be encouraged to move their event outside the city. I assure you that NYC will notice the impact.

Anonymous said...

We dog fanciers need to stick up for our sport and our rights and not be ashamed to participate in all of it, including using collars, breeding to better our breeds and enjoying our purebred dogs. AR extremists want to take these things away from us and we need to vote with our wallets to let cities, businesses and others know that we will not support entities that do not support us.

mherzog said...

Here is a video on animal rights: http://meat.org

Anonymous said...

I read the whole law - there is nothing in there that forbids the use of a choke collar when used in conjunction with a leash. What it does forbid is tying your dog outside using a choke collar. It forbids leaving your dog tied up outside for longer than three hours. It forbids tying your dog up in such a manner that the dog could potentially strangle itself or on a tie that is so long that it goes into your neighbor's yard. It is going to be inconvenient for people who go to work for 8 or 9 hours and leave their dogs tied up the whole time they are gone. Anyone with a lick of sense would not leave their dogs unsupervised for any length of time tied with a choke collar. This law isn't as outrageous as the article makes it seem. I don't agree with Blue Dog's definition of "leash" and how they are using it. This whole law is in reference to tying your dog up outside and leaving them in potentially harmful situations.

BlueDogState said...

to this morning's "anonymous" poster and all the rest of you who think your own definition of "to leash" or your own creative thinking on why this ordinance couldn't possibly affect you: WAKE THE FUCK UP!

This law creates an artificial, new class of animal cruelty. Animal owners will be convicted based on what time it is, not on anything they did (or didn't) do for their animals.

It is an abomination.

Backed into a corner today, and fearful of losing the WKC show, city council members will issue all kinds of assurances about who the intended "target" is and how fanciers should continue eating lotus blossoms.

http://naia.typepad.com/naia/2011/02/dont-panic-westminster.html#tp

The law is clearly written: choke collars cannot be used to leash a dog.

You disagree? Tell it to the judge.

elli said...

People are disgusted with the desperate poor treatment of animals.
No wonder they're demanding better legislation and enforcement that might offer a better quality of life.
Groups pressing for anti cruelty legislation are often deemed 'AR Nuts'.When all they want is to stop the abuse.
Laws may require revision,but why not exert energy to help legislators get the intent and wording clear? And improve the lot of animals.

'Blue Dog State' joins the pack of those who cause panic by DELIBERATELY reading into the obvious intent of the "chokechain/tethering" law and and sounding alarms.

Same for the poster who freaks the family can't tie their puppy for 15 min.
Please read the new law and understand the intent.Note, the first line refers to 'stationary object', and also defines the law applies to those leaving their dog tied for 'more than 3 hours'.
"(1) No person shall tether, leash, fasten, secure, restrain, chain or tie an animal to a stationary object outdoors, or cause such animal to be so restrained, for longer than three continuous hours."

Oh, good one including the pic of 'Uno' at the show!
Wondering what YOUR agenda is 'Blue Dog State'?

Ranger said...

This measure is so poorly written that the "intent" is anyone's guess. I read it to be a ban on choke collars and pinch collars. That's a goal of ARs who have little or no dog training experience, and one that would impair the welfare of dogs.

EmilyS said...

gah, when will you folks realize that "intent" is irrelevant... except MAYBE if NYState permits some kind of written legislative history that would influence a court decision (as is sometimes the case when something goes to the US Supreme Court)

All that matters is the WORDS and the way an officer of the law.. including BTW, the ASPCA "animal cops" ... will choose to enforce it.

Caveat said...

You mean they haven't dumped that a**hole Vallone yet?

To those who think 'intent' matters, read Emily's comment, it's right on the money. The law is all about words - each and every one of them. I've been in court and listened to lawyers arguing for three hours over one word in a law.

I always laugh when I'm talking to somebody about one of these laws and they say "oh, but the police would never do that" - yeah, great, until they do. Or my personal favourite: "if you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about". I prefer "As more and more things become felonies you create more and more felons", which, correct me if I'm wrong, means you can't vote in the US (not true here in Canada).

The bottom line is, do you really want to leave interpretation of a badly worded piece of legislation up to animalibbers and animal control personnel? Well, do you?

TrueAgendas said...

'Intent' is irrelevant. All that matters in court is the wording of an ordinance, and whether the accused violated the wording of that ordinance.

The wording of this ordinance says "no person shall .. leash .. any animal for any amount of time with a device that: (1) is a choke collar or pinch collar".

Politicians often say, 'but the intent was...' concerning poorly written laws. Law enforcement just says, 'Here's your citation.'

Anonymous said...

To bad all these people have the ability to write but, not to do any research.

Anonymous said...

I just want to know....when the hell did a Beagle become classified as a Pitbull? Poor Uno!

Anonymous said...

By Council Members Vallone Jr., Brewer, Cabrera, Dromm, Ferreras, Foster, Gentile, Koppell, James, Mark-Viverito, Mendez, Vacca and Lappin


A LOCAL LAW


To amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to prohibiting restraining animals outdoors for longer than three continuous hours in any continuous twelve-hour period


Be it enacted by the Council as follows:


Section 1. Title 17 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended by adding a new section 17-197 to read as follows:

§17-197 Restraining animals outdoors. a. (1) No person shall tether, leash, fasten, secure, restrain, chain or tie an animal to a stationary object outdoors, or cause such animal to be so restrained, for longer than three continuous hours in any continuous twelve-hour period. (2) Any person who tethers, leashes, fastens, secures, restrains, chains or ties an animal to a stationary object outdoors for a permissible period of time shall provide such animal with adequate food, water and shelter, and shall restrain the animal with a device having swivels at both ends that is of an adequate length for the type and size of animal being restrained, provided, however, that the requirement to provide adequate food, water and shelter shall not apply to a person who restrains an animal while completing a task for a period of time that is fifteen minutes or less in duration.

b. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision a of this section, no person shall tether, leash, fasten, chain, tie, secure or restrain any animal for any amount of time with a device that:

(1) is a choke collar or pinch collar;

(2) has weights attached or contains links that are more than one-quarter inch thick;

(3) because of its design or placement is likely to become entangled;

(4) is long enough to allow the animal to move outside of its owner’s property; and

(5) would allow the restrained animal to move over an object or edge that could result in the strangulation of or injury to such animal.

c. Any person who violates the provisions of this section or any of the rules promulgated thereunder shall, for a first offense, be guilty of a violation punishable by a fine not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars, provided that such person shall be issued a written warning instead of such fine for such first offense where such animal was not injured as a result of being restrained in violation of this section. For any subsequent offense within a continuous twelve-month period, such person shall be guilty of a class B misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars or by imprisonment of not more than three months, or both. In addition to such penalties, any person who violates this section shall be liable for a civil penalty of not less than two hundred fifty dollars nor more than five hundred dollars.

d. Authorized officers, veterinarians and employees of the department, agents of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and any other persons designated by the commissioner shall be empowered to enforce the provisions of this section or any rule promulgated hereunder. Violations of this section may be supported by evidence including, but not limited to, time-stamped photographs and video, records of complaints, and sworn witness statements.

e. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to prohibit the department, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or any law enforcement officer from enforcing any other law, rule or regulation regarding the humane treatment of animals.

f. The provisions of subdivision (a) of this section shall not apply to the officers or employees of any federal, state or city law enforcement agency.

§ 2. This local law shall take effect ninety days after enactment; provided, however, that the commissioner shall take such actions, including the promulgations of rules, as are necessary for timely implementation of this local law.

BlueDogState said...

We are all jews, now, Anonymous.

Pit bulls, like beagles, are just dogs. Four legs and a tail that wags.

[And yeah, I know the King of Denmark vs. the Nazis story has been debunked.

http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/denmark.asp

Too bad. I really liked it.]

Anonymous said...

OK... Soo we still don't know if I can walk my German Shepherd with her prong collar? Obviously I'm not going to the her up for hours with it digging in to her neck, but I'd like to not get dragged in to traffic. Can I bring my dog to court when I have to appear before a judge to prove that my dog was outside for 12 minutes? I guess the burden is on me, goodbye $250, and we all know how bright the guys on dog leash detail will be. "Here's your ticket, good luck fighting it, maybe the dog can testify." Anyway, it will be a good way for sanitation to make their quotas. Probably doesn't matter if the tickets hold up in court, only that they write them. Use existing cruelty laws to fix the 5 problem cases a year that the city has.

Anonymous said...

@elli

Sorry, but tethering itself is not cruel when done correctly. If someone is heartless enough to tether a dog for long periods of time without food, water or adequate shelter, they are perfectly capable of sticking the same dog in a tiny crate or locking it in the closet without food or water for the same period of time. Is that any better? All this will do is cause people who cannot afford fencing (or have a dog that can scale their fencing), have multiple dogs and cannot afford large separate kennels, etc. to have to give up their pets because they have no other way to confine them when they’re away from the home.