[ SHOWGSD-L ] Fwd: PETA, HSUS Take Over Dallas

  • From: Stormy435@xxxxxxx
  • To: showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:22:14 EDT

Read this carefully to see how infiltration becomes your next animal 
ordinances.


Begin forwarded message:


From: "John Yates" <jtyates@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: April 18, 2008 9:00:48 AM PDT
Subject: PETA, HSUS Take Over Dallas

Dallas Ordinance Will Destroy Hobby

Dog Breeding, Trample Constitution
 
Radical Animal Rights Agenda Infiltrates Metro Area Government
 
by JOHN YATES
The American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
 
DALLAS, TX â?? Texas may seem like the most unlikely of places for animal 
rights groups to infiltrate and take over local government. This state has the 
reputation for vigorous defense of property rights and the traditional 
relationships between animals and people.
 
However, the entire Dallas metropolitan areas has become a case study of how 
this can happen in the absence of vigilance, and how dog owners can pay a 
devastatingly high price when it does.
 
The City of Dallas is facing a series of animal control ordinances that will 
strip dog owners of all property rights to their animals, eliminate private 
breeding of purebred dogs, subject dog owners to unconstitutional searches and 
seizures and, in fact, impose the full animal rights dream agenda of the 
radical People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the only 
slightly 
less radical Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).
 
People who are closely affiliated with PETA and HSUS have, quite literally, 
taken over both city and metro advisory councils. These extremists not only 
have written the ordinances, but they also will enforce them.
 
Dog owners in the City of Dallas face a city council vote on the ordinances, 
possibly within days, and every municipality within the metro area faces 
similar ordinances because of the actions and influence of the quasi-official 
Metroplex Animal Coalition, which is dominated by HSUS and PETA members and 
supporters, an investigation by The American Sporting Dog Alliance shows. No 
known 
representatives of dog owners groups or kennel clubs are listed as members of 
either the Metroplex or City of Dallas boards.
 
This group also has exported itâ??s agenda to other cities, such as Houston, 
where the animal control program now is administered by a former Dallas animal 
control board President, Kent Robertson, who has worked closely with HSUS and 
conducted training seminars for the radical group. In 2002, Robertson brought 
in a team of six officials from the HSUS national office to review Dallas 
animal control programs and make recommendations.
 
Robertson barely let the ink dry on his contract before he convinced city 
council to institute restrictive breeders licenses in Houston last year. The 
Associated Press reported that no one had applied for the required breedersâ?? 
permits three months after the ordinance took effect, and thus were running the 
risk of fines of up to $2,000 a day.
 
This time, Dallas dog owners are in the crosshairs and animal rights groups 
have won the support of Mayor Tom Leppert, Mayor Pro Tem Dr. Elba Garcia, and 
several members of City Council, according to a report of a closed-door â??
briefingâ?? between animal activists and city officials by Metroplex Animal 
Coalition 
President Elaine Munch.
 
Munch is closely aligned with HSUS. In a description about how the Metroplex 
Complex was formed, she wrote: â??We asked our regional office of HSUS and 
other 
national groups for help in identifying those to invite.â??
 
Also, HSUS representative Lou Guyton is a member of the Metroplex Coalition 
Advisory Board, as is long-time PETA ally and award winner Robert â??Skipâ?? 
Trimble, an animal rights attorney who also is president of the City of Dallas 
Animal Shelter Commission, chairman of the board of the PETA-like Texas Humane 
Legislative Network and a director of the radical fringe Animal Legal Defense 
Fund.
 
Another member of both the Dallas and Metroplex boards is Jonnie England, who 
was drafted recently by HSUS to judge that organizationâ??Another member of 
both the Dall
 
Munch quoted Mayor Leppert as telling people at the briefing that he has a â??
sense of urgencyâ?? to pass the ordinances in 30-to-45 days. Councilwoman 
Pauline 
Medrana was quoted as calling the ordinances â??fair, firm and 
comprehensive,â?? 
and Council Members Dave Neumann, Mitchell Rasansky and Ron Natinsky 
reportedly expressed their support.
 
â??Almost all council members stressed being aggressive in getting the 
ordinances ready ASAP/with a sense of urgency,â?? Munch wrote of the briefing. 
â??(â?¦The 
ordinances) were received very well with no council members showing any 
opposition to these proposed
ordinances.â??

Trimble and Munch are key players in the animal rights takeover of the Dallas 
Metroplex. Both hold leadership positions on both the City and metro advisory 
boards, and both have close ties to radical animal rights groups that oppose 
the private ownership of animals.
 
PETA awarded Trimble its 2001 â??Activist Awardâ?? for his work on Texas animal 
rights issues, and he also was honored by HSUS in 1997 with a â??Legislative 
Achievement Awardâ?? and by a New Mexico group in 2000 for â??lifelong 
commitment to 
animal rights.â??

In a published article, Trimble described himself as a former â??animal 
abuser,â??
 and his description says a lot about what he now thinks is abuse. â??Iâ??m a 
former animal abuser,â?? Trimble says. â??I used to own racehorses, raise 
roping ste
ers, hunt and eat meat.â??
Now, Trimble describes himself as a vegan vegetarian, deplores traditional 
farming and ranching, and echoes the animal rights agenda of opposition to 
breeding animals, hunting, rodeos and competing with horses.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance believes that only a handful of Dallas 
residents would agree with Trimbleâ??s idea of animal abuse, and that a large 
majority would describe his views as radical fringe - if not fruitcake fringe! 
We 
urge City Council to reject these views and uphold the values and beliefs of 
the large majority of Dallas residents. No state has fought harder than Texas 
to 
protect the rights of individuals from unwarranted intrusion by government, 
beginning with the Alamo and continuing into the modern era.
As an attorney, Trimble has developed a specialty of using the law as a tool 
to advance the animal rights agenda, and is credited with playing the major 
role and banning the slaughter of horses in Texas. In one case, his work 
bolstered PETA in shutting down a Texas primate sanctuary. Trimble was with the 
police on the raid, and the effort received direct praise from PETA President 
Ingrid Newkirk on the organizationâ??As an attorney, Trimble has developed a 
specialty of using the law as a tool to advance the animal rights agenda, and 
is 
credited with playing the major role and banning the slaughter of horses in 
Texas. 
In one case, his work bolstered PETA in shutting down a Texas primate 
sanctuary. Trimble was with the police on the raid, and the effort receive
Munch has close ties to HSUS through the Metroplex and city animal control 
boards. HSUS has nothing to do with local Humane Societies, which help animals. 
Instead, HSUS is a national political action and lobbying group for animal 
rights issues.
Wayne Pacelle, the head of HSUS, has been quoted extensively about his 
radical views on animal rights that oppose eating meat, pet ownership and 
hunting.
He wrote: â??We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of 
livestock produced through selective breeding ...One generation and out. We 
have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of 
human selective breeding.â??
 
Pacelle also said, â??I donâ??t have a hands-on fondness for animalsâ?¦To this 
day 
I donâ??t feel bonded to any non-human animal. I like them and I pet them and 
Iâ??
m kind to them, but thereâ??s no special bond between me and other animalsâ?¦ 
In 
fact, I donâ??t want to see another dog or cat born.â??

The Metroplex board also is endorsed by a wide range of animal rights groups, 
including the radical Animal Connection of Texas and a Buddhist group called 
Ahimsa. Both of these groups advocate vegan vegetarianism.
Trimble also works to end the breeding of dogs through his leadership role in 
the Texas Humane Legislation Network.
On its website, Trimbleâ??s group attacks dog breeders: â??Do not buy from 
breeders. No matter how caring they appear to be about the animals they are 
selling, they are still contributing to the overpopulation crisis. At least 25 
percent of dogs entering shelters are full-bred dogs.â??
Another quote: " â??Don't breed or buy while animals in shelters dieâ?? is a 
bumper sticker slogan worth taking to heart.â??
 
Whatâ??s The Problem?
 
Proposed solutions such as the Dallas animal ordinance presume that there is 
a problem to solve.
 
City officials have been quoted extensively as saying that Dallas has a 
severe problem with â??pet overpopulation.â?? What does that mean?
 
"We have to do something,â?? Acting Shelter Director Willie McDaniel said. He 
described an epidemic of stray dogs running loose in low-income neighborhoods, 
and also complaints by people who donâ??t like their neighborsâ?? dogs.
 
McDaniel then went on to bemoan the fact that Dallasâ?? free spay and neuter 
program isnâ??t working, and that tougher laws are needed to force people to 
sterilize their pets.
 
The answer, in the eyes of McDaniel, is to eliminate the private breeding of 
dogs that are owned by the people who do not cause the problems. People who 
breed dogs for show, hunting or competition are very selective, do not allow 
indiscriminate matings, and confine their dogs so that they cannot get bred 
accidentally.
 
Several newspaper articles say that Dallas has very poor compliance with 
required dog licensing rules, and Animal Control almost never prosecutes people 
who violate a strict â??leash lawâ?? by allowing their pets to run loose. It 
also 
is reported that very little effort has been given to promote the free spay and 
neuter clinics.
 
Thus, it would appear that City Council has done little to try to solve the 
problem by means that are available now, are pressing for new laws when they 
refuse to enforce the current ones, and are targeting the wrong people with the 
new laws. In doing so, they have been led by the nose into embracing the 
animal rights groupsâ?? agenda to take a giant leap toward eliminating 
responsible 
breeding and private ownership of all animals.
 
Shelter statistics for Dallas are hard to find, as they are combined with 
Plano and Fort Worth in data published by the state.
 
A Dallas Morning News Article from 2006 said 28,686 dogs and cats were 
impounded in 2004. The article did not separate dogs from cats in the data. In 
1994, 
10 years earlier, 38,294 dogs and cats reportedly were impounded.
 
Those figures indicate that there has been a 25-percent improvement in the 
situation during that 10-year-long period.
 
The improvement continues at an even more rapid rate. The most recent 
statistics show that 26,979 dogs and cats entered the city shelter in FY 
2006-07. 
That is a 6-percent reduction in the most recent two years.
 
Trimbleâ??s legislative advocacy group maintains that 25-percent of the dogs 
entering the animal shelter are â??full-bredâ?? animals â?? that is, dogs that 
resemble a recognized breed of dog and may or may not be purebreds. That figure 
is 
standard HSUS rhetoric.
 
What HSUS doesnâ??t say is that about 20-percent of dogs entering shelters are 
brought by their owners specifically for euthanasia because of old age, severe 
illness or debilitating injuries. They also donâ??t say that dogs of the â??pit 
bullâ?? breeds and crosses comprise between 25-percent and 70-percent of 
shelter 
admissions nationwide, with large cities like Dallas tending to be on the 
high end of the scale.
 
These two categories of dogs account for almost all of the â??full-bredâ?? or 
purebred dogs entering shelters, nationwide statistics show.
 
Moreover, national research of the major reasons for pet abandonment rank too 
many dogs or puppies sixth and 10th on the list of major causes. The biggest 
reasons are social factors, such as landlord issues, moves for job changes and 
divorce. Thus, the research shows, any effort toward forced population 
control would have a minimal impact on the problem, because most of the 
abandoned 
pets are wanted by their owners.
 
The Shotgun â??Solutionâ??

 
The animal rights groups are asking City Council to make a logic-defying leap 
with the proposed new ordinances.
 
While there is not one shred of evidence that hobby breeders contribute to 
the problem in any significant way, the ordinances target them for the 
elimination of activities that are done responsibly, involve hundreds if not 
thousands 
of law-abiding and conscientious Dallas residents, and play a large role in 
the cityâ??s economy.
 
Pets are a multi-million-Pets are a multi-million-<wbr>dollar business in 
Dallas, and hobby breeders play a major role in purchasing veterinary services, 
food for their animals, supplies, equipment, fencing, building materials, 
advertising, business services and sporting goods at hundreds of businesses in 
the 
city. Hundreds of jobs are directly and indirectly
  
Here is how the ordinance targets those innocent and responsible people who 
also are the geese that lay a golden egg for Dallasâ?? economy:
 

     â?¢     A person or family would be prohibited from keeping more than six 
dogs, cats, or a combination of dogs and cats.


 

     â?¢     All dogs and cats must be spayed or neutered at four months of 
age, or the owner will face confiscation of the animal and fines of up to 
$2,000 
a day. This requirement flies in the face of much modern veterinary science 
research, and also exposes the city to devastating lawsuits (see below).


 

     â?¢     This provision would effectively outlaw dog shows and other canine 
events in the City of Dallas, because anyone who lives outside of the city 
would be subject to citations and stiff fines, and would risk having their dogs 
confiscated and subjected to forced sterilization if they are not spayed or 
neutered. This would have a major negative economic impact on Dallas businesses.


 

     â?¢     There are some provisions for obtaining a breeding permit, but 
McDaniel and other city officials have been quoted as saying that breedersâ?? 
permits will not be issued in residentially zoned areas, where most people who 
raise dogs live. Itâ??s a classic â??Catch 22.â?? People can get a breederâ??s 
permit in 
theory, but not in practice.


 

     â?¢     In the unlikely possibility that someone does not live in a 
residential area, breedersâ?? permits are available at the cost of $500 per 
year for 
each dog or cat, but only if the owner and animal qualify. All other animals 
must be spayed or neutered. To qualify, the animalâ??s owner must be a member 
of 
an approved club for the breed of dog or cat.


 

     â?¢     Breedersâ?? permits are available only for dogs that are 
registered 
with a registry that meets the cityâ??s approval. To be approved, the registry 
must convince city officials that it â??maintains and enforces a code of ethics 
for dog and cat breeding that includes restrictions from breeding of dogs and 
cats with genetic defects and life threatening health problems that commonly 
threaten the breed.â?? This also is a â??Catch 22,â?? as this would be 
unenforceable 
by a registry in the absence of personal inspections, discussing it with the 
dogâ??s veterinarian, and mandating prohibitively expensive genetic tests 
(thousands of dollars for some tests) that are not available for many 
conditions. No 
registry would meet this standard. Thus, no registry could qualify.


 


     â?¢     Anyone who owns a dog would be subject to unannounced inspections 
of his or her home and property by animal control officers to assure 
compliance with the ordinance. A search warrant would not be required, and 
probable 
cause would not have to be established. This is in direct violation of 
protections contained in the Bill of Rights of the both Texas and U.S. 
Constitutions.


 

     â?¢     If anyone is found with a dog that is not spayed or neutered, 
animal control officers are empowered to seize and impound the animal. To get 
the 
animal back, an owner would have to either obtain a breeding permit of 
sterilize the dog. Dogs that are not reclaimed under this provision become city 
property, and can be adopted or euthanized.


 

     â?¢     Tethering is banned except for short periods, and all kennels used 
to house dogs must be a minimum of 150 square feet. That size limitation 
makes sense for a large dog, but is absurd for a Chihuahua.


 

     â?¢     Several other provisions would stringently regulate dangerous dog, 
animals used for research, circuses and other performance events. Possession 
of certain kinds of animals is prohibited or severely restricted.


 

     â?¢     Fines of up to $2,000 for each day of noncompliance are provided, 
with higher fines for repeat offenders.


 
It is clear that the intention of the writers of this ordinance has nothing 
at all to do with reducing the number of stray dogs in poor neighborhoods of 
Dallas. It is a naked attempt to deny people the right to raise and breed dogs, 
and clearly is part of the animal rights plan to eliminate dogs from the lives 
of people. Sterilize now and, as Wayne Pacelle of HSUS said, â??one generation 
and out.â??
 
It must be emphasized that hobby breeders play a vital role in helping people 
to obtain companion animals that will be an intergal part of their family for 
more than a decade. Dedicated hobby breeders work hard to improve 
temperament, genetic health, beauty and utility in the various breeds of dogs, 
and offer 
an important alternative to shelter and rescue dogs whose health background, 
history, disposition and genetic backgrounds are unknown.
 
Hobby breeders do not contribute to the problem. Indeed, they are the most 
important element in the solution. In this regard, too, the proposed Dallas 
ordinances are wholly counterproductive. Hobby breeders and other people who 
own 
purebred dogs are not responsible for people who allow mixed-breed dogs to roam 
the streets and breed indiscriminately. There is utterly no justification for 
restricting or eliminating hobby breeding. Indeed, there are many excellent 
and proven reasons why it should be strongly encouraged!
 
But Lawyers Will Love It

 
If City Council approves these ordinance revisions, one thing is certain. The 
City of Dallas will become embroiled in a nonstop series of lawsuits by dog 
owners who can claim damages if their pet is diagnosed with one of the many 
serious and sometimes fatal medical conditions that have been linked by recent 
research to spaying and neutering, especially at a young age.
 
They also will have to face legal challenges based on the Texas property law, 
and for violations of due process and search and seizure protections 
enshrined in the Texas and U.S. Constitutions.
 
The American Veterinary Medical Association has long advocated spaying and 
neutering of dogs, and continues to do so, under the belief that the benefits 
outweigh the risks. However, recent research has led many individual 
veterinarians to seriously question this premise, and a majority of the most 
recent 
research indicates that there are substantial risks involved with 
sterilization. 
This has the strong potential to become a major liability issue for City of 
Dallas taxpayers.
 
A 2007 analysis of the research by Dr. Larry Katz of Rutgers University 
concluded:
 
â??Tradition holds that the benefits of (sterilization) at an early age 
outweigh the risks. Often, tradition holds sway in the decision-making process 
even 
after countervailing evidence has accumulated. Ms (Laura) Sanborn has reviewed 
the veterinary medical literature in an exhaustive and scholarly treatise, 
attempting to unravel the complexities of the subject. More than 50 
peer-reviewed 
papers were examined to assess the health impacts of spay / neuter in female 
and male dogs, respectively. One cannot ignore the findings of increased risk 
from osteosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma, hypothyroidism, and other less frequently 
occurring diseases associated with neutering male dogs. It would be 
irresponsible of the veterinary profession and the pet owning community to fail 
to weigh 
the relative costs and benefits of neutering on the animalâ??s health and 
well-being. The decision for females may be more complex, further emphasizing 
the 
need for individualized veterinary medical decisions, not standard operating 
procedures for all patients.â??
 
Sanbornâ??s review of the research concluded:
 
The number of health problems associated with neutering may exceed the 
associated health benefits in most cases.
 
On the positive side, neutering male dogs
·        eliminates the small risk of dying from testicular cancer
·        reduces the risk of non-cancerous prostate disorders
·        reduces the risk of perianal fistulas
·        may possibly reduce the risk of diabetes (data inconclusive)m
 
On the negative side, neutering male dogs

     â?¢     if done before 1 year of age, significantly increases the risk of 
osteosarcoma (bone cancer); this is a common cancer in medium/large and larger 
breeds with a poor prognosis.
     â?¢     increases the risk of cardiac hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 1.6
     â?¢     triples the risk of hypothyroidism
     â?¢     increases the risk of progressive geriatric cognitive impairment
     â?¢     triples the risk of obesity, a common health problem in dogs with 
many associated health problems
     â?¢     quadruples the small risk of prostate cancer
     â?¢     doubles the small risk of urinary tract cancers
     â?¢     increases the risk of orthopedic disorders
     â?¢     increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations.


 
For female dogs, the situation is more complex. The number of health benefits 
associated with spaying may exceed the associated health problems in some 
(not all) cases. On balance, whether spaying improves the odds of overall good 
health or degrades them probably depends on the age of the female dog and the 
relative risk of various diseases in the different breeds.
 
On the positive side, spaying female dogs

     â?¢     if done before 2.5 years of age, greatly reduces the risk of 
mammary tumors, the most common malignant tumors in female dogs
     â?¢     nearly eliminates the risk of pyometra, which otherwise would 
affect about 23% of intact female dogs; pyometra kills about 1% of intact 
female 
dogs
     â?¢     reduces the risk of perianal fistulas
     â?¢     removes the very small risk from uterine, cervical, and ovarian 
tumors


 
On the negative side, spaying female dogs

     â?¢     if done before 1 year of age, significantly increases the risk of 
osteosarcoma (bone cancer); this is a common cancer in larger breeds with a 
poor prognosis
     â?¢     increases the risk of splenic hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 2.2 
and cardiac hemangiosarcoma by a factor of greater than five; this is a common 
cancer and major cause of death in some breeds
     â?¢     triples the risk of hypothyroidism
     â?¢     increases the risk of obesity, a common health problem in dogs 
with many associated health problems
     â?¢     causes urinary â??spay incontinenceâ?? in 4-20% of female dogs
     â?¢     increases the risk of persistent or recurring urinary tract 
infections by a factor of 3-4
     â?¢     increases the risk of recessed vulva, vaginal dermatitis, and 
vaginitis, especially for female dogs spayed before puberty
     â?¢     doubles the small risk of urinary tract tumors
     â?¢     increases the risk of orthopedic disorders
     â?¢     increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations


 
Sanborn concluded: â??One thing is clear â?? much of the spay/neuter 
information 
that is available to the public is unbalanced and contains claims that are 
exaggerated or unsupported by evidence. Rather than helping to educate pet 
owners, much of it has contributed to common misunderstandings about the health 
risks and benefits.â??
 
It is ASDAâ??s opinion that these research findings cast enough doubt on the 
practice of universal sterilization to make it inadvisable if not reckless for 
any level of government to mandate spaying or neutering at this point in time.
 
Moreover, such a mandate would expose any governing body to substantial legal 
and financial liability if individual pet owners successfully claim damages 
based on current or future research.
 
Other Legal Concerns

 
There will be many grounds to take the City of Dallas to court if this 
ordinance is approved.
 
Many will be based on the simple fact that similar ordinances have proven to 
be completely counterproductive in several cities around the country, 
including San Antonio, Texas. San Antonioâ??s rates of shelter admissions 
doubled in the 
year following enactment of a similar ordinance, as did euthanasia rates. 
Thus, any lawsuit would begin on very solid legal ground: The city should have 
known beyond a shadow of a doubt that there would be no possibility that these 
kinds of ordinances would solve the problem, and to ignore that evidence is 
reckless and negligent.
 
The jury is in on several communities that have tried this approach, and the 
verdict is unanimous: They failed miserably.
 
We have examined Dallas zoning codes, and can see nothing that would prohibit 
hobby breeding of dogs. The zoning code clearly permits residents of 
residentially zoned areas to make occasional sales of personal property, as 
long as it 
does not constitute a business.
 
Thus, there is no legal basis for denying breeding permits in residential 
areas.
 
Under Section 42.002(a)(11) of the Texas Property Code, a state law defining 
property rights, government is expressly prohibited from seizing â??household 
petsâ?? for any reason, including actions of eminent domain and bankruptcy.
 
This state law clearly prohibits the City of Dallas from seizing any pet for 
any reason.
 
The Bill of Rights in the Texas Constitution clearly states: â??The people 
shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from all 
unreasonable seizures or searchesâ?¦,â?? and that a warrant shall be required 
in all 
cases. To obtain a warrant, probable cause of a legal violation must be shown.
 
The Bill of Rights also is equally clear that people must be properly 
compensated if any level of government seizes or destroys their property for 
any 
reason: â??No person's property shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for or 
applied 
to public use without adequate compensation being madeâ?¦â??
 
Thus, under the Bill of Rights, it would appear that the City of Dallas would 
be required to compensate a dog owner for the fair market value of any dog 
that is seized or destroyed, as dogs are considered to be personal property 
under Texas law.
 
This issue of taking may extend farther, as a mandate to spay and neuter also 
would be a taking of the value of the property, since a dog could not be used 
to provide valuable stud services or raise valuable puppies. Simply put, a 
spayed or neutered dog is not worth as much money as a dog that is intact. The 
city thus would be taking the value of this dog, and would be required by law 
to provide the owner with fair compensation.
 
Lawyers truly would love this ordinance, all the way to the bank
 
Please Help Dallas Dog Owners

 
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all of our members and 
supporters to offer assistance to Dallas dog owners in this vital fight to 
preserve 
their fundamental rights.
 
The proposed ordinances are slated to be discussed at a meeting of City 
Councilâ??s Quality of Life Committee on Monday, April 28. The announcement did 
not 
state the time or place of this meeting, or if the public will be allowed to 
attend or participate. Trimbleâ??s Texas Humane Legislation Network, a radical 
animal rights group, prepared and distributed the official announcement.
 
The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges all Dallas residents to contact City 
Council members (contact information is given below) prior to this meeting.
 
We are supporting the efforts of two Texas groups to fight these proposed 
ordinances: The Responsible Pet Ownersâ?? Alliance 
(www.responsiblepetowww.respo) 
and The Texas Kennel Club (contact Nancy Wright at OrielPWCs@xxxxxxxxxxx). 
 
Dog owners have retained an attorney, Zandra Anderson, to represent them 
before City Council. Residents of Dallas should forward information to Ms. 
Wright 
or The American Sporting Dog Alliance, to be passed along to the attorney. She 
needs to know that you are a resident of Dallas, your profession, the kinds 
of dogs that you own, and the events in which you participate. This information 
will be submitted to City Council.
 
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also urges dog owners who do not live in 
Dallas to offer their support to dog owners in that city. Please contact Ms. 
Wright and let her know how you can help, or contact us at asda@xxxxxxxxxxxx, 
and weâ??ll pass on your information to the appropriate people.
 
We strongly suggest letters of protest to the Dallas Morning News as a letter 
to the editor, and also to each member of Dallas City Council. The American 
Sporting Dog Alliance has written to all of them, but it is vital that citizens 
respond vocally, too.
 
Here are their email addresses:
 
Dallas Morning News
Letters to the Editor bmong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
City of Dallas
1500 Marilla Street
Dallas, Texas 75201
 
Mayor Tom Leppert
Phone: (214) 670-4054
Fax: (214) 670-0646
Tom.leppert@xxxxxxxxxxx@<wbTom
 
City Manager Mary Suhm
Phone: (214) 670-3296
Fax: (214) 670-3946
Mary.Suhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
Asst. City Manager David Brown
(supervises Animal Services)
Phone: (214) 670-3390
Fax: (214) 670-4965
David.brown@xxxxxxxxxxx@<wbDav
 
Mayor Pro Tem Dr. Elba Garcia
Phone: (214) 670-4052
Fax: (214) 670-3409
Elba.garcia@xxxxxxxxxxx@<wbElb
 
Councilmember Pauline Medrano
Chairman: Quality of Life Committee
Phone: (214) 670-4048
Fax: (214) 670-5117
Pauline.medrano@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Dwaine Caraway
Phone: (214) 670-0781
Fax: (214) 670-3409
Dwaine.caraway@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx@Dwa
 
Councilmember David Neumann
Member: Quality of Life Committee
Phone: (214) 670-0776
Fax: (214) 670-1833
David.neumann@xxxxxxxxxxxxx@Dav
 
Councilmember Vonciel Jones Hill
Vice-Chair: Quality of Life Committee
Phone: (214) 670-0777
Fax: (214) 670-5117
Vonciel.hill@xxxxxxxxxxxx@<wVon
 
Councilmember Steve Salazar
Member: Quality of Life Committee
Phone: (214) 670-4199
Fax: (214) 670-5115
Steven.salazar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx@Ste
 
Councilmember Carolyn Davis
Quality of Life Committee
Phone: (214) 670-4689
Fax: (214) 670-5115
Carolyn.davis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx@Car
 
Councilmember Tennell Atkins
Phone: (214) 670-4066
Fax: (214) 670-5115
Tennell.atkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx@Ten
 
Councilmember Sheffield Kadane
Quality of Life Committee
Phone: (214) 670-4069
Fax: (214) 670-5115
sheffield.kadane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
Councilmember Jerry Allen
Phone: (214) 670-4068
Fax: (214) 670-5115
Jerry.allen@xxxxxxxxxxx@<wbJer
 
Councilmember Linda Koop
Phone: (214) 670-7817
Fax: (214) 670-5117
Debra.brown@xxxxxxxxxxx@<wbDeb
 
Councilmember Ron Natinsky
Phone: (214) 670-4067
Fax: (214) 670-5117
District12@dallasciDistrict12
 
Councilmember Mitchell Rasansky
Phone: (214) 670-3816
Fax: (214) 670-5117
Mitchell.rasansky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
Councilmember Angela Hunt
Phone: (214) 670-5415
Fax: (214) 670-5117
Angela.hunt@xxxxxxxxxxx@<wbAng
 
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, hobby breeders and 
professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We are a 
grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure 
that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its 
rightful place in American society and life. Please visit us on the web at 
http://www.americanhttp://www.amerihttp://.
 
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can 
continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, 
participation 
and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded 
solely by the donations of our members, and maintain strict independence.
 
PLEASE CROSS-POST THIS REPORT AND FORWARD IT TO YOUR FRIENDS











**************
Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car 
listings at AOL Autos.
      
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)

============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2007.  All material remains the property of the original 
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind 
are permitted without prior permission of the original author  AND of the 
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 

ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY 
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS 
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY 
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE 
PROSECUTED. 

For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx

VISIT OUR WEBSITE - www.showgsd.org
============================================================================

Other related posts:

  • » [ SHOWGSD-L ] Fwd: PETA, HSUS Take Over Dallas
  1. Home
  2. showgsd-l
  3. Archive
  4. 04-2008