What Is Love? Pit bull owners know. Nathan Winograd knows. Sadly, so sadly, animal rights extremists kill for "love" Nathan Winograd speaks from the heart for pit bulls Staunch no-kill advocate Nathan Winograd rocked the world of animal rights, no, make that animal welfare, ooops, animal protection agencies with his book Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation. Winograd isn't buying that sick I Love, So I Must Kill crap. Nope. Not at all. We [animal protectionists] have determined that [pit bulls] do not deserve to live. The more circumspect among us might not say so publicly. We may couch it in more benign terms, shifting the blame to others, claiming that no one will adopt them, convincing ourselves that only a ban will keep them out of harm’s way, but the end result is exactly the same. By our actions, by our words, by our policies, by our failure to speak out on their behalf, we stoke the fire that has at its core only one end for Pit Bulls: their mass killing. Boobs, freaks and liars fail the American Pit Bull Terrier First prize for killing innocent dogs and general hypocrisy goes to PETA. Ingrid Newkirk and her crew of dog killers openly, unabashedly and without apology advocate the violent, brutal--yet somehow ethical--irradication of "pit bulls" from the planet Earth. Its all so sad. Best Friends' Prez Michael Mountain: Whackjobs and weasel words Mountain couldn't take the heat when confirmed pit bull hater and creative statistician Clifton Merritt of Animal People challenged a mildly pro-pit bull blog comment. Mountain was no mountain. He caved. He ran for cover. He sucked up to Clifton Merritt, the guy whose "statistics" are favorites with pit bull exterminators everywhere. Makes me wonder what kind of "rehabilitation" those "Vick-tory" dogs are getting in their new prison perpetual sanctuary. National Geographic reports that Best Friends received $18,275 per dog, from the court-ordered funds supplied by Michael Vick. That's far more than other organizations received--despite Best Friends' hefty income--because Best Friends envisioned a prolonged stay at the "sanctuary" for their share of Michael Vick's dogs. What's up with that? And what happens to dogs that don't enjoy their prolonged stay at Best Friends' "sanctuary"? Dogs that "suffer emotionally" from sanctuary in specially built -- just for them ! -- facilities and the best care that Best Friends staff can offer? In the weasel words of Best Friends veterinarian Frank McMillan: . . .we're not going to continue to harbor them in a sanctuary just to make the claim that we don't put any animals to sleep. Right. As long as Vick's check clears first. Blame owners, keep killing dogs

To quote HSUS's Pam Rogers, "Pit bulls. . .are likely the most popular dog in the country, but unfortunately, they are also the dogs of choice for drug dealers, gang members, and anyone else who is looking for a dog to be a status symbol."

Pam Rogers' solution? Sterilize all pit bulls. Pit bull owners know what love is. They aren't fooled by Ingrid Newkirk, and they know the difference between love and death. They know the difference between true friends and Best Friends. They know that the Humane Society of the United States is in the business of trashing owners in order to promote the seizure and destruction of their dogs. When pit bull owners say "Fight Breedism" . . .they mean it.

No Balls in La-La Land LA City Council takes a dive for HSUS, PeTA Pet owners sold down the river by their elected officials The L A City Council voted 10 to one to mandate pediatric gonadectomies for all pet dogs and cats in the City of L. A. yesterday. Pre-pubescent pups and kittens are slated to get the knife in the City of Angeles because public servants, on the public's payroll, turned a deaf ear to their own constituents. (The February 1 vote requires a second reading, scheduled for next week, to be binding.) Say what? Bob Barker calls the shots in Los Angeles? Looks like retired game show hosts, not voting pet owners, rule in L. A. Bob Barker, whose private foundation has donated millions of dollars for spay and neuter services [said] "Mandatory spay-neuter is a necessity. . . We need legislation." Who died and appointed a show biz millionaire the King of L. A.? Huh? Or was it Bob's bankroll that got the City Council's attention? City Councilmember Richard Alarcón: tissue-thin Democratic Party values Just as Democratic Louisville City Councilwoman Cheri Bryant-Hamilton sponsored Louisville's dirty war on dogs and enabled Metro Louisville Animal Control to target and discriminate against "poor people", LA proposal sponsor Richard Alarcon hasn't thought twice about who's going to get the knife first: residents of his own working-class district. Democrat Alarcón's "moral responsibility" doesn't extend to working class pet owners Richard Alarcón was brought up by working class parents who taught him the value of hard work, the importance of standing up for what is right and the moral responsibility to help those who are less fortunate. Gag me with a spoon. Since when is ignoring the vigorous protests of pet owners, and insisting on the drastic surgical removal of chunks of their pets "helpful"? No equal enforcement of the law in La-la Land LA officials are promising that enforcement of the L A ordinance is supposed to be "complaint driven." Anybody want to bet on who's going to drop a dime on who first? Animal Services General Manager Ed Boks and Co. will go after the lowest hanging fruit: the poor, blacks and hispanics, and the pit bull owners. And good luck to you, pilgrim, if you happen to be all three and you live in Los Angeles. There's already a dime with your name on it in Ed Bok's back pocket. Banging on doors, searching for testicles: Democratic Party SOP? What goes around, comes around. Do I have to vote for a Republican to avoid supporting patsies for PeTA, HSUS and the ASPCA? In this election year, things are looking grim for traditional Democratic voters like me. I was born to vote the Democratic ticket, but man, I'm not liking what I'm seeing. I support funded, voluntary spay-neuter programs. I support public policy based on fact, not fiction. I support civil rights. Which Democrat is going to protect me, and my dog, from the Bob Barkers and Gilles Meloches of the world? Huh? November is getting closer and closer. There will be some very tough choices made by hamburger-eating, dog-loving Dems like me.

HSUS Toadies Feelin' the Pain in Louisville Attorney Jon Fleischaker: this is about civil rights, not dogs You tell 'em, Lawyer Fleischaker! As one of the attorneys representing the Louisville Kennel Club, the League of Kentucky Sportsmen, Kentucky Houndsmen's Association, the Greater Louisville Training Club and eight other clubs, businesses and individuals in their struggle to rid Louisville of the worst, most anti-pet, anti-pet owner animal control ordinance in the country, Fleischaker commented: It's not a dog case, it is about people and individual rights and individual freedoms. . .The ordinance authorizes unconstitutional search and seizures, unconstitutional searches of people's homes. Louisville Animal Control director Gilles Meloche: clueless, tyrannical and caught in the headlights One of the prime defects of the Louisville anti-pet ordinance is the totalitarian power it places in the hands of a single, highly questionable, individual: Metro Animal Services Director Gilles Meloche. As the Motion for Summary Judgement recently filed by the Louisville Kennel Club et al. points out, due to the vague and even irrational language and provisions of the Louisville codes, Meloche personally has sole discretion over which dogs are declared "dangerous" in Louisville. . .regardless of their behavior or their history. The 4th Amendment? Not for Louisville dog owners. Meloche insists he can search private homes without a warrant Under the current Louisville codes, the Director of Animal Services, Gilles Meloche, is supposed to personally inspect the enclosures of every unaltered dog in Louisville. In other words: Louisville residents are second class citizens. Their homes are laid open to searches to be conducted without a warrant just because they own an unaltered dog. How did Meloche get his gig? With a little help from his friends Meloche's friends and fellow humaniacs at Kentucky Humane Society and the Shamrock Society supported his candidacy for the job in Louisville, even though Meloche's work history included some pretty large warts. Such as: --a guilty plea in his native Canada for unacceptable record keeping on anabolic steroid distribution [a controlled substance] --termination for cause [insubordination] after 10 months on the job at a shelter in Durham, NC --drama in a Tallahassee shelter that centered around his monomaniacal approach to shelter management Meloche's very Best Friend: the Humane Society of the United States Its nice to have a $125 MM private corporation in your back pocket. Pam Rogers, a Humane Society of the United States regional director--and the hypocrite that wrote to the Louisville City Council on behalf of HSUS urging a breed specific ordinance--doesn't have a problem with Meloche. When interviewed, Pam Rogers' opinion of Meloche was clear: "I like him. I find him easy to work with. . ." How sweet. That must have made the long hours Rogers and Meloche put in together concocting the Louisville ordinance so much more fun. Prejudice against low income dog owners: perfect in an animal rights advocate, fatal in a public servant Making it harder (and ever harder) for dog owners to continue to own their dogs is standard practice for HSUS and their proxies. HSUS targets the lowest hanging fruit. When the usual first choice -- pit bull owners -- didn't work out in Louisville, HSUS and its cronies simply switched to Plan B: take pets away from the poor. After all, the poor are practically defenseless, too. The Motion for Summary Judgement, which includes part of Meloche's deposition, shines a light on a public servant -- on the public's payroll -- with an unforgivable attitude towards "poor people." Negatively stereotyping and discriminating against Louisville's poor On "poor people" and dog license compliance, Meloche stated under oath: They just don't license, period. On "poor people" and access to veterinary care: First, we know one thing, they barely go to veterinary clinics. On "poor people" and cruelty to animals: Most of the cruelty that I've seen --that we see are from, of course, poor neighborhood, and it's dynamic. Cat got your tongue, Dr. Meloche? The deposition excerpt ends with this exchange: Q. Okay. Do you think it's prejudicial to impose financial requirements on people? ... A. I will not answer. Q. You're not going to answer that? A. No. Backdoor attack on civil rights and liberties Its too late for Gilles Meloche to shut up. He already said plenty.

The agenda is all too clear. The Louisville animal control ordinance is NOT about improving public safety, and its NOT about saving the lives of homeless animals.

The Louisville ordinance is about stripping away the civil rights and liberties of law-abiding Louisville residents, just because they own animals.

Let's hope the courts send the ordinance, and Gilles Meloche, back to where ever it was they came from.

Humane Corruption

ASPCA Unleashes Forensic Rent-a-cops

NY City's Agent Orange goes for broke, announcing their very own, cutting edge, state of the art, mobile, pet forensics laboratory.

Drum roll, please!

ASPCA's Agent Orange goes Hollywood

New York City's paid private contractor for animal cruelty law enforcement, the ASPCA, announced its latest bid for the public's love, admiration, cash and donations: a state-of-art, mobile, forensic laboratory dedicated to crimes against animals.

ASPCA Prez Ed Sayres: So excited, just can't hide it

Unveiled on NBC's Today Show--what? Oprah didn't return calls in time?--Ed can hardly contain himself when it comes to the mobile forensics lab.

Ed Sayres' letter to ASPCA supporters reads. . .

As I hope many of you saw this morning on NBC’s “Today” show, the ASPCA today unveiled a “forensics first”—the nation’s first-ever “Mobile Animal Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) Unit. . . .The vehicle will help us to significantly advance the prosecution of animal cruelty in this country. . .

Ed Sayres isn't concerned about the false hopes and unreasonable expectations the "CSI effect" may cause. His excitement knows no bounds.

Teensy little problem, Ed: Jurisdiction.

The world is not the ASPCA's oyster. Not yet, at least.

The only place the ASPCA has law enforcement authority of any sort is the City of New York. New York City purchased the services of the ASPCA for animal cruelty law enforcement within its five boroughs.

And that's it.

The ASPCA and its privately employed personnel are responsible to a private corporation governed by its own privately-appointed board of directors. While the ASPCA goes to great lengths to mimic public servants answerable to tax-payers and voters, Agent Orange and its employees are private contractors responsible to a privately-controlled corporation which is effectively shielded from public scrutiny.

Fake public servants on private missions

Despite the deceptive uniforms and dramatic posturing, the ASPCA "humane law enforcement" squad is a bunch of rent-a-cops with no jurisdiction outside of the City of New York and no civilian oversight within it.

So. Did Ed Sayres get it wrong? Or is Agent Orange poised to go national?

By what right, using what mechanism, could a private New York contractor employed by a single city seek to interfere in criminal investigations across the country?

Nostradamus lives in bright blue New York

Maybe Ed Sayres is not a detail guy. Maybe he's an over-excited delusional, and all that talk about a NYC private contractor
changing the face of animal law across the nation is a pipe dream.

Or maybe Ed Sayres is a prophet.

"We, the People" ? Or "We, the ASPCA's Lackeys" ?

The New York State legislature went back into session in early January, dragging with it all kinds of unfinished business from the prior year--including Assembly bill 1741 and its identical companion, Senate bill S865. These bills
sponsored -- in a well-orchestrated tandem of upstate Republican and downstate Democrat -- by Catskills-area Republican NYS Senator John J. Bonacic. . . .

[Note that Senator Bonacic is a lawyer. He was an Assistant District Attorney in Orange County, New York.]

. . . and Long Island Democrat Assemblymember Steve Englebright.

[Assemblymember Englebright is a geologist by training -- not that ignorance is a reasonable defense in a state assemblymember.]

Public funding. Private masters. Institutionalized corruption.

If enacted, A1741/S865 would authorize district attorneys -- elected public servants employed by the citizens of New York to represent the interests of "we, the people" -- to act in court on behalf of private humane societies like the privately funded, privately controlled ASPCA.

The proposal requires elected public servants to engage in the private practice of law while on the public's payroll.

For obvious reasons, that's illegal in the state of New York.

Illegally greasing the wheels of "justice"

There are a number of other problems with A1741/S865, but here's Blue Dog's question--

The New York State Constitution includes a Bill of Rights to protect its residents from unreasonable governance:

The legislature shall not pass a private or local bill . . .granting to any private corporation, association or individual any exclusive privilege, immunity or franchise whatever. [Section 17]

Has the stink of "humane" corruption reached you yet?

Has the reek of exclusive privileges, immunities and franchises granted to private animal rights, animal welfare, animal protection corporations and associations -- both in New York and around the country -- reached your nostrils?

Because the wave of anti animal owner, anti civil rights legislation -- sponsored and expertly lobbied by the Humane Society of the United States, the ASPCA, and others -- will knock you right off your feet.

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.]

Throwing dog owners under the bus in NYC Hizzoner raises funds for Gotham's Prince of Darkness: Peter Vallone Jr. Bloomberg uses and abuses his dog owning constituents So there's Hizzoner, cuddling for the cameras with a distinctly pit bull-looking pup. The photo-op was sound dog politics on the part of Bloomberg, the guy charged with riding herd over some of the most assertive, pit bull-friendliest dog owners on the planet. Not long ago, NYC's animal law power players, the Mayor's Alliance for NYC Animals and the A S P C A , scrambled to schedule face time with Bloomberg. Where are they now? Running for cover? Bloomberg's fundraiser for Peter Vallone Jr.-- support for a politico that will kill that puppy $2000 per ticket for the privilege of networking at millionaire Bloomberg's Manhattan townhouse. . .all to benefit the political aspirations of pit bull hating Peter Vallone Jr. . . . the guy who wants to ditch a ten year old state law so that cities, towns and villages all over the state of New York can profile dogs and discriminate against their owners. Peter Vallone Jr. wants "pit bulls" the hell out of New York. Now, ain't that a kick in the head? Vallone Jr. and the Politics of Hatred Peter Vallone Jr. is big on fear and hatred. Its not just "pit bulls." He hates baggy pants, and proposed legislation to eliminate them from the Big Apple. In language which reeks of poorly-veiled racism, he encourages fear and hatred of the owners of certain dogs, profiling them as "drug dealers and gangs seeking to intimidate and terrorize neighborhoods." Vallone hates peeping Toms--but his overly broad proposal set off alarm bells among the civil rights-minded. He says he hates graffiti, but his law snagged a six year old who created a chalk drawing in front of her Brooklyn home. Vallone's many, many brain storms -- 56 legislative proposals as of October 1 -- rank him as #1 in the New York City Council when it comes to sheer quantity of legislative submissions. Hate-mongering leads to hate crimes? ? ? Ya think? Politicians in New York are pondering their responses to a recently reported 20% rise in hate crimes. Nooses and swastikas have appeared on college campuses and synagogues. This is a city of tolerance, a city of justice and a city where we won't allow hate to grow unchecked," Quinn said at a City Hall gathering of dozens of government, religious and civic leaders and scores of multiethnic supporters. Hate crimes are contagious," said Michael Miller of the Jewish Community Relations Council. . . Vallone's response to the spike in hate crime in New York City? He's gonna whip out his pen and sponsor a new law. Naturally. City Council Speaker Quinn is right. New York is a city of tolerance, despite Peter Vallone Jr.'s best efforts. Which makes Mayor Bloomberg's support of Vallone even more outrageous. Really sick puppies: Hate-mongering as a long-term strategy in True Blue New York Where will you be in two years, New York? Peter Vallone Jr. is term-limited. His City Council gig is just about over, and he's preparing to run for Queens Borough President in 2009. That much is clear. Is Bloomberg really okay with the politics of hate? Or does Hizzoner need to hear from civil rights-loving dog owners?

Write Mayor Bloomberg a letter, the sooner the better:

mbloomberg@cityhall.nyc.gov Is that a dog in that NYC voting booth?

Its election day in New York. In two years time, it will be again. Will dog owners--both in New York and across the country--stand up for their dogs and for themselves, and against hate and fear? Civil rights at the crossroads Connect the dots, dog and pet owners. You can vote for the Peter Vallone Jrs. of the world. Or against them. Its up to us.

Bad dog? Or nailed to the wall for acting normal? Dogs and dog owners feel the squeeze as commonplace dog behaviors lead to castrations, bans, euthanasia What's the deal? Who's calling the shots? One step forward, two steps back in Frostburg, MD--HSUS leads the charge against dogs Dog owners in the college town of Frostburg, Maryland allowed the Humane Society of the United States to write their new animal control ordinance proposal. Hey, at least it ain't breed specific. Right? Wrong. What Frostburg dog owners will learn soon enough. . . Surgical sterilization: HSUS's miracle remedy for all things doggy Frostburg dogs convicted of such basic of dog behaviors as cat chasing, digging up the neighbor's garden, or barking at other dogs from the safety of a fenced yard will get the knife. Those dogs will permanently exit the gene pool, in perfect conformity with HSUS President Wayne Pacelle's master plan to rid the world of domesticated animals. Not that the presence of a complete hormonal system has a documented relationship with such doggy misdemeanors as "damaging property not belonging to the dog's owner." Like slippers and garbage cans. HSUS's kinder, gentler way to animal extinction--one conviction at a time Heads up, owners of targeted breeds, because you and your dogs don't get to slip back into the shadows just because the Frostburg ordinances aren't breed specific. Check with the folks in Louisville, KY. Selective enforcement, in which "pit bulls" and their owners pay the highest possible price for misconduct excused and unprosecuted in other dogs is the norm. Overly broad language, allowing for subjective assessment of what happened and why--like Frostburg's new laws--just makes it easier. Look forward to "humane" breed specific programs aimed at removing gonads from certain dogs living in the homes of certain owners. Kentucky Humane wrote the book on profiling dog owners by zip code. North Little Rock: what? their shit don't stink ? North Little Rock's train wreck set of anti-dog ordinances includes BSL, limit laws, tethering restrictions and more. North Little Rock allows unwarranted searches of private residences, makes dog owners guilty of infractions without allowing them to confront their accusers, discriminates against some owners by giving them fewer property rights than others--and more, so much more. Dude, in North Little Rock they've got a law on how much dog crap can smell. Seriously. It shall be unlawful for any person keeping or harboring dogs to fail to keep the premises where such dogs are kept free from offensive odors to the extent that such odors are disturbing to any person residing within reasonable proximity of such premises. A diligent and systematic effort must be made to eliminate or fill any holes on the premises to avoid said holes from holding water, urine or feces. It shall be unlawful to allow premises where dogs are kept to become unclean by failing to diligently and systematically remove all animal waste from the premises every 72 hours. Mandated poop scooping for every home with a dog, every 72 hours. Whether you've got one Chihuahua on five acres, or seven St. Bernards on a city lot. Oh, and fill in those urine-collecting holes while you're at it, will ya?

"Still, I hope you won't give up barking entirely." The New Yorker magazine got it right. NYC's new nuisance noise laws make it tough for dogs to do what comes natural: bark.

Dog, better get your gun. Audible pet noises are restricted to 10 minutes at a time during the day in New York City, and five minutes at night. After that, hefty fines kick in. The Humane Society of New York is loving it, on the theory that a barking dog is an abused dog. So. . .are we looking at brand new criteria for evidence of cruelty to animals? Audible pet noises? Punishment fits the crime. Unless the "criminal" is your dog. Dogs, and dog owners, increasingly face extreme penalties for minor infractions. Sometimes violations are actually pre-crimes, like the HSUS-supplied ordinance in Frostburg. Its a crime if dogs look like they can get over a fence in Frostburg. Walls closing in for dogs and caring dog owners Understand: I'm not arguing that its okay for dogs to wander loose, dig up gardens, or bark all night. Not at all. But the punishment has to suit the "crime." Increasingly, we're faced with reactionary, anti-dog, anti-dog owners laws, and draconian sanctions for minor infractions. These laws are often sponsored by HSUS and like-minded "humane" organizations. They don't solve problems any more than breed specific laws do. They kill dogs by forcing people who can't comply to relinquish their dogs to shelters. Where the dog dies.

Or they force owners to needlessly sterilize their dogs.

Hey. One generation and out. It works for Wayne Pacelle. Ain't that a scary thought?

Screwing the Pooch. Again. Dog laws strip away civil rights Turn your head and cough, brother. Dog laws are the new back door to demolishing the civil rights and liberties that progressive Democrats love to get teary-eyed and maudlin about.

The icing on the cake? Liberal Dems are in it up to their dainty nostrils.

Is anybody awake there at the DNC?

Tacoma, Washington: Julie Anderson and her continuing war on caring pet owners Well, hell. Nobody ever claimed that Tacoma City Councilmember Julie "having an unaltered animal is no longer a right" Anderson was a quick learner. Julie-the-liberal-Dem was beaten back on last year's plan mandating the surgical sterilization of all Tacoma dogs and cats unless their owners have the money to buy a breeder's permit. Julie doesn't like pet owners When making it really difficult to own an intact dog or cat without plenty of money to pay for the privilege failed, Julie developed a stunning new plan to solve the myth burning issue of "pet overpopulation": let's take pets out of their homes and send them to shelters. That's right. Julie's newest, most modest proposal offers all kinds of artificial thresholds and limitation on pet ownership. All designed to make it harder to own dogs and cats. Julie Anderson apparently subscribes to PETA's "better off dead" theory: killing dogs and cats is morally superior to letting the "wrong" [limited income, young, politically incorrect] people continue to enjoy their company. For example: Three animal control violations in two years, and you can be stripped of your private property. Under the proposal, failure to scoop poop is a violation. Three violations in two years and all of your pets can be taken from you and sent to an underfunded shelter. Where the chances are pretty good that they will die. Under the current Tacoma proposal, kids can't license their pets. You have to be 18 years old to buy a dog license. Why? Julie, why don't you just cut to the chase and require competency in English, an income of $150,000 per year and maybe five acres of fenced woodlands and meadows? Huh? I hear you knocking. "Pit bulls" and no knock searchs We were all supposed to cheer when an appeals court in that most brilliant of blue of states, Massachusetts, found that the mere presence of a "pit bull" was insufficient to justify a no knock search warrant. Give me a break. The decision in Commonwealth v. Santiago leaves the door for no knock searchs based on dog ownership wide open. Shit, the court reasoned that any dog can be a weapon: While we agree with the Commonwealth that a pit bull (or a mutt) may, under the appropriate circumstances, pose a serious enough threat to an officer's safety to justify a no-knock warrant, no such circumstances were present here. There was no information in the affidavit that the defendant might actually use the pit bull as a weapon. Dogs are weapons. And they lurk in 45% of U. S. homes. Why am I not getting a warm and fuzzy feeling from the phrasing in that decision? Maybe its the suggestion that any dog could be used as a justification for a no knock search? Lemme tell ya, I was way happier when no knock searches were illegal and dogs weren't weapons. When dog-hating freaks like Democratic New York City Councilman and ex Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Peter Vallone Jr. rants on about "pit bulls" as "street weapons". . .is he paving the way for no knock search warrants and other civil rights violations against their owners? Vallone pretends he's got a real hard on about graffiti, baggy pants, and "pit bulls". So let's face it. Vallone thinks discriminating against urban youths is a winning political formula. Is race a factor in that Democrat's thinking? Oh, baby. You better believe it. I'm just wondering what its got to do with the Democratic Party. New Rochelle: keeping the undesirables O U T. How? With a dog law. When the entrenched Democratic Party-controlled New Rochelle City Council moved to require a $250 permit, per dog, per year, in order for non-residents to walk a dog in a public park what was the intended effect?

Keep those Bronx dogs and their melanin-rich owners the hell out of New Rochelle.

The City Council wanted to keep New Rochelle safe for the right kind of people. Their kind of people.

Get it straight. This is not about dogs. This is NOT about saving puppies, open spaces for off-leash dogs, or "pet overpopulation." Its not about "pit bulls" or whether microchips cause cancer. The issue is civil rights. Your civil rights, and mine. My Dog Votes. My dog only votes for dog-friendly candidates, and the preservation of civil rights and liberties. He's a sensible dog, and he has his priorities straight. I hope yours does, too.