MSN - Chicago part 1

[glencorgi]

FORWARDING PERMITTED AND ENCOURAGED
LET'S GET THE WORD OUT!!!

Proposed Chicago Mandatory Spay/Neuter (MSN) ordinance to be modeled on Los Angeles MSN ordinance

Ramifications will be tremendous for all owners and breeders of purebred dogs throughout the United States

by Margo Milde
July 25 2008

Chicago aldermen have repeatedly told us, in the past several weeks, that the Chicago ordinance will be based on the new Los Angeles Mandatory Spay/Neuter (MSN) law, which will go into effect in Los Angeles on October 1 2008. Therefore, it's very instructive to examine the new Los Angeles MSN law to learn what's in store for us should our proposed Chicago MSN not be defeated.

I guarantee you won't like what you see. I sure didn't and neither will anyone else who values their dog ownership and breeding rights.

Under the Los Angeles law it will be impossible to get the spay/neuter exemption permits required. That's because a registry would have to be qualified first, and no registry in the United States or Canada would be able to meet the specified requirements.
We are quite certain that Animal Rights groups such as Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), which had input into the Los Angeles law and have been busy helping to write the proposed Chicago ordinance, intended it to be that way. This is not some technical mistake that will be quickly remedied. They know what they are doing.

Therefore, since no dog or cat in Los Angeles would be eligible for the exemption permit once the law goes into effect on October 1, all dogs and cats over four months of age would have to be spayed or neutered. It would be impossible to lawfully keep intact, let alone lawfully breed, your pets after October 1 in Los Angeles (yes, true even for valuable purebred show animals; yes, even those animals belonging to "responsible breeders" ; yes, even for individual dogs of "rare breeds" for which conservation of the gene pool is critical to the breed's future!)

Pause for a moment to let this sink in.



Debbie

[glencorgi]

Now, let's look at the details. I've attached at the end a very recent article from The Animal Council which explains the specifics (scroll down to the section entitled "EVOLUTION OF DISCRIMINATORY FACTORS IN CALIFORNIA DIFFERENTIAL LICENSING, PART II:") where you can read the whole sordid affair for yourself, but I'll emphasize a few points here relating to the Los Angeles law which, as they happily keep telling us, we would undoubtedly see here if our Chicago MSN passes.

Under the Los Angeles law, AKC and other registries must first apply to Los Angeles for official "recognition" with Los Angeles before any breeders can apply for the intact dog permits for dogs registered under the AKC (or other registries). Should other municipalities pass a similar law (how many municipalities are there in the U.S. ?!) AKC and other registries would have to apply to each and every jurisdiction individually for recognition. And, under the Los Angeles law, they must apply every three years, and that only if no "requirements breach" would occur during those three years! But this is irrelevant, because, as you'll see, no registry in existence can meet several of these requirements, which include:

1. "Maintains and enforces a code of ethics for breeding that
includes: (etc)"

NO registry in existence can meet that requirement!

Some parent clubs have a COE (which, by the way, is often hard to enforce except for the most egregious offenses), however, the AKC, UKC, Canadian Kennel Club, and probably every other valid kennel club you've ever heard of in the US or Canada does not involve itself (nor should they!) in telling people how to make decisions regarding breeding the dogs they own. That's because they act as a registry for the dogs themselves; *you* do not belong to the AKC. Yes, if you falsify a registration and get caught, or are convicted of a serious animal cruelty offense, the AKC will suspend your privileges for a certain length of time and/or fine you. But this is significantly different than what is implied under a COE for breeding.

2. "Under no circumstances allows, endorses, or engages in any activity that is determined to be intentionally harmful or detrimental to the health and/or safety of animals or humans."

The AKC and other registries permit and encourage field trials and hunt tests, in which the game is killed. (Maybe, since we're dealing with the twisted Animal Rights mind that wrote these requirements, they may even state that earthdog tests and herding trials constitute an intentional harm to the safety of animals.) Therefore, this would make any registry having hunt tests or field trials, such as the AKC, ineligible as a recognized registry if this is interpreted verbatim -

which I'm certain is the intention of its Animal Rights authors.

3. "Proposes a method for assessing and certifying dogs or cats in conformance with LAMC (Los Angeles Municipal Code) that can be verified."

The AKC (and UKC, and Canadian Kennel Club etc) does NOT "assess and certify" dogs but operates strictly as a registry. Again, to "assess and certify dogs" is NOT a function of a registry, nor should it be.

You are probably asking at this point: Why is this taking place?

Wayne Pacelle, today's Chief Executive Officer of the HSUS, was quoted as saying the following:

"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."
source: _http://www.activist cash.com/ biography_ quotes.cfm/ bid/3366_ (http://www.activist cash.com/ biography_ quotes.cfm/ bid/3366)

I guess it's time we believed him.

The HSUS and other Animal Rights groups are doing everything in their power to shut down ALL pet breeding across the U.S. Passage of such laws by misinformed representatives (supported by the even more misinformed popular media and the general public) will in effect make pet breeding an illegal activity-no matter was the elected officials thought they were passing. This is a well-thought- out systematic plan, devised by the Animal Rights groups, and should definitely not be taken lightly. As cities and even states fall one by one, the Animal Rights extremists will methodically and inexorably move towards their goal of eliminating domestic animal ownership and breeding entirely across the United States and Canada .

But it's even worse than this, due to the limited breeding lifespan of our dogs, and the limited gene pools of many of our purebred breeds.

Lawsuits regarding this ordinance have already been filed in Los Angeles against that City. However, it will probably take many, many months of legal wrangling (if not years, maybe not ever) for the Los Angeles ordinance to get worked out to the point that pet breeding is once again a lawful activity in that city. So what will happen to our purebred dog breeds in the meantime?

The maximum breedable age is probably for a bitch is generally considered to be 10 years, and 12 years for a dog (and that's generous for many of our larger breeds, who usually don't live even that long.) The type of anti-breeding laws passed in Los Angeles and which is now being proposed in Chicago would in effect make pet breeding - even by "responsible breeders" - an illegal activity.
Shut
down breeding in several major metropolitan areas and/or a couple of large states using these laws for any length of time (even for as short a period as five years), and you would have effectively eliminated sufficient gene pools for maintenance of number of our rarer breeds, as well as a number of lines of better known breeds.
As
long-time Health Education Chair for an AKC parent breed club (Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of America), I can assure you from a health standpoint that there is a great need to preserve genetic diversity even in our more populous breeds, and this need is extreme in a number of our rarer breeds, or even in some of our more popular breeds in which only a handful of breeding lines predominate. Even just three to five years of these types of anti-breeding laws in just a few major cities or a larger state or two would make a tremendous dent in our purebred and working dog populations in the US, and possibly send some breeds beyond the point of no return.

Don't think for one moment that the Animal Rights activists don't recognize the limited breeding lifespan of our dogs. What's our most optimistic guess for the return of legal breeding once again to Los Angeles, even if the courts issue opinions in our favor? Three years?
Five years? That's about how long it will take to legalize animal breeding in Los Angeles, even if the lawsuits all work out for our side. Many large breeds have an average lifespan of only eight years.
And even if this Los Angeles law is eventually overturned, breeders will be forced to get all of their breeding stock from elsewhere since all of their animals would have been spayed or neutered under law, so there would have an even longer time before breeding could effectively resume. See, the Animal Rights people have this all planned out.

I'll repeat: The official word from the City Aldermen/women is that the Chicago MSN ordinance is being modeled on the Los Angeles law.
They're not planning anything less onerous for us here. And, when Chicago falls, who will be next? There will be no escape. Proponents of this type of ordinance are trying to encourage other municipalities and counties in California (and elsewhere) to adopt this type of law. So, after reading this, the next time you hear someone say that they believe that MSN, with "responsible breeder"
intact dog permits, is good for purebred dogs (and won't hurt "responsible breeders"), you will have a very educated reply for them with reasons why MSN, even with "permits", is NOT in the best interests of the continuation of our purebred dog breeds, nor our purebred dog ownership and breeding rights.

And, with the Chicago situation, we are talking directly about the HSUS. They have been instrumental in the passage of anti-pet ownership and anti-breeding laws in many other states, counties, and cities. Mr. John Yates brought up scathing confirmation of the direct HSUS involvement in the writing of our proposed Chicago MSN in his article "Chicago Spay/Neuter Mandate Based On Lies" that he wrote back in May. I sent it out to everyone earlier this week as an attachment; if for some reason you didn't read it, you can access it at this link:
_http://www.nodakout doors.com/ forums/viewtopic .php?t=53622_ (http://www.nodakout doors.com/ forums/viewtopic .php?t=53622) I also posted additional information on this topic on May 23 on the il-pet-law list.

How much do you value your rights to own (and even breed) your purebred dogs? If this is important to you, it's time to stand up and be counted. If Chicago is intentionally going down this path of illegalizing all pet breeding, with help of the HSUS, we need to expose this every inch of the way as part of their overall game plan to eliminate pet breeding in the U.S, and with it our cherished and valued purebred breeds. This is absolutely critical to any future successes we will have in fighting Animal Rights' (especially HSUS') attempts to limit our pet ownership and breeding rights.

And don't forget to show up on Tuesday July 29 2008 and tell `em what you think at Chicago City Hall :
_http://www.akc. org/news/ index.cfm_ (http://www.akc. org/news/
index.cfm)

Thanks, everyone.

Margo Milde
AKC Legislative Liaison - Rand Park Dog Training Club Inc AKC Legislative Liaison - Agility Ability Club of Illinois Health Education Chair - Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of America

[MyPemCharlie]

I actually ran across an article about the Los Angeles mandatory spay/neuter law passed in February and went into effect April 8th. There is apparently a "grace period" where they will start "enforcing" the law October 1st.

Here is a link to the official ordinance:
http://clkrep.lacity.org/councilfile...ord_179615.pdf

It looked to me like there were exemptions for any dogs active in show or sports, including Agility, Herding, etc., young dogs training to be placed in show or sports, as well as for service and military dogs. Additional exemption for dogs/cats to sick to undergo surgery with veterinarian statement.

Margo Milde's note does bring up an interesting point. The ordinance does state exemptions for different reasons "from a registry or association approved by the Department through its Commission." That is a big out if the Commission has not approved any registries isn't it? One would assume that AKC would be approved. There will certainly be a large public outcry if AKC is not an "approved" registry under the ordinance guidelines.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I think Los Angeles did some similar "spay or pay" type program several years ago, with a result that people just quit licensing their dogs and shelter numbers increased. I'd have to go back and look that up again for a source. Imagine how many people will quit taking their pet to the vet for general or emergency care for fear of being reported for violation of the ordinance.

There will of course be people who can't afford to spay/neuter who will give their dogs/cats to shelters if they "get caught" with an intact pet. I don't see any way they can enforce the ordinance with a small crew of animal workers in a city the size of LA. I read that there may be a plan to add 2 new full time employees for enforcement. Ha...two...good luck.

It will be interesting to see the impact or aftermath of this law. Score one for the Animal Rights groups, zero for the Animal Welfare folks.

[Michael Romanos]

In most parts of New Zealand, local annual dog registration fee scales reflect whether a dog is fixed or not - higher fees for unspayed or unneutered dogs over a certain age.
I am very pleased that Debbie's first post is not entirely a correct assumption because it was a bit too drastic.

[MyPemCharlie]

It's not drastic at all if the AKC cannot get "recognized" by the Animal Commission in Los Angeles. If they don't get approved, no registry will. That means there will be zero exemptions to the spay/neuter law.

I do think that surely the lawsuits would flood the courts if the AKC can't get recognized. We'll just have to see what happens.

[glencorgi]

Originally Posted by MyPemCharlie

Margo Milde's note does bring up an interesting point. The ordinance does state exemptions for different reasons "from a registry or association approved by the Department through its Commission." That is a big out if the Commission has not approved any registries isn't it? One would assume that AKC would be approved. There will certainly be a large public outcry if AKC is not an "approved" registry under the ordinance guidelines.

AKC does not meet the criteria for an "approved" registry under the ordinance's definitions.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I think Los Angeles did some similar "spay or pay" type program several years ago, with a result that people just quit licensing their dogs and shelter numbers increased. I'd have to go back and look that up again for a source. Imagine how many people will quit taking their pet to the vet for general or emergency care for fear of being reported for violation of the ordinance.

Lawsuits have already been filed I believe. But you hit the nail on the head regarding less licensing, less vet care and rabies vaccinations, shelter population increases ... everywhere this type legislation has passed, that has been the result.

It will be interesting to see the impact or aftermath of this law. Score one for the Animal Rights groups, zero for the Animal Welfare folks.

Just keep a watch on the news out of Dallas, they passed basically the same thing there.

Debbie

[LaRogue]

I do think that surely the lawsuits would flood the courts if the AKC can't get recognized. We'll just have to see what happens.

Lawsuits have already been filed I believe.

Lawsuits are my question. Haven't some of the lawsuits against the AR been successful? I must say, in some ways, I'm surprised by the success of AR. I think they use all of these cases of animal cruelty (Animal Planet) to their advantage, but I'm surprised that JQ Public is not raising an outcry. I know plenty of people I've tried to talk out of buying pet shop puppies who do it any way because they don't want breeders "telling them what to do with a puppy they're paying so much money for" with a spay/neuter contract. I just can't believe how successful they've been with this.

[glencorgi]

Originally Posted by LaRogue

Lawsuits are my question. Haven't some of the lawsuits against the AR been successful?

Louisville, KY has been somewhat successful. Breed Specific Legislation has been struck down in several states.

I must say, in some ways, I'm surprised by the success of AR. I think they use all of these cases of animal cruelty (Animal Planet) to their advantage, but I'm surprised that JQ Public is not raising an outcry.

Think a minute about PetsMart commercials - "pet parents." The new nail grinder - pet parent again. There are so many ways AR speak has infiltrated our language and thoughts. We no longer "own dogs," we have companion animals. The list goes on and on. What about the SPCA commercial with Sarah MacLaughlin? The thread on Obama promising to do away with puppy mills - those are all examples of how AR's are able to have the influence they do.

I know plenty of people I've tried to talk out of buying pet shop puppies who do it any way because they don't want breeders "telling them what to do with a puppy they're paying so much money for" with a spay/neuter contract. I just can't believe how successful they've been with this.

They've been working at it for over twenty years.

Debbie

[LaRogue]

I know what you're saying, but I just can't see people willing to live without pets or pets only for the wealthy. Let alone all of the money that would be lost to the economy with the limited amount of pets the AR people want.

On a somewhat positive note, I think I may have posted this in one of my "lost" posts (I've been posting and having them not show up, too) our local news had a piece a while back that was highlighting some of the AR ojbectives that are trying to be passed here in PA, in a less than positive light. I was surprised when I saw it. They did a nice and easy to understand job.

Here, at least, I think some are supporting this legistaltion because of all the negativity with the puppy mills in the east. No state wants to be known as the puppy mill capital of the East Coast. and there are always horrible news stories about them, the horders, illegal dog fighting, and on and on.

[glencorgi]

Originally Posted by LaRogue

I know what you're saying, but I just can't see people willing to live without pets or pets only for the wealthy. Let alone all of the money that would be lost to the economy with the limited amount of pets the AR people want.

The eventual goal is NO pets.

On a somewhat positive note, I think I may have posted this in one of my "lost" posts (I've been posting and having them not show up, too) our local news had a piece a while back that was highlighting some of the AR ojbectives that are trying to be passed here in PA, in a less than positive light. I was surprised when I saw it. They did a nice and easy to understand job.

THAT is good news. The more exposure and stripping away of the AR platitudes the better.

Here, at least, I think some are supporting this legistaltion because of all the negativity with the puppy mills in the east. No state wants to be known as the puppy mill capital of the East Coast. and there are always horrible news stories about them, the horders, illegal dog fighting, and on and on.

But you've already got laws on the books that cover all of the above. PA is the second most regulated state (after MO) in regards to animal welfare issues. The "mills" on Oprah's expose on "puppy mills," the facilities on there were located in PA and were in violation of any number of animal welfare statutes. So while the gasps of "how horrible" went out across the country by viewers, the little detail about them being in violation of state laws wasn't mentioned, nor were the facilities reported for officials to come in and have them clean up their act. Instead, what happened? More proposed legislation.

Debbie

[LaRogue]

The eventual goal is NO pets.

This is what I have the most difficulty understanding. I really, truely in my heart of hearts, do not see the American people allowing it to happen. I think as of right now, AR is successful because they've done an EXCELLENT job in the misdirection department. IMO, the US population, outside of specialized groups (breeders, show people, hunters, dog sporting participants, owners of banned breeds, etc), are not aware of AR's agenda. The casual owner (for lack of a better description on my part) has no reason to doubt what their being told, YET-it doesn't affect them-YET. They're going to accept the well funded AR line and think they're doing good. What decent person, pet lover or not, doesn't want to stop dog overpopulation, euthansia, and enact humane treatment for animals? THAT'S how they're selling it (IMO). I think AR's pitch now is wiining over some of the people who are not vested, but I see fundamental flaws with their plan down the road. When Mum and Dad, residents of these lovely places that have gotten an early start on this legislation, want a new puppy for their kids and CAN'T easily GET ONE, I forsee all 's breaking loose. I don't think AR will be very successful taking on racing (both dog and horse-but especially race horse owners with their $$$$$) and exactly what does AR think is going to replace the BIILLIONS the pet industry throws into the economy, yearly? Most people don't have a vested interest yet. As such they are accepting AR's well funded pitch, errorunously (sp) thinking it's to do good, but I think when the effects start being felt, it's going to be the kiss of death to AR. I believe pets are a positive and maybe even necessary piece of humanity and that people will refuse to allow us to become a petless society.

So while the gasps of "how horrible" went out across the country by viewers, the little detail about them being in violation of state laws wasn't mentioned, nor were the facilities reported for officials to come in and have them clean up their act.

Just to clarify, you're saying the Oprah people didn't report them AND that after the show aired, on national tv, no officials went out there?

[MyPemCharlie]

As Margo Mildes' article points out, by the time and lawsuits get settled and laws/ordinances get repealed, it may be too late...no animals left to be bred. The general public does not know what's going on, and apparently the Animal Welfare groups are not nearly as well funded or organized as the Animal Rights groups. You're right too, to the general public (and busy politicians) the surface messages that AR puts out "sound good".

Here in Austin a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance failed in 2005. In 2006, an ordinance passed to allow the city shelter to microchip all dogs turned in upon intake, and to spay/neuter any dog which showed up at the shelter more than once.

Anyone who is concerned about AR winning their battle to wipe out pets should stay abreast of pet laws and ordinances happening in our own towns. Groups like HSUS and PETA have national power, and are obviously pushing and winning their agenda one city at a time. That leaves those of us who want to continue to own pets somewhat unorganized and powerless at a national level. Add that to the general lack of public understanding of the true implications of the AR agenda, and we're competing on a very unlevel playing field.

[LaRogue]

I don't know. It seems to me that they AR people are being very deliberate and purposeful in selecting locations where they feel they have the best chance of success. I'm not sure a whole lot of breeders live in the cities (not to say that this legislation is any less important to defeat), but it seems to me they are using this as a jumping off point. I do not see a majority of suburbs or rural areas passing these types of laws.

I'm going to see if I can find some kind of "master" list of their legislative attempts. It would be interesting to see how many they have won, how many they have lost, and where. The orginal message said the meeting was July 29. I wonder how it went.

Anyone who is concerned about AR winning their battle to wipe out pets should stay abreast of pet laws and ordinances happening in our own towns.

For anyone who may not know, you can cjeck out what legislation is proposed in your area here: American Kennel Club Canine Legislation Department News Articles and you can sign up for email alerts, if you'd like.

[Peggy]

Originally Posted by LaRogue

I don't know. It seems to me that they AR people are being very deliberate and purposeful in selecting locations where they feel they have the best chance of success. I'm not sure a whole lot of breeders live in the cities (not to say that this legislation is any less important to defeat), but it seems to me they are using this as a jumping off point. I do not see a majority of suburbs or rural areas passing these types of laws.

They do pick where they have the best chance of success. Breeders and people in the dog fancy (who show) are in the minority in every city. And yes, those people do get out and oppose and they try to get the word out. Anti-pet legislation is brought up on many lists and people ask to write etc.

I'm going to see if I can find some kind of "master" list of their legislative attempts. It would be interesting to see how many they have won, how many they have lost, and where. The orginal message said the meeting was July 29. I wonder how it went.

Let us know if you find that, I'd be intrested in seeing it.

Also there is a list for pet law on Yahoo. pet-law : Pet-Law Join that if you want to know more about what's going on and what's being done to fight it. I will warn you it's high volume.

Maybe reread my article on Animal Rights. Lots of links there to read and research. http://www.gocorgi.com/forums/lounge...s-article.html

Peggy

[glencorgi]

The AKC Legislation alerts are good for the big stuff, and AKC legislation efforts have gotten much better in the past year or so. They are finally catching up. Pet-Law really covers from the minute local ordinances to national impacts and even some international.

Debbie