|
Post by Jinsei on Jul 26, 2009 11:30:19 GMT -5
From RPOA Texas Outreach and Responsible Pet Owners Alliance "Animal welfare, not animal 'rights' and, yes, there is a difference." Permission granted to crosspost. July 26, 2009 Is this really happening in the US of A? For a real shocker see the video on the URL below. Instead of picking up loose animals on the streets, Fort Worth is arresting, handcuffing and hauling pet owners off to jail. Fort Worth had better build more jails because when the new "animal rights" inspired ordinance passes, all dog and cat owners must sterilize their pets or buy a permit. Other provisions include: attempts to define "agressive dogs" before they do anything; fencing enclosures based on weight and height of animals; delegates authority to seize tethered animals on private property without a search warrant; and increases pet license fees and fines. All guaranteed to kill even more animals at Animal Care and Control's Facility! Besides being discriminatory to low income pet owners and ethnic groups. Two dozen people owe $100,000 in citation fees meaning almost $4,000 per person! Information for contacting all Fort Worth city officials and media is on our website: www.rpoatexasoutrea ch.org under the Fort Worth ordinance link on the right side of the home page. Tell them what you think about their animal ordinance and their gestapo tactics regarding enforcing ordinances. Talk about an anti-pet city! ____________ _________ _________ ANIMAL CONTROL ROUNDUP July 24th, 2009 www.wfaa. com/sharedconten t/dws/wfaa/ latestnews/ stories/wfaa0907 23_mo_animalcont rol.6dc80166. html FORT WORTH - The city of Fort Worth is going after more than two dozen people. Together, they owe nearly $100,000 for animal control violations. Animal Control Officers teamed up with Fort Worth Marshals and fanned out before dawn Thursday to catch people with unpaid animal control citations. "Those are not my dogs," said Peggy James when approached by authorities about nine warrants in her name. "I don't own any dogs." James was arrested. "Well ma'am, when the citations were issued to you, you should have gone to court and explained that to them," said Dave Fulbright, an Animal Control supervisor, to James. Authorities searched for 26 different pet owners wanted for anything from failing to register or vaccinate to abandonment or tethering their animals. "It is a big deal," Fulbright said. "It is a huge deal, and we're obligated to enforce the rules and laws in the city of Fort Worth." Rosita Flores owes $3,900 for 14 animal violations." I've never been to jail," she said during her arrest. During the roundup, officers found a baby pot belly pig living inside one of the homes. Officers gave that homeowner a warning.
|
|
|
Post by Adona Mara on Jul 26, 2009 13:15:55 GMT -5
So, that's the latest buzz out of Fort Worthless, eh? .. Hm... Sounds like you're best off keeping fish -- very, very carefully. This is ridiculous. Not all animals on a tether are being mistreated; there's very little difference between a tether and a leash. It does need to be tether properly, I'll grant, but sheesh. And certainly not all "potentially dangerous" dogs (is there a dog that isn't "potentially dangerous"?) will actually be dangerous, although signs of aggression are usually obvious before anything dangerous occurs. And that's one thing I've generally noticed. The Animal Cops are quicker to assume there's abuse in a poorer household. I guess it's a graded scale since obviously poor equals ignorant, ergo, poorer equals more ignorant. Gee. Maybe they could use some of that fine money to help poor people get their animals neutered, and lower vet visit fees (not cheap at the best of times), or maybe help them buy "kennel" fencing for their yards. What is it with city folk, anyway?
|
|
|
Post by Jinsei on Jul 26, 2009 16:17:14 GMT -5
They're quick to jump at the chance to ban dogs like Pits, Rotties, etc. by saying that they're dangerous dogs that will bite when given the chance. They don't acknowledge that for years running, the Cocker Spaniel has racked up more bites than any other dog, almost always coming in first place... with chihuahuas coming in a close second. Also, when they talk about the number of people that pit bulls bite, they leave out the data that says those dogs were the ones being abused and put into fighting rings. They don't mention that almost 90% of rottweiler bites are the dogs attacking people while protecting their families (usually intruders), even if there's not always a genuine threat there, the 'victims' usually did something that instigated the attack. For years, I kept my dogs tethered in the yard when I wasn't home. The setup was simple, 10-15 feet of chain attached to the dog house, with the food and water bowls secured, and nothing in the way for them to wrap the chain around. The chains had to be sprayed regularly with WD40, to help keep them from binding up. None of my dogs ever suffered from the multitude of ailments and problems they say happens to them. The worst that we ever had happen was when our female rottie decided to attack the male shepherd while he was still chained... the only one to get hurt was my dad, who was bit on the thumb. I've noticed too a lot lately that the Animal Cops are quick to assume that the poorer people have abused their animals. It makes me wonder if any of them realize that Michael Vick was a millionaire. And, I think city folk are all nuts.
|
|
|
Post by Adona Mara on Jul 26, 2009 17:30:58 GMT -5
Yeah. When they find an abused animal in a "well-to-do" home they seem surprised. (Oh, and not all people with more than two or three cats in their house are living in squalor and filfth )
|
|
|
Post by Jinsei on Jul 27, 2009 11:00:38 GMT -5
Of course not... people with money are supposed to have the time to take their dogs for hour long walks, take them to obedience classes, have someone stop by to check on them during the day, have someone else pick up the crap in the yard, etc. Poor people, naturally, don't have the money to do all of that, so they just tie the dog out in the yard, let it run around knee deep in feces, and never feed or water the poor thing... so, they have to beat it when it barks and wants to drink or eat. And, of course, it's only possible to keep a litterbox clean if there's one cat using it. Beyond that, the second and third cats will just overflow the pan and start using the carpet behind the tv, under the bed, etc. which is why they all end up living in filth.
|
|
|
Post by Jinsei on Aug 11, 2009 20:25:19 GMT -5
Major provisions Dogs would have to be spayed or neutered unless the owner took a two-hour class or paid a one-time $50 fee.In other words, you can either pay $60-80 to have them fixed, or you can take a two-hour class for $50. I'd really like to see what they teach in this class that qualifies someone to be a responsible non-altered dog owner. What more can they say that they haven't already said about it? Dogs need to be confined, dogs shouldn't be allowed to roam free, dogs need all of their shots, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm in support of offering classes to people that so they'll be more responsible pet owners, but I don't see how a class is going to make a difference in a dog simply because it hasn't been fixed. The price of a dog license would rise from $7 to $12 annually.There's those darn fees that they love so much. Really, this isn't too big of a jump, so I don't see much of a complaint about it. However, if they pass this law, they're likely to see less people registering their dogs and more people letting their dogs run loose, while claiming it's not their dog (they've just been leaving food and water out for the neighborhood animals). This alone will cut into their profits that could arise from raising the dog license fee. Simply raising the fee would help them, but not if they continue to make more laws restricting animal ownership. People who got an identification chip implanted in their animal could get a three-year license for the same price as a one-year license. Currently, all animals released from the city shelter are required to have the chip implanted.This one seems fair enough, but a lot of people are still unsure as to the long term effects of having a chip. The general consensus from veterinary tests in Germany support that if medicinal shots are given in the general area of the chip, then it could cause a lot of problems... cancer, tumor, etc. But, having a chip isn't simply enough, they need to actually have the chip number registered. This is usually done through private companies for about $15. If they want it to be truly effective, they need to push for the state to institute a database that people could register with for free, or a smaller fee than $15. All dogs would have to be confined by a 4-foot fence in an enclosure of at least 48 square feet.48 square feet would work great for a Chihuahua, but how about a Great Pyranese? A Miniature Schnauzer could easily climb the 4-foot fence, while a Beagle would have more trouble. Owners of aggressive dogs would have to build stronger fences, in some cases, even if the dog didn't attack a person. Dogs could be declared aggressive if they dug out of their yard or attacked other animals.So, digging makes them aggressive? Funny, as someone with years of experience breeding and training dogs, I was under the impression that this was simply a dog being a dog. I don't care what the 'experts' say, all dogs love to dig, some have just been trained not to. Dogs declared dangerous in other cities couldn't be moved to Fort Worth.This is extremely vague, because it would legally have to mean that the individual dog had been declared dangerous, as it's illegal in Texas to have breed-specific legislation that makes one breed of dog illegal. So, if Pit Bulls are declared dangerous in Las Angeles, does this mean that automatically none can be moved to Fort Worth? Police or animal control officers would be allowed to seize animals that are tethered to a fixed object.On what basis? Does this mean that someone who's taking their dog for a walk and decides to run into a store, and proceeds to tie the leash to a pole for five minutes is subject to having their dog seized? Simply saying that if it's tethered to a fixed object it can be seized is ridiculous. Unrestrained dogs would not be allowed to ride in the backs of pickups.Wait... you're not allowed to tether your dog to a fixed object. Therefore, restraining them to a truckbed, even while in motion, would open you up to the possibility of having your dog seized. On that matter, wouldn't that apply to anyone who restrains their dog in a vehicle with the "Pet Seat Belts"? Online: www.fortworthgov. org
|
|
|
Post by Jinsei on Aug 14, 2009 22:53:31 GMT -5
Well, once again dogs have lost in a legal battle. I wonder if our descendents will look back in history and ask, "What kind of barbarian would want to own an animal?"
What a shame. Animals tend to enrich the lives of their families, yet people who are anti-animal spend millions upon millions of dollars each year trying to ensure that one day it will be illegal to own, hunt or even come into contact with an animal.
Here's the newspaper article:
Here's an e-mail I got:
|
|
|
Post by Adona Mara on Aug 24, 2009 5:41:07 GMT -5
Hm .. In that first article, I don't recall seeing anyone call for training your child not to crawl through the fence into the neighbor's yard. Or did I just miss that part? Rotties are usually trained as Guard dogs and are expected to repel intruders. As crazy as this sounds, the sad truth is it's hard to teach a dog to distinguish between "okay intruders" and "not okay intruders." It's always so much easier to blame the animal (and the animal's "irresponsible" owner) than to be bothered training our children.
This was a sad case; but I don't have a single word of blame for the poor, probably now euthanized, dog.
|
|
|
Post by Jinsei on Aug 24, 2009 10:44:04 GMT -5
That was my response too. Sure, it was a three year old child that was killed and it was probably a horrific death. I've seen what it looks like when a dog kills something and it's hardly ever pretty. However, Lex is also three and if it were him that went through someone's fence and was attacked, I'd blame whoever was supposed to be watching him, not the dog itself. Dogs are territorial and in the wild are known to kill the young of intruders, so to them a child is simply an intruder.
They keep pushing the idea that dogs that have been fixed are more docile and less likely to attack. The most dangerous dog that I've ever seen was fixed, yet he would attack any intruder that he perceived to be a threat. My mom's miniature schnauzer is fixed, yet she's quick to attack cats, chickens, ducks and pretty much anything else that's small and moves. She's a great mouser. She doesn't attack kids, but she has snapped at them for being too rough with her. And, in 15 years of breeding dogs and 29 years of being around them (including coydogs and wolves), I've seen very little actual proof that it makes them less likely to attack someone. I know of a male dog that was fixed, then after recovery proceeded to attack his owner and fix him in the process. I've seen calm dogs become more aggressive after being fixed. The sad fact is that they're basing their claims on small studies that have been done with dogs that have been classified as "dangerous" prior to being fixed. Yet, they fail to include the statistics that reveal why the dog bit... was it a child that was playing too rough with it, so it was a one-time thing and didn't happen again? Was it a dog that was chasing a female in heat, so it fought for the right to mate with her and someone was injured in the process? Was it a female who was protecting her puppies and after being fixed no longer had puppies to protect, so the offense wasn't repeatable? Or, was there some other factor involved that they failed to mention, but included it in their statistics of dangerous dogs that no longer bite?
|
|
|
Post by Adona Mara on Aug 24, 2009 13:33:49 GMT -5
"I know of a male dog that was fixed, then after recovery proceeded to attack his owner and fix him in the process." Hm ... sounds like a case of a dog saying "Fix me, will ya? Well, I'll fix you. Let's see how you like it." Atta boy Actually they base that on the lowering of hormones, believing that hormones are the only things that make a dog hard to handle. In truth, I think it's a good idea to spay and neuter your pets unless you're a breeder (in which case the animals aren't quite what most people consider "pets"); but, as with everything else, it should be up to the individual. We have to be careful when we want the Government to regulate something that affects other people -- that usually means they think it's a green light to regulate everything for everyone. My own opinion is that the less Government interference there is in EVERY area of our lives, the better off we'll be. I'm not afraid of the Government, but I'm not real fond of it "taking care" of me.
|
|
|
Post by Jinsei on Aug 24, 2009 14:10:56 GMT -5
Unfortunately, hormones aren't the only thing that makes a dog act like a dog, nor a cat like a cat. An aggressive animal is an aggressive animal. Sure, having them fixed is likely to reduce the attacks caused by people messing with a mama's pups. It might even reduce the males fighting (though I've never seen that to be completely true). However, a dog is still just as likely to bite someone, no matter what the breed or dog. They'll still bite when cornered, surprised, threatened, and when hurt. Claiming this as a reason that people should spay and neuter is flawed.
Though, people should spay and neuter if they don't plan on breeding, simply because it will cut down on the unwanted, feral dogs and cats running around, but making it easier and cheaper for them to have the procedure done is likely to make more people choose to have it done. I do like their idea of offering a course for people to take, but only because most people could always use some more education when it comes to taking care of their dogs.
|
|