Saturday, November 19, 2011

Fake Cops from the SPCA

This guy?  Not a cop.  Not a public servant.
He's a self-employed lawyer in police officer drag.
Posse of volunteers will lay down the law in Schenectady

Signed, sealed and delivered. Public accountability?  Transparency in government?  Not so much.

The contract approved by the Schenectady County legislature awarding the private Schenectady County SPCA 50% of any money they can gouge out of dog owners through enforcement of licensing, leash and dangerous dog laws, plus control of the balance of the money and access to vehicles purchased and maintained at taxpayer expense took effect on November 15.

So where's the fire ?

Under the terms of the contract, the SCSPCA's volunteers--whoever they may be, because the contract doesn't require them to be peace officers--will have no supervision from the County and are specifically exempted from the rules and regulations applicable to County employees as they go about their public law enforcement activities. 

Apparently, Schenectady County was willing to sign just about anything to get out from under the shaky lawsuit the SPCA brought against them.  The lawsuit was filed on October 7, the so-called "Vicious Dog Law of 2011" was proposed by October 14, and by October 28 the County Attorney was declaring the whole mess a 'win-win' and urging county legislators to get on board.  By the November 9 meeting of the county legislature, it was a done deal.

What makes me think there is more to this story?

Burning, burning desire to address "vicious" dogs? 

Yeah, right.

The "vicious dog law" turned out to be a sweetheart contract between the SPCA and Schenectady County ultimately giving a private corporation control of 100% of monies it generates by the enforcement of state laws.  No provisions for audit, and no opportunity for public oversight over the disposition of public monies. 

Plus freebie vehicles and maintenance, and some other perks--all at taxpayer expense.

On November 11, the head of the SCSPCA  Mathew B. Tully (pictured above) announced that he is resigning. In discussing his "proactive" approach to law enforcement, Tully  commented that the "end game" in his suit against the County is to ensure the viability of the SCSPCA. 

Schenectady, you was played.  Majorly played.

Rhinestone cowboys as bounty hunters
I guess I could volunteer for the Schenectady County SPCA and become a vigilante  uh hobbyist law enforcer umm "Schenectady County Contractor", too.

Why not? I bet I'd look kewl in that navy blue uni and the tool belt and whatnot, too.

I'd probably scare the crap out of dog owners unable to produce a dog license.   They'd practically be throwing the cash at me, especially if I were to mention that unlicensed dogs in NYS are subject to immediate impoundment.

Then there are those people whose 10 year-old dogs accidentally escape out the back door for the first time in their lives.  Looks like  there's good money to be made by not-for-profits in loose dogs.  $565 to bail out a stray dog from a shelter operated by a "not for profit"? 

Dang. . .

As long as the private not-for-profit holds a contract from the municipality, looks like they're golden.  And the Schenectady County contract says specifically that the County will not supervise the SPCA's activities. Can it get any better?

Freedom of Information?  Not in Schenectady. 
What happens when the citizens of Schenectady County start to ask questions about how public laws are enforced ? 

What records will be available to them?   

Will they be required to sue a private not-for-profit corporation, which--not for nothing--is staffed by volunteer lawyers, in order to gain access to records which would normally be available to them?

End Games:  Private and public.

Schenectady, you've got a crew of volunteers--responsible to no public official--enforcing the law with a "proactive" focus.  They take 50% off the top for themselves, and ultimately they have access to 100% of the revenues they generate through their law enforcement activities.  Talk about a motive for frivolous prosecutions. . .

The County is doing its best to distance itself from the consequences and wash its hands of any responsibility.

Good luck with that, Schenectady County legislators and public officials.  And may you rot in hell.

I don't think this is going to end well. 

Not at all.

Monday, November 07, 2011

Extorting Schenectady: New York SPCA Shows True Colors

Note:  What goes around comes around. 
Blue Dog State first wrote about the Schenectady SPCA and its "fergit shelters, we gonna arrest you" mission in a piece called

New Revenue Scheme for Animal Extremist Innovator
Schenectady SPCA sets itself up for 50% off the top
. . . thanks to its lawsuit against the Sheriff

Private persons associated on a volunteer basis with a private corporation and a clear animal extremist agenda will be independently enforcing dog control laws in Schenectady County -- without having to answer to county officials -- if  legislators approve the "Vicious Dog Control Law of 2011" on November 9.

As payment, the private corporation will receive 50% of all fines paid to the county stemming from their enforcement of state dog laws.  The remaining 50% of the monies paid by Schenectady dog owners pursuant to the enforcement of public laws will also go to the SCSPCA, in compensation for sheltering impounded animals. 

The Schenectady SPCA does not operate a shelter and it never has. 

As an added bonus when the contract gets signed, the private SCSPCA gains access to vehicles purchased and maintained at taxpayer expense.

In exchange for the money, the contract to enforce dog control regulations throughout the county, and the vehicles, the SCSPCA agrees to drop
the lawsuit it filed against the Schenectady County Sheriff.

Mathew Tully's SCSPCA initiated the suit in October when the SPCA -- which, again, does not operate a shelter and never has -- seized roughly 40 cats and a dog pursuant to its investigation of animal cruelty allegations. 

The SCSPCA insisted that County Sheriff Dominic Dagostino accept custody and responsibility for the animals pending adjudication of the charges.  When that didn't happen--the Sheriff cited financial constraints and lack of facilities--the Schenectady County SPCA sued him.

Cty. Sheriff Dagostino

In the meantime, the SPCA killed the impounded dog and about a third of the impounded cats.  They had fleas.

Although the numbers in the various press accounts vary, it appears that some of the remaining survivors of the "rescue" were farmed out to the illegal pre-adjudication forfeiture gulag "humane" network of fosters and shelters.   Seems at least some sheltering alternatives were available, after all.   Surprise, surprise.

Blue Dog believes that for all practical purposes those remaining cats might just as well have vanished from the face of the planet.  Whether they've since been killed, sold, given away, or simply "lost" in the system, they will not be available as evidential exhibits.

Follow the trail of dead cats

Setting aside the drama and the accusations, what really happened as a result of the Great SCSPCA Cat Seize?

Many of the animals the SCSPCA impounded (allegedly flea-ridden, but still alive) are now dead. 

Their owner, described in the press as a conscience-stricken "rescuer" who gradually became overwhelmed, awaits her day in court under the forlorn theory that she is innocent of deliberate and calculated cruelty to animals until proven guilty.  While 40 or more animals were seized from her home, she was only charged with one count of cruelty.  Innocent or not, the animals are history.  They will never be returned to her, even if she is cleared of the charges. 

The County appears to be submitting to pressure from a small private corporation with an adrenalin-driven lawyer at the helm.  Schenectady County exhibits zero understanding of New York's Agriculture and Markets laws. . .and worse yet, zero concern for the civil rights of its dog and animal owning residents.

And the SCSPCA ?  Tully is a lawyer, as are several of his volunteers, and he uses his law firm as an operations center for the SCSPCA.  As a result of filing a lawsuit using in-house legal services, Tully stands to gain an immediate 50% cut on any revenue they can generate by enforcing dangerous dog, leash and dog licensing laws in Schenectady County, plus control of the balance of the public monies collected pursuant to a state law. 

How sick is this picture? 

And who the freak is Mathew Tully, Esq., and his band of 10 or 12 volunteers-soon-to-be-Schenectady dog control contractors?

You better sit down, kids

Currently, Mathew Tully is the. . .

Chief Commanding Officer of the SCSPCA,

Director of the SCSPCA,Chief of Department of the SCSPCA,

President of the SCSPCA,Chief Humane Law Enforcement Officer of the SCSPCA,

and the
Chairman of the Board of Directors of the SCSPCA.

But Tully first hit the radar for many animal owners back in 2002 when, acting as a volunteer, he fraudulently misrepresented himself as an officer of the Columbia-Greene Humane Society and seized 15 dogs from a dog retailer.  The dogs were valued at approximately $9000, and were subsequently sold by the CGHS, which retained the proceeds.

Mad extortion skillz

According to
sworn testimony included in court records,

Tully . . . told [the dog owners] that, unless they immediately signed a document surrendering the 15 puppies on their premises to the Society, he would arrest them upon a misdemeanor charge of violating Agriculture and Markets Law § 357.  They allege in their verified complaint that Tully, who is also an attorney, told them that it would be one or two days before they were arraigned, that he would ask for high bail and that he would "demand that [their five] children be placed by the Department of Social Services until plaintiffs made bail." Plaintiffs signed the surrender document and were issued an appearance ticket."  [emphasis added]

During his persecution investigation, Tully made reference to the results of a veterinarian's examination of an allegedly unfit puppy sold by the plaintiffs.  Yet the
vet's sworn affidavit reads:

"I understand that Mr. Tully has given an updated deposition in this case in which he avers that[I found an animal] infected with a contagious disease dangerous to the life and/or health of animals called coccida. . . I absolutely deny that I ever told Mr. Tully. . . that any of the animals was infected with a contagious disease dangerous to the life and/or health of animals. . .the puppy was normal in all respects and was clearly not "infected with a contagious disease dangerous to the life and/or health of animals." [emphasis added]
Note:  to protect the vet's privacy, I have removed some details from the linked affidavit

All charges against the dog owners were dropped. 

Hat tip: 
Game Fowl News

Law.  Order. [Private] Police State.
Back in 2008, when Tully was busy promoting his newly established, shelterless SPCA, he was clear on his vision for Schenctady County: 

"I guarantee you, there is no point in having an SPCA unless you increase the volume of arrests,”
Tully said.'

Good to know.  How about the volume of extortions?

But the connection between addressing any "vicious" dogs in Schenectady County and setting Tully's private army loose on the public is a little vague.  How is kicking back half the revenue from unlicensed dog tickets to a private army going to help? 

State law allows for the immediate impoundment of unlicensed dogs.  Is that what folks in Schenectady County are facing?  Because the revenue numbers would be impressive.

What public oversight of law enforcement activities, what transparency in government--and private corporations--can there possibly be when it is handed over to a private corporation?  What elected public official acting on behalf of the People of Schenectady County will have any influence at all ? 

The proposed agreement between the SPCA and the County is specific:

"Except as provided herein, [the Schenectady County SPCA] shall not be subject to any rules and regulations applicable to the employees of the County, and shall fulfill its responsibilities independent of, and without any supervisory control by the County."

What recourse will people have when they get steamrolled by Tully and the SCSPCA?  Who can they complain to, if the County has agreed not to get involved ?

Dog owners of Schenectady County, you will be on your own.

Schoharie County and beyond.

According to Tully,  the  "ultimate end game for [the SCSPCA] is to make sure the SPCA is viable for years to come."

Also good to know.

Tully expects to be filing a similar extortionate suit in Schoharie County soon, and envisions his model being replicated across the State of New York. 

From there, who knows?

What you can do

The Schenectady County Legislature meets to consider the "Vicious Dog Control Act of 2011" on Wednesday, November 9 at 7:00 p. m.

Write, phone, and email the legislators.  Tell them you fear life in a police state patrolled by a crew of out-of-control volunteers with no responsibility to any elected official whatsoever.  The Schenectady County Chairwoman is Judith Dagostino.  Start with her.

Schenectady County Legislative Offices
620 State Street
6th Floor
Schenectady, NY 12305
Phone: (518) 388-4280
Fax: (518) 388-4591
email: legislature @

Corruption:  Tully.  Schenectady County.  Who else?

The proposal is illegal. 

Volunteers for private not-for-profits are not public servants.

The government cannot award special privileges to private corporations.

We do not have private armies in this country.

Schenectady County cannot simply set an unsupervised posse loose on its citizens and hope for the best.  Or the cheapest.

Something is terribly, terribly wrong here.
Blow that whistle, ring that bell.

We cannot let this happen.

Monday, September 26, 2011

Humane Havens for Dog Slaughterers

Update on previously published article

Pit Bull Killer Laura Maloney Rakes It In
at Humane Society of the United States

Movin' on up in the world of corporate dog-killing

Pacelle lauds "accomplishments" of exec who cut and ran after Boudreaux' dogs were slaughtered

Dontcha just love it?  As ex Louisiana SPCA CEO Laura Maloney wiggles her way ever upward in the world of industrial animal killing "rescue", the bullshit just gets deeper and deeper.  When she joined HSUS a year ago as Pacelle's chief of staff, he babbled on . . .

“I’ve worked alongside Laura in Louisiana during the effort to rescue animals following Hurricane Katrina, and in the battle to outlaw cockfighting in the state, and I have seen her excel in all the areas where’s she focused her attentions. We are an enormously complex organization, and I know she’ll help us make it run even better."

Better at what, Wayne?  Killing animals? 

Maybe setting up her employers for liability in civil suits stemming from her "rescue" activities?

Cause that's what Laura Maloney excels at. 

Maloney was in charge when her blood-thirsty employees seized and immediately killed Boudreaux's 57 dogs.  She "worked with authorities" to assure they acted on her allegations. 

Boudreaux hadn't even been arraigned when Maloney's SPCA killed his dogs.  No wonder Wayne Pacelle loves her.

But when the case went to court the charges were promptly dropped.   That's a problem, Wayne.  That's a big problem.

Birds finally come home to roost: 
Lousiana SPCA settles Boudreaux suit

It has been a long, hard road for Floyd Boudreaux, his family, and the animal lovers that supported him and appreciated his dogs. 

The undisclosed sum the SPCA will be paying out to Floyd and his family--and man, I hope it is huge--won't bring back the 57 dogs they lost on the evil day of the "humane" raid Maloney orchestrated against them.   It can be no compensation for the extermination of a cherished, 100 year-old line of champions.  No amount of money can make what that family went through go away.

But it serves as a warning to other private societies-for-the-prevention who think their cute little uniforms and cop-car clone vehicles will shield them from liability when they fuck up. . .
uh, indulge in a little mission creep. . .

okay let's cut to the chase and make that. . . do what they wanted to do all along and freaking slaughter beautiful animals belonging to innocent people. 

Below is Blue Dog's October, 2009 piece on Maloney and her brilliant career.  Let's just hope it finally comes to a screeching halt.

Exonerated Pit bull breeder Floyd Boudreaux sues Louisiana SPCA

Disgraced SPCA CEO now ASPCA Sr. Vice President

Floyd Boudreaux made headlines last week with news of his suit against the Lousiana SPCA. The SPCA needlessly, wantonly--and apparently, illegally--slaughtered the Boudreaux dogs as fast as it could after the Boudreaux home was raided during a 2005 dogfighting investigation.

You'd think that Laura Maloney, Chief Executive Officer at the LA SPCA when it exterminated each and every one of Floyd's 57 dogs within 24 hours of seizing them would be unemployable. At least unemployable within the "humane" network where the lives of animals are supposed to count for something. Right? Societies for the prevention of cruelty aren't supposed to be in a flaming hurry to kill the dogs they just finished "rescuing."

Are they?

Ooops. Blue Dog's bad. . .

That's exactly what Maloney's LA SPCA did on that black day four years ago when Boudreaux' dogs were seized, and killed, by "humane" agents. Boudreaux was quickly acquitted when his case went to trial. But it was too late for his dogs.

Maloney's LA SPCA had already carried out sentence on his dogs. Boudreaux hadn't even been arraigned when the killings began.
Scurrying to avoid the cold light of day

State trooper Jacob Dickinson, the investigator that testified during the short trial that vindicated the Boudreaux family, said that "he believed the SPCA would house the animals and did not know the dogs would be euthanized."

But a representative from the SPCA testified that no one person at the nonprofit animal welfare group made the decision to kill the animals but that there was a general assumption that the dogs would be euthanized.

Deny, deny, deny. . .

Laura Maloney's Louisiana SPCA is asking us to accept that general assumptions killed 57 healthy, happy dogs as soon as they arrived at the "shelter"?

Are you kidding? What kind of an explanation is that? And how cold can you get?

The stress from losing those dogs, particularly the dog belonging to his 10 year-old grandson, caused Floyd to suffer a heart attack five days after the LA SPCA killed his dogs.

Rewarding major fuck ups general assumptions

So Maloney, and the LA SPCA, asks the world to believe that LA SPCA personnel just took it upon themselves to kill all those dogs, immediately, no questions asked. All in a day's work. What kind of out-of-control crack house does Maloney claim she was running, anyway ? How arrogant can you get?

ASPCA shelters Maloney from the storm

Moving on to the present. . . Maloney's feeling no pain. She's got a nice new job at the ASPCA. Delicately referring to Maloney's "national recognition for managing high-profile dog fighting cases" the ASPCA placed Maloney in charge of various business units including Humane Law Enforcement, Veterinary Forensics, Government Affairs/Legislative Initiatives, Field Services and the New York City Anti-Cruelty Center.

Some gig, huh? ASPCA Veterinary Forensics. Dang.

Lights going out in Georgia

So, was it Maloney that deployed Melinda Merck, the ASPCA Forensic head honcho now partnered up with Norred and Associates and HSUS ? These three private corporations are cutting a swath through the backwoods of Georgia right now -- seizing pit bulls first and asking questions later. Way, way later.

Is Merck acting on Maloney's instructions--or maybe just a general assumption--when she seizes puppies from the homes of innocent people? Does anyone at the ASPCA even care?

Waves of "humane change" don't reach every shore

What happens to all those seized dogs, anyway? Where are the dogs?

Something tells me that news of the great "Las Vegas Humane Sea Change", in which HSUS sort of agreed that dogs seized during fighting investigations don't necessarily need to die, has been slow to trickle down. Plenty of good dogs are dying lonely deaths for no good reason.

After HSUS, Norred, the ASPCA and the news crews blow town, the killing begins.
What responsibility does Merck, Maloney and the ASPCA assume for the fate of those dogs?


Absolutely none.

ASPCA doesn't walk the walk

The ASPCA cannot employ people like Laura Maloney and look dog owners, particularly pit bull owners, in the eye. It is not possible.

Most especially, the ASPCA cannot put people with a history like Laura Maloney's in charge of Melinda Merck and her travelling pit bull confiscation show.

"We are their voice" ???

What a farce.

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Puppyless in Suffolk

Animal Rights Extremist Tool Jon Cooper's Genius Plan
Suffolk County, New York considers ban on retail sales of dogs

Humane puppy-traffickers will be only game in town

So, here's Suffolk County Legislator Jon Cooper's wicked smart strategy:

First:  Shut down every single legal, licensed, regulated, inspected pet shop selling dogs in Suffolk County.

Second:  Replace them with unlicensed, un-inspected, unregulated "rescues" and "shelters" selling dogs obtained in murky circumstances from "puppy mills" located hundreds and even thousands of miles away.

Third:  What if every voter and taxpayer in Suffolk County doesn't want a shelter dog?  Maybe someone would prefer a registered purebred for some strange reason, or maybe a puppy, and none of the few besieged hobby/residential breeders within a day's drive of their home have one?  Maybe they don't want to wait a few years until the hobby breeder has a litter.

Go with the Marie Antoinette solution.  That one really worked for her.

Fourth:  Get the hell out of Dodge.

When frustrated pet lovers inevitably rebel because they can't find a puppy for the kids and turn to illegal, unlicensed, un-inspected, and potentially substandard and abusive sources--like people selling four week-old puppies out of the trunks of cars in supermarket parking lots--it won't be Cooper's problem.  He can pretend he never heard of consumer demand.

Who will suffer?  Who will benefit?

Want to read the text?  Be my guest.

Who will suffer under Cooper's latest version of IR 1545-2011 is obvious:  dog owners, pet store owners and their employees,  pet-related businesses such as groomers, feed stores, trainers, dog walkers, boarding kennels, and vets.  And the pets themselves.

But who benefits?  That's an interesting question.

Humane puppy-trafficking among the glitterati: 
Animal Rescue Fund of the Hamptons

Best Friends Animal Society's latest, most bestest friend is ARF of the Hamptons, a facility unable to find enough local dogs to stay in business, but reports assets and cash on hand in excess of $13 million at year-end 2009.   Yes, some dog rescuers are not exactly cash strapped in Suffolk County's East End, where so much of Jon Cooper's support on IR 1545 comes from:

"Every animal the local animal control can’t adopt, ARF takes in. Still, ARF has to import adoptable animals from other parts of the country to keep its shelters from turning into a ghost town.  Many of those animals come from Best Friends’ Pup My Ride, a program that transports dogs from puppy mills in the Midwest to the Northeast. . .

[. . .]We’re never able to get enough of those ["puppy mill"] dogs working locally with our municipal pounds or going into New York,” Michele says. “So when Best Friends approached us about taking in all these small breed dogs, we jumped at the chance.

Once the animals go up for adoption, they go very, very quickly.”

Based on documents submitted to the New York State Charities Bureau, as a 501(c)3, ARF's 22 acre compound located in Wainscott, New York was valued at a little over $5 million in 2009.  The real estate holdings are exempted from property taxes.

ARF's almost $7 million in revenue from donations, investments and other sources in 2009?  Not taxable.

The almost $93,000 ARF grossed on dog sales in 2009?  Not taxable, either.

All in all, in 2009 -- a freaking tough year for most individuals, businesses and charitable organizations in the United States -- ARF's net worth went from $8,658,848 to $13,336,833.

Not bad.  Which brings us to another item in Business Management 101:

Flip that inventory

ARF describes with great pathos the "puppy mill" dogs it obtains under unspecified circumstances at unknown cost.  Whether they were seized from their owners, surrendered, or bought at auction, ARF tells a story of dogs that suffered from lack of proper veterinary care, forced over-breeding, psychological trauma and various physical ailments.    They lived crammed into tiny cages, were never walked, were deprived of human contact and didn't know how to play.

Generally speaking and according to ARF, the dogs they bring into the Hamptons are a wreck. 

Nevertheless, also according to ARF, upon arrival in Wainscott they get a bath and grooming, and promptly undergo surgical sterilization.  Soon thereafter, an "amazing transformation" occurs which renders them immediately ready and available for life as a pet in the homes of Suffolk County families. 

It seems the whole process--from wreck to amazing transformation--usually takes about two weeks. Those small breed "puppymill" dogs just fly off the shelf.

 Nice work if you can get it

 As a private, not-for-profit corporation, ARF and other Suffolk shelters and rescues are not required to comply with the humane standards of care required of pet stores and non-residential breeders.

New York State does not routinely inspect shelters and rescues as it does pet stores.

New Yorkers who purchase a pet from a shelter or rescue have no recourse under the state's "puppy lemon law" which only covers dogs purchased at pet stores and from other licensed "pet dealers."

And then there are all the tax advantages enjoyed by 501(c)3's.

Seems Cooper's not so pro-choice after all

The latest version of his proposal makes it absolutely illegal for lawfully operated Suffolk County pet stores to sell dogs under one year of age, unless the dogs come from a shelter or rescue. 

Shelters and rescues, on the other hand, can continue to sell puppies and dogs without restrictions.

By legislating such a huge competitive advantage in the marketplace to one group of competitors, while denying lawful small business owners the ability to make a living, Suffolk County would be participating in dishonest trade practices. 

And Suffolk residents will find it very difficult to find a puppy in the future.  Will possession of a young dog become yet another act of conspicuous consumption among the wealthy?  Beamer, summer home, havanas, and a puppy, any kind of puppy, to make the picture complete?

Cooper's problem with facts

Cooper's proposal is based on the wildest of  internet rumors and animal extremist propaganda.

He profiled every single Suffolk County pet store owner offering dogs to the public as a profiteer furthering the crime of cruelty to animals.  As a pit bull-owning gay man, Cooper must know a little something about negative stereotypes, but he flings them around with abandon.

In a public hearing in June, Cooper used the fact that pet store owners often obtain their dogs from kennels located in Missouri to "prove" that their dogs are the product of animal abuse.  Although it made national news, he didn't seem to know that Missouri's statutes covering dog breeders are now probably the most stringent in the country.

Crap, he compared the American Kennel Club and its members to "puppy millers."

Is this all too bizarre, or what?

The hand that feeds Jon Cooper

Cooper is a lame duck. After 12 years in the Suffolk County legislature, he is term-limited. He's looking for a new gig.  State Senator Carl Marcellino's job is looking mighty tasty, too.

I will spend whatever it takes to defeat you"  ?  Really?  And whose deep pockets are those bucks going to come from?

What makes me think Cooper's sugar-daddies have no interest in responsible pet ownership?

Keep Suffolk Pet Friendly.

Saturday, February 26, 2011

Peter Vallone Jr. Hates New York's Dogs

Eight Million NYC Residents Face a "Humane" Law They Don't Understand

Sponsor Peter Vallone dodges and weaves

Will the author of NYC 10/2011, possibly the worst written law in the history of the City of New York, please step forward?

Cause you got some 'splaining to do, baby.

Reality is setting in, and the pet and animal owners of New York City are beginning to realize that -- thanks to a handful of radical animal rights whackjobs and extremists -- normal, everyday practices involving the leashing, collaring and humane restraint of animals are now illegal.

Read.  The.  TEXT.  

February 2's blog was devoted to NYC's new and absolute prohibition on walking leashed dogs and other animals while using a "choke" or "pinch" collar. If left standing, could the new law be used to harass participants or even shut down purebred dog shows? Only time, the size of the balls on the animal rights freaks humane law enforcement personnel interpreting the law, and the city's justice system, will tell.

But one thing is absolutely certain:  when the law takes effect in early May, NYC dog walkers using a choke or pinch collar -- popular training accessories and standard equipment for many dogs -- will be breaking the law.  I'm guessing 99% of city dog owners have no idea that the city ruled on what sort of dog collar they can use.  To be honest, I don't think the City Council members themselves realized they did that.

Swivel Trubbel:  Peter Vallone Jr. haz it

It is clear that the new law's sponsor doesn't understand the law he introduced.   In response to the Dog Federation of New York's criticism that, among many other flaws and failings, 10/2011 does not allow a family at a picnic to tie their dog's leash to a park bench or picnic table while they eat, Vallone issued the kind of embarrassing, food-spraying splutter most politicians would do anything to avoid.

And he lied. 

No one listens to the head of that so called federation, even in animal rights circles, and as usual his reading of the bill is all wrong. Of course a family can tie up a dog at a picnic, just not for more than three hours straight. If he would do that, he probably shouldn't be in the animal rights business in the first place. If he has any problem with the bill, he should talk to the legitimate animal rights groups like the ASPCA who helped draft it.

Oh my.  My, my, my.

Councilman Vallone is a city councilman, and a former Assistant District Attorney.  Surely he knows that when a law says . . .

Any person who. . .leashes 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 with having swivels at both ends. . .

it means you better be damn sure you've got "a device with swivels at both ends." 

Not a normal leash.

This dog is therefore illegally restrained--regardless of how long she's been there.  Five minutes or five hours--it makes no difference.

She's also illegally collared. 

And I don't see any food, water, or a dog house.  That could be a problem for the dog's owner under the new law, too.

Without a caliper, I can't be sure about the thickness of the links of chain on her collar.  But since the entire collar is illegal under this gibberish new law anyway, it hardly matters. 

Finally, of course this dog appears to be a "pit bull."  Peter Vallone Jr. wants her the hell out of the city anyway.

It doesn't matter that the dog is just fine, chomping on her stick and posing for the camera.  Not bothering anyone.

This is a crime scene.

Fake Science Rules in NYC

Vallone and his supporters quote claims floating on the Internet that tethering dogs increases aggression, and cite a single, elderly study in which the finding regarding tethered dogs was a tertiary result. 

That's it.  That's all they've got. 

The findings of that one study have never been reproduced. 

On the other hand, Dr. Katherine Houpt of Cornell University’s College of Veterinary Medicine Department of Biomedical Sciences is the country’s leading expert on the issue of tethering. Dr. Houpt, who has studied the issue for years, found that tethering does not increase aggression in dogs.

Legitimate Animal Rights Businesses Chip Away at Animal Ownership

Peter Vallone Jr. chastised DFNY and referred them to the ASPCA, an extremist organization which opposes animal ownership. In Vallone-speak the ASPCA is a legitimate animal rights business and it helped draft his law.

Vallone also welcomed the support of PeTA on his law.  The folks that donated money to felon, terrorist and convicted arsonist Rodney Coronado are legitimately in the animal rights biz, too. 

HSUS's New York lobbyist Patrick Kwan ?  The animal advocate who can't tell a hen from a rooster?  Also a legitimate animal rightist and supporter of Vallone's law.

It's not personal. This is business. The animal rights business. The legitimate animal rights business in which any restriction on animal ownership is a "win."  Any restriction at all.

Vague and arbitrary prohibitions

There is no logic here.  No science.  All we've got is bombast and attempted career enhancement.

What an embarrassment for the flim-flammed New York City Council.  They were used and abused by Peter Vallone Jr., the animal rights extremist flunkey.

What a tragedy for NYC's many, many caring dog and animal owners.  They have to comply with this mess -- and trust me, if you think the swivel thing is bad, stay tuned.

Let Hizzoner Mayor Bloomberg know:  repeal 10/2011 in its entirety.  The sooner, the better.

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.