According to neighbors (and the lawsuit), aside from not being much of a physical threat, Colonel was wagging and behaving in a completely non-threatening manner. This really makes you wonder what kind of experience and/or training police officers have when it comes to differentiating between friendly and vicious dogs — because it’s not like this is the first time a restrained or non-threatening dog has been shot by police. After international furor over a pointlessly tragic dog shooting in Austin, Texas, steps have been taken to prevent this kind of tragedy from occurring in the future… how long (and how many lawsuits) before Chicago does the same?

The Phillips’ are seeking at least $350k in damages:

The seven-count suit claims excessive force, illegal seizure, violations of their right to due process and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Phillips also claim police retaliated against them for exercising their right to free speech, in speaking to the news crew.

And in case you were wondering, this is the dog that so frightened the police officer:

Dane Waters, political director of the Humane Society Legislative Fund, said in an interview on Monday he disagreed with the station managers. “If they have a problem at all I believe it is more political than anything else,” Waters said.

Ah, hiding behind the old “it’s just politics” excuse. Of course the networks’ refusals have nothing to do with the ad’s graphic sensationalism or because its message has been judged to be “patently false.” Just as the HSLF ad has nothing to do with the fact that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) considers King to be a major thorn in their side, right (because it’s just a coincidence that Wayne Pacelle, the CEO of HSUS spent much of last July and August attacking the representative…)?

Sure, if you say so.

Reasonable people can have disagreements over policies and their implementation; it can be messy, but it is better than the alternative, and a vital component of living in a free society. Unreasonable people view those with dissenting opinions as fools or devils to be dismissed, defamed, even destroyed if necessary — ideological totalitarians, to put it kindly. Judging by the HSLF’s methods of attack and reaction to being called out  – unfettered by facts, reason, or decency — it is fair to say they have cast their lot with the unreasonables.

The only good things about this latest campaign is that it serves as a stark example of the vicious, discourse-killing dishonesty the humane industry employs upon those who stand up to them, and of why so many people are afraid to speak out, even when it is clear the facts are not adding up.

According to King’s website, all eight networks have now pulled the ad. Good for them.

]]> http://naiaonline.org/blog/animal-policy/humane-society-legislative-fund-attack-ad-rejected-by-television-stations/feed/ 1 http://naiaonline.org/blog/animal-policy/indiana-supreme-court-says-state-overreached-in-dog-seizure/ http://naiaonline.org/blog/animal-policy/indiana-supreme-court-says-state-overreached-in-dog-seizure/#comments Fri, 18 May 2012 03:06:55 +0000 kenneth http://naiaonline.org/blog/?p=189 Earlier today, the Indiana Supreme Court said in a 5-0 ruling that the state (with the assistance of HSUS) overreached in seizing and placing 240 dogs over unpaid taxes.

For some background:

On June 2, 2009, Virginia and Kristin Garwood each were ordered to pay $142,367.94 in allegedly unpaid taxes from the sale of puppies at their Mauckport, Ind., farm.

When the Garwoods were unable to pay, Indiana State Police and Humane Society volunteers seized 240 dogs from the farm, including the Garwoods’ pets. All the dogs were sold to the Humane Society the next day for $300.

That last sentence, the little thing about them selling the dogs for only $300 is revealing; the raid obviously wasn’t just about collecting taxes…

Stay tuned — this is an incredibly important ruling, and we’ll be able to release a lot more information on this story next week.

A court’s apparent sense of “breedism” has led to an extraordinarily rare legislative pairing.

As the fallout continues over a Maryland Court of Appeals ruling that calls pit bulls inherently dangerous, two state delegates on polar opposite sides of the political spectrum are co-sponsoring legislation that would overturn the court’s ruling.

This quick turnaround is  incredibly important; since last month’s decision, landlords are already telling their pit bull-owning tenants they can’t keep their dogs. This means the loss of beloved family pets, shelters and rescues being overrun with dogs, as well as a financial hit for a state that is already facing economic struggles. When it comes to this legislation, time is of the essence.

And this is where the bad news comes in:

It appears unlikely that the legislation will receive a serious look from the House of Delegates, however. House Speaker Michael E. Busch, D-Anne Arundel, is not expected to put on the agenda anything more than the state’s fiscal 2013 budget.

But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t at least try. ”Unlikely” and “unexpected” doesn’t mean “impossible,” and stranger things have happened. And if enough animal lovers speak up, legislators cannot help but hear.

Our sister group, the NAIA Trust, has released an alert on this issue. If you are a Maryland resident and a dog lover, here’s a chance to help make a difference. While the intent is simple and clear, the bill itself has not yet been officially released. However, a copy has been made available through scribd.com.

If you are able to make it, there is also a peaceful rally scheduled for tomorrow outside the capital in Annapolis from 2:30 to 4:30pm.

 Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Presa Canario, Perro de Presa Canario, Dogo Argentino, Cane Corso, Fila Brasileiro, Tosa (or Tosa Ken) and Ca de Bou.

Pet loving customers spoke out — loudly — and a company listened. Just think how this could apply elsewhere! What a great accomplishment for pet owners and their dogs, and also in the larger effort of chipping away at breed discrimination. Way to go!

“HSUS and UEP talk about a win-win. But UEP wins whether the federal bill passes or not,” Miller said. “UEP is far ahead of the game compared to where they started.”

Co-opting HSUS to “violate its own principles” and endorse larger cages that UEP has long sought was a shrewd move, in Miller’s view.

UEP has moved HSUS off its prior position opposing cages and if the bill fails, HSUS will look contradictory at best going back to attacking the larger cages it had supported, Miller said.

[...]

HSUS will be left with nothing, Miller said, other than a massive branding or publicity bonanza that put them in the limelight, made them look reasonable and helped HSUS President Wayne Pacelle market his book.

Aside from the head-scratcher about HSUS having principles, there are several interesting points in this analysis. Whether or not you agree with UEP working with HSUS or vice-versa, it is undeniable that UEP is, at least for the time being, ahead of where they were a few years ago, when their constant companion was the threat of death by ballot measure.

They also have bought enough time to implement their new enriched cage facilities, which allow for many of the best features of traditional barren cages and cage-free living: clean, effective facilities that raise animal welfare standards and are very hard for activists to stir outrage and raise funds off of.

But will HSUS really be left with nothing in the end? It’s not like their position has changed; they still campaign daily for cage-free (and eventually animal free) agriculture — they’re just putting a stronger focus on other forms of animal production now. And when HSUS is criticized as an “animal rights organization in animal welfare clothing,” their supporters can now use the UEP/HSUS ceasefire as cover, as proof of HSUS’ “moderate” positions.

And what of the work that went into developing the new enriched colony housing? Should it matter that years of toil and millions of dollars went into developing and implementing these facilities while HSUS did nothing but attack them?  HSUS contributed nothing,  but now they get get to raise their credibility in the eyes of the public by playing policy-maker, and take credit for industry changes they actively fought against for years!* Despicable, but you have to admit there is a certain genius to it.

No Bradley, I’m afraid this agreement leaves HSUS with quite a lot. UEP may have found a way to survive, but HSUS found a way to make themselves stronger.

* By the way, HSUS still hasn’t entirely scrubbed its website of pages that disparage enriched cages.

Pretty simple, really. The idea of a cat on a leash raises eyebrows for a lot of people, but a harness or leash on a cat isn’t really that uncommon. And even if the idea seems silly to you, a measure that seeks to address complaints without placing the burden on responsible pet owners most certainly is not.

I'm. Going. To. Kill. You.

Plus, and here’s the best part: supporters and detractors alike are convinced Thoreau would be on their side of the argument…

“I really feel confident that Thoreau would not want the cats on a leash,’’ [Barbara Lynn-Davis] said. “It seems to inhibit their freedom to roam and discover. She’s asking the cats to be curtailed to maintain this artificial environment that she created to give her pleasure, but the birds don’t need that.’’

But Lodynsky, who has owned felines in the past, said that it’s folly to consider a cat part of the natural world.

“They were brought here and domesticated; they aren’t part of the natural food chain,’’ she said. “Boldly, I would say Thoreau would support me because he respected natural species and biodiversity. When people say, ‘Leave nature alone,’ I say nature hasn’t been left alone since we moved here. My stand is that I’m trying to help these birds survive us.’’

Forget, for a moment, the debate over ever-more intrusive animal regulations, the debate over  indoor vs. outdoor cats, and ask yourself: what would Thoreau do?

^{* The vote was scheduled for Wednesday night, but there was not enough time to vote on the cat measure.}

An agonizing choice for any pet owner, it led to weeks of stress and sleepless nights for Melissa Lecker, and an eventual decision to move (at a loss of $15,000) if the situation continued. Money wasn’t the primary issue, it was the principle at stake, keeping her family together:

“Material things — money and a house — don’t mean anything compared to a living and breathing animal with feelings”

But that was before Tuesday, when Lecker took her issue straight to the Public Health and Safety Chairwoman. Today, it is looking like common sense and cooler heads may be prevailing in Wausau:

But Tipple said city leaders should consider adding an exception clause to the ordinance that could involve permits, for example, or allow residents to keep more than two dogs until a complaint is filed.

Could this be… progress? We are hopeful. Lecker, for her part, is committed to the cause — not just for her own family (they may still end up moving), but the entire community. And for that, we applaud her. Sometimes all it takes for big changes to occur is the passion of a committed individual.

In the past, when stray dog populations grew out of hand, they were simply shot or poisoned. Just a century ago, it wasn’t an uncommon occurrence in New York City. But this isn’t something anybody wants to do, and with advancements in veterinary science creating alternatives, spay and neuter campaigns for strays are becoming more and more common.

One campaign we will be following with particular interest in 2012 is the combined efforts of Project Potcake and the New Providence Five Year Low-Cost Spay and Neuter Initiative.

In New Providence, the most populous island of the Bahamas, estimates of the stray dog population range between 10-20,000, and is growing — on an island with a population of only 250,000 people, this is huge.

But you know what else is huge? The the numbers of dogs these campaigns are promising to spay or neuter this year: 3,000 pets and 2,000 strays. For their part, the Veterinary Medical Association of the Bahamas (VMAB), headed up by Dr. Peter Bizzell, will continue beyond 2012, with a five-year goal of 15,000 sterilizations.

“If, indeed, a total number of 5,000 dogs and cats are spayed/neutered during 2012, 3,000 by members of the VMAB and 2,000 by Animal Balance, this would provide an almost immediate reduction in the number of unwanted dogs and cats in the subsequent years and would effectively jump-start the five-year programme.”

[...]

“For the first time in the history of animal welfare in New Providence, all of the veterinarian professionals are prepared to participate in low cost spays and neuters, all are committed to our five-year initiative, and hopefully all the animal welfare organizations appreciate what the vets are offering,” Dr Bizzell said.

This is a very positive step, one that strikes at the root of the problem. Until recently, the only “solution” to the tragedy of stray potcake dogs has been to cull them or ship them out of the country for adoption in the United States, a practice referred to as humane relocation (or dog trafficking, depending on your point of view).

Only time will tell if these programs are a viable long-term option for controlling stray dog populations, but the efforts are noble and definitely worth applauding: they are seeking a cure for the problem — not a treatment, not stopgap measures, but a solution — and that is something we can’t help but applaud.

His suicide note bares the anguish of the decision:

Today I betrayed my best friend and put down my best friend.

[...]

Rocco trusted me and I failed him. He didn’t deserve this.

No dog or dog owner deserves to go through this. What a tragic reminder of the pain and suffering wrought by breed specific prejudice. Would this man and his dog be dead right now if Rocco hadn’t been a pit bull mix? If Rocco hadn’t faced restrictions and harassment because of his breed? You don’t need a Magic 8-Ball to answer that one; it’s a safe bet that management didn’t require Yorkie owners to enter and exit the building through the back door.