[ SHOWGSD-L ] Sorry this is the bill that Jackie Spier's is trying to pass.
- From: Lacy340@xxxxxxx
- To: showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 00:39:26 EDT
> Below is American Canine Foundations first Legislative Memo to the
> > California General Assembly
> >
> > We ask everyone to forward this alert to all your email lists and we ask
> > that you email the California General Assembly twice a day for the next
> week
> > excluding the Forth of July weekend.
> >
> > ACF sent the Memo below to California today and will be sending new
Memos
> > daily.
> >
> > To all California dog owners, you need to call your district Assemblyman
> and
> > tell them who you are and oppose SB861, also call your Senators in your
> > districts.
> >
> > The entire email list to the California Assembly is below the Memo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > BILL ANALYSIS
> > AMERICAN CANINE FOUNDATION OPPOSITION TO SB 861
> >
> > LEGISLATIVE MEMO
> > JULY 1, 2005
> >
> > TO THE HONORABLE CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY
> >
> > The American Canine Foundation (ACF) is a national non profit
organization
> > that litigates constitutional challenges, lobbies for effective
dangerous
> > dog legislation, drafts dangerous dog legislation and provides education
> to
> > both the general public and public schools for dog bite prevention.
> >
> > On June 3, 2005, a 12-year-old San Francisco boy was mauled to death by
> his
> > family's un-neutered pit bull. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom formed
a
> > task force to assess what the city and county could do to protect the
> public
> > from these kinds of dog attacks. The task force provided incorrect
data
> > and the task force is not qualified to determine what it takes to
protect
> > the public from dog bites, attacks and fatalities.
> >
> > 1. In San Francisco the recent fatal attack by two dogs was caused by
the
> > negligence of the parents, not the breed of dog. The mother of the 12
year
> > old child victim locked her son in the basement so she could leave to go
> to
> > run errands. Earlier that day one of the dogs had bitten the boy and the
> > mother is negligent and should of never locked her son in the basement.
> It
> > was outrageous to lock a child in a basement while letting dogs run
loose
> in
> > a house knowing they were acting dangerous. This has nothing to do with
> > breed, nor does it have to do with the animals being intact. Two
> Malamutes
> > that were spayed and neutered just killed a 7 year old girl in Colorado
> last
> > month. Also of concern is there were numerous reports of the two dogs
in
> > the San Francisco attack acting aggressive to neighbors in the past and
> > perhaps these dogs had attempted to bite the child in the past.
> >
> > The task force claims ( "a) There are 120,000 dogs in San Francisco
" )
> >
> > 2. We want to know how they come up with that figure, they do not
provide
> > data
> > on the number of dogs licensed.
> >
> > The task force claims ( (b) There is one dog bite per day in San
> > Francisco(362 bites per year)
> >
> > 3. This cant be accurate, there is no city we know of in the United
States
> > that reports 1 dog bite per day to total exactly 362 dog per year
> >
> > The task force claims ( c) There are about 150 vicious dog hearings
> > annually in San
> > Francisco with 60% involving pit bulls )
> >
> > 4. Once again this can't be accurate data, for one thing they claim 362
> bite
> > per year, under San Francisco's dangerous dog law a dog that bites is
> > supposed to be vicious/dangerous.
> > They are stating annually which means each year they have 150 vicious
dog
> > hearings, we have never seen reports yet from a city where the figures
are
> > always the same. We also believe the task force manipulated their data
and
> > would challenge them to bring forth proof of each case and show
> verification
> > 60% of the cases involved American Pit Bull Terriers, these figure do
not
> > measure up to any other accurate dog bite studies done in the United
> States
> >
> > The Task force claims ( d) 70% of dogs in Bay Area shelters are pit
> bulls
> > and pit
> > bull mixes )
> >
> > 5. Once again we believe this data is not accurate because there is no
> > scientific or effective method to identify a Pit Bull mix. There are 29
> > breeds of dogs that can be mistaken for the American Pit Bull Terrier.
> >
> >
> > The Task Force claims ( e) About 10 to 20 people die annually in the
> > country from
> > dog bites )
> >
> > 6. This is accurate data and that figure has not changed in the last 40
> > years.
> > 22 people die each year from standing in the bath tub while using their
> > electric hair dryer.
> >
> > The Task force claims: ( f) 66 people died from pit bull attacks
> > nationally in the
> > period 1978-1998 )
> >
> > 7. This is not accurate data, the study they refer to was done by the
> Center
> > for Disease and Control. The study failed to disclose 89 other fatal dog
> > attacks during 79-98, the study does not include the populations of the
32
> > breeds responsible for fatalities therefore the study is useless because
> you
> > can't come up with percentages unless you divide the number of fatal dog
> > attacks by the population of the specific breed. ACF has obtained the
> > population of the breed listed for fatal dog attacks and when dividing
the
> > numbers by the populations there is not a significant variance to make a
> > scientific finding that one breed if more inherently dangerous or
vicious
> > than another breed. For accurate fatal dog attacks go to
> > http://ncrf2004.tripod.com/ .
> >
> > The Task force claims ( j) 94% of dog bites are unprovoked; aa)
Most
> > bite incidents involve un-neutered males over 50 lbs in weight.
> >
> > 8. This is completely false data. There is not a dog bite, attack or
> > fatality that's occurred where there has not been provocation. There is
> > always a provoking factor involved when a dog bites unless there is a
> > medical issue at hand. Most bite incidents do not occur from un-neutered
> > males over 50 lbs, for one thing there's an extremely high percentage of
> > small breeds listed on dog bite incident reports, including a Pomeranian
> > that killed a young boy in Southern California in 2000.
> >
> > The Task Force claims a) Institute a spaying and neutering program
> > directed at
> > breeds of dogs most likely to engage in unprovoked attacks on people;
> >
> > 9. The Task force is not competent to make any determinations when
making
> a
> > statement like the one above. First off spay and neutering does not
reduce
> > canine aggression levels and there are studies to prove this. Spay and
> > neutering dogs will not protect the public in anyway. Two Malamutes, a
> male
> > and female spayed and neutered just killed a young girl in Colorado last
> > month. For one thing there are an estimated 60 million dogs in our
> country
> > and the majority are not spayed and neutered. Every breed in the United
> > States has been reported to bite. Mix breeds are at the highest
> percentage
> > and that's because there are twice as many mixed breeds than pure bred
> dogs
> > in the United States. We can show an equal amount of spayed and neutered
> > dogs on dog bite incident reports nationwide.
> >
> > The Task Force claims ( b) Prohibit backyard breeding of these
breeds
> > and mixes;
> > c) Target the owners of dogs that pose a risk to public safety with
> > penalties commensurate with the harm and injury potentially caused by
> > vicious and dangerous dogs; d) Increase fines for those that do not
> > register their dogs, and assess fees on owners of vicious and dangerous
> > dogs to help offset city regulation and enforcement costs; e) Require
> > owners of specified vicious and dangerous dogs to obtain a minimum
> > threshold of liability insurance not traditionally covered by
homeowners
> > insurance to protect dog bite victims against unsatisfied judgments.
> >
> > 10. The Task forces intentions when they state back yard breeding needs
to
> > be stop conflict with the recommendation to spay and neuter all Pit
Bulls,
> > first they want to stop all breeding then they suggest only targeting
back
> > yard breeders. It is tort of outrage to require spay and neuter of a
> > specific breed, there are champion world class award winning American
Pit
> > Bull Terrier' s and countless other breeds that have years of selection
in
> > their blood lines, requiring and forcing responsible dog owners to alter
> > their dogs given the inaccurate data provided by the San Francisco Task
> > force will bring about serious civil litigation from dog owners.
> >
> > Increasing fines is effective legislation and requiring dog owners who
> have
> > been allowed due process of the law at which time it has been
determined
> > their dog is dangerous should be required to obtain 250,000 liabiltiy
> > insurance Refer to Washington State Dangerous Dog Law RCW16.08.070-100
> >
> >
> > 12. In California since 1985 3 Husky's, 1 Pomeranian, 2 Presa's , 4
German
> > Shepherds, 10 Rottweilers, 3 Chows, 2 Boxers, 2 Pit Bulls, 3 Malamutes
> and
> > 12 mixed breeds have been involved in fatal dog attacks. Over 99% of
all
> > fatal dog attacks occur because of irresponsible dog owners and
> > irresponsible parents. The accurate data available on fatal dog attacks
> when
> > reviewed makes it impossible to blame the breed of dog.
> >
> > 13 . Breed specific regulations and breed bans are unconstitutional (
> State
> > v Cowan 103 Ohio St. 3d144, 2004-Ohio-4777 ) and there is no account of
> > where this type of legislation has been passed that its ever been
> effective
> > in protecting the public from fatal dog attacks and dog bite injuries.
> There
> > is also no proof that its aids in stopping criminal activity involving
> dogs.
> >
> > 14. Breed specific legislation is supported by radical animal rights
> > organizations like PETA who just had two of its employees charged with
31
> > felony counts of animal cruelty for dumping dead dogs into dumpsters.
PETA
> > also supports radical animal activists that terrorize our government and
> > have become the subject of an FBI investigation. San Francisco's News
> Papers
> > have been printing data from PETA calling for the extermination of Pit
> Bull
> > Terriers in light of the recent fatal dog attack. PETA also wants the
end
> to
> > all domestic pet ownership.
> >
> > 15. The National Council on Pet Population did a study from 1994-98
which
> > included data from 5042 shelters nationwide. The study shows that
> > discrimination is the number two leading cause of 2.3 million dogs each
> year
> > ending up in shelters.
> >
> > 16. Breed specific legislation causes financial burden on tax payers,
its
> > impossible to enforce, it causes overpopulation in shelters, it brings
> about
> > criminal charges on responsible dog owners leading to the destruction of
> > thousands of innocent family pets that do not have aggressive behavior.
> This
> > type of discriminating legislation also brings about litigation of which
> in
> > the last several years has proven it is unconstitutional to take away
due
> > process rights of dog owners.
> >
> > 7. California has one of the countries most effective dangerous dog
laws
> > when its properly enforced. San Francisco's proposal SB 861 is
ludicrous,
> > arbitrary, capricious will cause California financial burden,
litigation
> > and will not protect the public. The legislation can not be enforced and
> in
> > now way will protect the public.
> >
> > .
> >
> > San Francisco not too long ago experienced a tragic fatal attack
> involving
> > severe injury from Presa Island Dogs, the city did not go to the
extremes
> to
> > attempt to change California's dangerous dogs legislation. In that case
> two
> > lawyers were sentenced to prison, in the recent fatality San Francisco
> > should be focusing their efforts on punishing the irresponsible mother
> that
> > locked her child in a basement. People like this can obtain other breeds
> and
> > they do own other breeds. San Francisco's knee- jerk reaction and the
> amount
> > of pressure coming at them is all being derived from organizations that
> are
> > providing manipulated data, this type of data brings about civil
> litigation
> > such as Huntsville Alabama faced in 2002 when the Alabama Supreme Court
> > affirmed a Trial Court decision that American Pit Bull Terriers are not
> > genetically dangerous.
> >
> > We ask you the Senators and Assemblymen of California to VOTE NO to SB
861
> > or any type of discriminatory legislation. We ask you to review the data
> > being faxed and delivered to the California General Assembly and Senate
on
> > the Regulation and Control of Dangerous Dogs by the American Canine
> > Foundation.
> >
> >
> > REGULATION AND CONTROL OF DANGEROUS DOGS
> > AMERICAN CANINE FOUNDATION 2005
> > 23969 NE STATE RTE 3 SUITE GIOI
> > BELFAIR WA 98528
> > 360 277 3647
> >
> > INTRODUCTION
> >
> > The American Canine Foundation (ACF), formerly Washington Animal
> Foundation
> > is a non-profit organization that advocates responsible dog ownership.
> ACF
> > assists with legislation, litigation and education. ACF drafts dangerous
> > dogs laws for cities and states, conducts research studies on canine
> > genetics, canine behavior and non fatal and fatal dog attacks.
> >
> > In our country at this time there is mass hysteria regarding Pit Bulls
and
> > other specific breeds.
> > Cities are being lobbied by animal rights organizations and their
members
> > who are providing false data in an attempt to end domestic pet ownership
> > encouraging cities to pass breed specific legislation. Below we have
> > provided data on this agenda including case law showing breed bans are
not
> > constitutional, proof breed bans that were passed years ago never
worked,
> > effective legislation that does work and information on animal rights.
> >
> >
> > CASE LAW ON BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION
> >
> > Zuniga v. San Mateo Dept. of Health Services (1990) 218 Cal. App. 3d
1521,
> > 267 Cal. Rptr. 2d 755. The court found there was not sufficient evidence
> to
> > prove Pit Bulls have an inherent nature of being dangerous.
> >
> > Carter v. Metro North Assocs. (1998) 255 A.D. 2d 251; 680 N.Y.S.2d 299 A
> New
> > York appellate court determined that the alleged propensities of Pit
Bull
> > Terriers to behave more viciously than other breeds had not been
> > authoritatively established.
> >
> > On December 13, 2002 ACF filed civil action against the city of Pontiac
> > Michigan for 500,000 dollars in damages for passing breed specific
> > legislation, Pontiac negotiated and repealed their breed ban.
> >
> > ACF litigated the city of Huntsville Alabama in 2002 in a case that was
> > heard by the Alabama Supreme Court. Huntsville v. Four Pit Bull Puppies
> > (Ala. 08-30-02), No.1010459, unreported. The court determined that
> American
> > Pit Bull Terriers were not dangerous.
> >
> > In March 2003 ACF sued the city of Ottumwa Iowa for 750,000 for passing
a
> > breed ban, the case is in litigation. ACF v Ottumwa EQEQ 103700
> >
> > On July 16th 2003 ACF brought forth a constitutional challenge against
> > Ohio's state law that declares the Pit Bull vicious. The case was heard
in
> > the Toledo Muni Court and the court found the American Pit Bull Terrier
> was
> > not dangerous and granted Pit Bull owners due process , the case is in
> > appeal. Tellings v State of Ohio CRB02-15267
> >
> > In August 2004 a case ACF assisted in was heard by the Ohio Supreme
Court.
> > State v. Cowan 103 Ohio St. 3d 144 , 2004 - Ohio - 4777 The court found
> ORC
> > 955:22 violative of the right to be heard as applied to ORC955:11 which
> > declared the Pit Bull vicious in Ohio. The decision struck down Ohio's
> breed
> > specific legislation at the state level.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > DOES BREED SPECIFC LEGISLATION REDUCE DOG BITES AND FATALITIES ?
> >
> > In analyzing nonfatal dog bite injuries we find an increase in serious
> > injuries each year.
> > A study was done by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and the
> > Center for Injury Prevention
> > http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5226a1.htm. The study showed
in
> > 1994 333,700 patients were treated for dog bites in emergency
departments
> > (EDs), in 2001 368,245 persons were treated in Eds. A study was done by
> the
> > American Canine Foundation which shows that where breed bans have been
> > enacted that dog bite incidents reports have increased. Banning ten
breeds
> > of dogs from a city from current dog bite data will not reduce dog bites
> > given the ratio between mixed breeds compared to purebred dogs.
> >
> > Breed bans have been passed by cities in the United States with the
animal
> > rights organizations supporting them claiming they will reduce dog bites
> and
> > fatalities, statistics show us breed bans do not reduce dog bite
> incidents,
> > fatalities or stop illegal activity involving dogs. Denver Colorado
passed
> a
> > breed ban on American Pit Bull Terriers in 1988. A state law was passed
in
> > 2004 to stop breed specific legislation in Colorado. Data from Denver
> > revealed that there are more American Pit Bull Terriers in Denver now
than
> > before the breed ban, there have been over 40 severe attacks and 2
> > fatalities by dogs since 1988 and they were not American Pit Bull
> Terriers.
> > All Denver's breed ban accomplished was seizing innocent dogs that had
no
> > aggressive behavior and at the same time criminalizing their owners. The
> > enforcement became so bad the courts ended up releasing dogs seized to
> > addresses outside Denver and dropping charges on the owners. Not one
case
> of
> > a Pit Bull being released can be found where the dog injured someone.
> > Denver's animal control director Doug Kelly admitted to ACF members on a
> > Denver talk show the breed ban was not working. Denver is now fighting
in
> > the Court of Appeals over recent lawsuit where they sued the state of
> > Colorado and at trial did not address any constitutional issues. ACF
filed
> > for intervention in the case, we were denied and we appealed. Denver
just
> > lost a motion to have the case dismissed. Denver is also facing a class
> > action civil lawsuit next month over their breed ban raising
> constitutional
> > issues.
> >
> > The National Canine Research Foundation http://ncrf2004.tripod.com/ did
a
> > study on fatal dog attacks from 1965-2004 and the study shows us that
> fatal
> > attacks have not been reduced by breed specific legislation. It was
> > discovered that the number of fatal attacks each year over a 30 year
> period
> > have remained close in numbers.
> >
> > REGULATION AND CONTROL OF DANGEROUS DOGS
> >
> > One of the most serious problems with some of the existing "dangerous
dog
> > laws" is that the dog may face destruction or lengthy impoundment, while
> the
> > owner receives little or no punishment. Irresponsible owners are
chronic
> > repeat offenders of animal control laws. Thus, the dog suffers the
> > consequences of its owner's irresponsibility.
> >
> > 1. Do the current laws address each of the problem areas with dogs?
> > 2. Are they being enforced?
> > 3. Is there a problem repeat offenders?
> > 4. Are the penalties strong enough ?
> >
> > Problems stem from inadequate budget or manpower to enforce the laws,
> > inadequate training to effectively deal with the problem dogs in a
humane
> > way, and low priority of animal control issues. Poor community
education
> of
> > existing animal control laws and lack of judicial support in upholding
> > effective penalties also create serious problems.
> >
> >
> > DANGEROUS DOG LEGISLATION
> >
> > Strong laws that penalize the owners, regardless of the breed are what
is
> > needed. These types of laws are valid, have merit and are not vague or
> > capricious. ACF supports laws that hold owners accountable for their
dog's
> > behavior. Laws need to declare a dog potentially dangerous when it
menaces
> a
> > human, dogs need to be declared potentially dangerous when they bite a
> human
> > or domestic animal, owners need to be cited and placed under
restrictions.
> A
> > second offense should automatically declare the dog dangerous and call
for
> a
> > misdemeanor charge against the owner.
> >
> > Dogs that have been declared dangerous because they caused severe injury
> > should be required to be kept confined, muzzled in public and have
> insurance
> > coverage of 250 thousand dollars or more, if a second incident happens
> with
> > a dog declared dangerous, if the dog causes injury the owner should be
> > charged with a felony, if the dog kills a human there should be a charge
> of
> > negligent homicide and the owner should be prohibited from owning dogs.
If
> a
> > dog has been declared potentially dangerous and kills a human, the owner
> > should be charged with negligent homicide. Washington's RCW 16.08 070 -
> 100
> > is the state law for regulation and control of dangerous dogs. Under the
> > statute if a dog causes severe injury regardless of whether the dog has
a
> > prior history of biting the owner can be charged with a Felony.
> >
> > BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL ?
> >
> > Breed bans do nothing to stop dog attacks, they do nothing to stop
illegal
> > activity, they do nothing to protect the public from irresponsible dog
> > owners and only punish responsible dog owners, causing court litigation,
> > wasted tax money and impoundment of innocent dogs while criminalizing
U.S.
> > Citizens. There is no scientific proof that genetics cause a breed of
dog
> to
> > be aggressive, vicious or dangerous. Irresponsible owners are to blame
> for
> > the behavior of dogs that are aggressive, vicious or dangerous. Breed
> > specific legislation is an injustice, genocide of dogs.
> >
> > In Sentel v. New Orleans & Carrollton Railroad (1896) 166 US 698 nothing
> was
> > stated to allow selective laws against specific breeds of dog, it was
> stated
> > that it is "practically impossible by statute to distinguish between the
> > different dog breeds". Id. at 701. Every state now affords U.S. citizens
> due
> > process rights for dog ownership under state dangerous dog statutes, 14
> > states prohibit breed specific dog laws at the state and local level.
> >
> > While the police power is broad it is not boundless, for the Fourteenth
> > Amendment of the United States Constitution limits the power of the
> > legislature to act with respect to private property. In particular,
> > pertinent sections of the Fourteenth Amendment provide that no state
shall
> > deprive any person of property with out due process of law, or deny any
> > person equal protection of the law. If an ordinance encourages arbitrary
> and
> > erratic law enforcement, or if it places unlimited discretion in the
hands
> > of the police, the law will be unconstitutionally vague and violative of
> due
> > process Papachrista v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 168 (1972).
> >
> > Nicchia v. People of State of New York, 254 U.S. 228 (1920). The case is
> > referring to the licensing of dogs and the U.S Supreme Court makes it
very
> > clear that the requirement of dog licenses does not take one mans
property
> > and give it to another, nor does it deprive dog owners of liberty
without
> > due process of law. The US Supreme Court supports a finding from a New
> York
> > Appeals Court case, Fox v. Mohhawk & H.R. Humane Society (1901) The US
> > Supreme Court gives broad power to regulate and control dogs including
> > drastic measures as long as it does not take away due process.The
Nicchia
> > case clearly supports a finding that dog owners have a right to liberty
> and
> > due process.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Reported by Attorney S. Zendorf Toledo Ohio
> >
> > "On August 30, 2002 the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a Circuit Court
> > Decision that four American Pit Bull Terriers born at the Huntsville
> Animal
> > Control Shelter did not lack any useful purpose" as required by the
local
> > ordinance Huntsville v. Four Pit Bull Puppies (Ala. 08-30-02),
No.1010459,
> > unreported. The court determined that the puppies were not trained to
> fight
> > and were not vicious. In addition, it held that three women who wanted
to
> > adopt them had a right to intervene.
> >
> > The City of Huntsville claimed the Pit Bull puppies were genetically
> > dangerous, used expert witness testimony, and appealed to the Alabama
> > Supreme Court after the lower court rejected its arguments and evidence.
> > The Alabama Supreme Court granted the Washington Animal Foundation's
> > petition to participate in the proceedings as Amicus Curiae because the
> > Foundation is an expert on canine genetics. The Foundation provided
> expert
> > testimony to prove that Pit Bulls and other breeds are not inherently
> > genetically dangerous and must be trained to fight".
> >
> > S.Zendorf (Attorney at Law)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > WHATS BEHIND BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION ?
> >
> > ANIMAL RIGHTS AND "COMPANION ANIMALS"
> >
> > "We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had ever
> been
> > inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way that many people
> are.
> > We didn't 'love' animals." -- Peter Singer*, Animal Liberation: A New
> Ethic
> > for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd ed. (New York Review of Books, 1990),
> > Preface, p. ii.
> >
> > *Peter Singer is the acknowledged founding father and chief
> guru
> > of the Animal Rights movement. Singer's disciple is Ingrid Newkirk, who
> > co-founded People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, also known as
> PETA.
> > For more information, read About Peter Singer & Who is Peter Singer?
> >
> > In a perfect world, all other-than-human animals would be free of human
> > interference, and dogs and cats would be part of the ecological scheme,
as
> > they were before humans domesticated them and as they remain in some
parts
> > of the undeveloped world.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From The PETA Statement on Companion Animals
> >
> > "In a perfect world, animals would be free to live their lives to the
> > fullest: raising their young, enjoying their native environments, and
> > following their natural instincts. However, domesticated dogs and cats
> > cannot survive "free" in our concrete jungles, so we must take as good
> care
> > of them as possible. People with the time, money, love, and patience to
> make
> > a lifetime commitment to an animal can make an enormous difference by
> > adopting from shelters or rescuing animals from a perilous life on the
> > street. But it is also important to stop manufacturing "pets," thereby
> > perpetuating a class of animals forced to rely on humans to survive." -
> PETA
> > pamphlet, Companion Animals: Pets or Prisoners?
> >
> >
> > MORE PETA
> >
> > "The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the domestic
cat
> > free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering,
> until
> > our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist." - John Bryant,
Fettered
> > Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People
for
> > the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), 1982), p. 15.
> >
> > "It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of
> animal
> > ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending
the
> > concept of pet ownership." - Elliot Katz, President, In Defense of
> Animals,
> > "In Defense of Animals," Spring 1997
> >
> > "Human care (of animals) is simply sentimental, sympathetic
patronage." -
> > Dr. Michael W. Fox, HSUS, in 1988 Newsweek interview
> >
> > "We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of
> livestock
> > produced through selective breeding. ... One generation and out. We have
> no
> > problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of
> human
> > selective breeding." - Wayne Pacelle, Senior Vice-President oF HSUS,
> > formerly of Friends for Animals; Quoted in Animal People, May, 1993
> >
> > "The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal
> > consideration." - Wayne Pacelle, Senior Vice-President oF HSUS, formerly
> of
> > Friends for Animals - In Inhumane Society, 1990
> >
> > "The life of an ant and the life of my child should be accorded equal
> > respect." - Wayne Pacelle, Senior Vice-President oF HSUS, formerly of
> > Friends for Animals, The Associated Press, Jan. 15, 1989
> >
> > HSUS president John Hoyt hinted in 1986 that the animal-rights movement
> > might be a means to a larger end, telling Washingtonian magazine: "This
> new
> > philosophy [animal rights] has served as a catalyst in the shaping of
our
> > own philosophies, policies, and goals." John McArdle, the group's
Director
> > of Laboratory Animal Welfare, frankly admitted in the same article that
> HSUS
> > was "definitely shifting in the direction of animal rights faster than
> > anyone would realize from our literature."
> >
> > The group completed its animal-rights transformation during the 1990s,
> > changing its personnel in the process. HSUS assimilated dozens of
staffers
> > from PETA and other animal-rights groups, even employing John "J.P."
> > Goodwin, a former Animal Liberation Front member and spokesman with a
> > lengthy arrest record and a history of promoting arson to accomplish
> animal
> > liberation and end all animal agriculture in the United States.
> >
> > INFORMATION ON PETA
> >
> > * They want animals to have more rights than human beings.
> > * They are against eating meat.
> > * They are against people having pets.
> > * They are against hunting and fishing.
> > * They are against the use of seeing-eye dogs.
> > * They are against the use of dolphins by the US military to find
ocean
> > mines.
> > * They are against the use of police dogs.
> > * They are against the use of animals for research that saves human
> > lives.
> > * They are against putting animals in a zoo.
> > * They are against using animals for any form of entertainment.
> >
> > * In a 1992 report by the NCIB, National Charities Investigation Bureau,
> > PETA spent 42% of its organizational expenses on fundraising. Only 20%
on
> > actual research and investigation in to animal cruelty.
> >
> >  More current reports examining PETA's tax filings have shown as
> > little as 1% of PETA's total revenue actually goes directly to helping
> > animals; usually small donations to animal clinics or similar
> organizations.
> >
> > Supporting Terrorism.
> >
> > PETA has contributed thousands of dollars to known activist extremists.
> > Most of these extremist were involved in either ALF or ELF, two
> > organizations under FBI watch. The FBI is monitoring these
organizations
> > for acts of terrorism in the United States. These acts include arson,
> > bombings, cutting the brake lines on fishery trucks, breaking and
> entering,
> > destruction of government and organizational research laboratories and
> > murder. ALF, in one statement, has admitted to over 100 acts of
> terrorism,
> > all in the name of animal rights and the economy.
> >
> >
> > PETA has given over $45,000 to the defense of Rodney Coronado, an ALF
> member
> > convicted of a firebombing at Michigan State University. During this
> > cr
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2005. 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 - http://www.showgsd.org
============================================================================
Other related posts:
- » [ SHOWGSD-L ] Sorry this is the bill that Jackie Spier's is trying to pass.
