What is Going On in Louisville, Kentucky?
I have been getting some emails from folks barking about what is passing in Louisville for a new set of dog ordinances. Would any Dogster closer to the action there care to bark in and explain why the Louisville Metro Council feels its necessary to pass a tome of new laws aimed at dog owners? And why are the sides arranged according to political party?
Here are several articles from the Courier Journal.
The first one here ran on December 20th.
Metro Council adopts new dangerous-dog law
By Joseph Gerth
jgerth@courier-journal.com
The Courier-JournalA new dangerous-dog law passed early Wednesday morning will make it easier for animal-control officers to do their jobs and shouldn’t increase crowding at the city’s animal shelter, the director of animal services said.
But Dr. Gilles Meloche said he doesn’t know if he’ll need more officers to enforce the law, saying he would decide after it takes effect within three months.“When you have a better tool, you need less people,‿ said Meloche.
The Louisville Metro Council debated the new animal ordinance for more than nine hours before finally adopting it, on a 16-8 vote, about 3:45 a.m. Wednesday.
Mayor Jerry Abramson likely will sign it, his spokeswoman, Allison Martin, said Wednesday.
Under the ordinance, dogs will have to be spayed or neutered unless their owners are willing to pay higher licensing fees. Unaltered dogs also must be kept on short leashes while away from home.
Owners of unaltered dogs can’t depend on buried-wire electronic fences to keep them in the yard.
And if unaltered dogs are picked up by Animal Services for any reason, they must be spayed or neutered if their owners want them back.
Opponents were too upset to talk much after the meeting.
Meloche said among the most important provisions is a section that allows animal-control officers to cite pet owners based on their investigations.
Currently, officers must witness a violation before they can issue a citation.
Another provision, he said, should help in making sure dogs are properly licensed. Currently, about 15 percent of dogs are licensed in Louisville.
The new provision requires that veterinarians turn over copies of all vaccination certificates to government officials. Animal services can then compel those animal owners to comply with the licensing law.
Supporters said that the law wasn’t exactly what they had wanted but that it was a good start.
“It took a long time to get here,” said Cheri Bryant Hamilton, D-5th District.
The city’s dog laws became an issue last year, after a 14-month-old girl was killed by her family’s pit bull, and a short time later a 60-year-old man was killed by two dogs as he walked home from work.
Republicans offered more than 40 amendments and motions — most of them defeated — before they finally agreed to let the measure come for a vote. Although Democrats have a majority on the council, it took a two-thirds majority to call for the vote, which required some Republican votes.
Voting against the ordinance were Republicans Ken Fleming, Kevin Kramer, Kelly Downard, Julie Raque Adams, Stuart Benson, Robin Engel, Doug Hawkins and Ellen Call.
Hal Heiner was the only Republican to vote for it, along with all the Democrats. Republican Glen Stuckel abstained, and James Peden was out of town.
Hamilton originally wanted to ban pit bull dogs from the city but eventually relaxed her position. Late last week she agreed to abandon all special restrictions on them.
But Republicans were upset by the number of last-minute changes handed to them an hour and five minutes before the council was to consider the 94-page ordinance.
Democrats, who hold a majority of the council seats, thwarted several attempts by Republicans to delay a vote until next week or next month.
Mary Woolridge, D-3rd, one of the sponsors, said she would not agree to any delay. She argued that the council had been working on the ordinance for a year and that there had been enough discussion.
With that, Republicans began seeking amendment after amendment to the ordinance.
It took three hours to get through the first three pages of the ordinance.
By the time Downard, who led the GOP assault on the ordinance, gave in, the council had been through only about 40 pages — less than half the ordinance — and considered 43 amendments and motions.
Downard said he still had 87 more amendments to go but would try to address them early next year when the council members can hear from sportsmen, dog owners and others with a stake in the new law.
The night started with a full chamber of onlookers, and a nearby overflow room also was full.
By the time the final vote on the measure was taken, only 13 of them remained
Now, we see this piece asking the mayor to veto it because the Louisville Kennel Club is moving out of the city if the ordinance is adopted.
Mayor asked to veto dog ordinance
The Courier-JournalLouisville Metro Council Republicans have asked Mayor Jerry Abramson to veto the city’s new dangerous dog ordinance, which the council passed on Dec. 19.
Abramson, who has vetoed only one measure since he because the first mayor of Louisville’s merged city in 2003, has said he would probably sign the measure into law.
“I don’t think anything has been presented to him thus far that would lead him to believe the ordinance is fatally flawed,‿ said Chad Carlton, Abramson’s spokesman.
Republicans, in requesting the veto, said the ordinance would have an adverse economic impact on the city because the Louisville Kennel Club has threatened to move its annual dog show out of the city.
They also argue that it “violates the rights of responsible dog owners” and that it possibly violates state law.
Carlton said Abramson hasn’t received a copy of the ordinance and will consider those concerns when he reviews it.
And here is what the Louisville Kennel Club has posted on the American Kennel Club News site:
Friday, February 24, 2006]
The Louisville Metro Council Committee on Government Administration, Rules, Ethics, and Audit Agenda will meet at 4pm Monday, February 27th to discuss the proposed changes to the animal control ordinance. It is critical that fanciers and concerned dog owners contact their council members and ask them to oppose this measure. The American Kennel Club and the Louisville Kennel Club have sent letters of opposition to the metro council, but more help is needed. Participants are asked to arrive early as the Louisville Kennel Club will be providing attendees with red shirts to show solidarity in opposition to the provisions described below.
Proposed Louisville Animal Ordinance Endangers Dog OwnersFebruary 6, 2006
Help is urgently needed! The Louisville Metro Council will soon consider changes to its animal control ordinance that impose a number of burdensome fees, expensive licenses, and punitive restrictions that will be harmful to all dog owners.
It is unclear what problems this disjointed proposal attempts to solve. In fact, the provisions of this ordinance will create significant problems for responsible dog owners committed to socializing their animals. The proposal provides that an intact male dog can only be walked by an adult, and prohibits the animal from contact with other humans and dogs. Incredibly, the measure further prohibits a female and her litter from having contact with humans other than the owner until four months of age! The recent draft contains many such examples of regulations that prevent dog owners from acting responsibly.
Additionally, this restrictive measure would:
Require an annual $57 license for each unaltered dog or cat over four months old.
Define anyone who sells or gives away an animal as an “animal dealer” and require purchase of both an animal dealer license and a kennel license.
Require persons with more than 5 altered animals to purchase a kennel license.
Further require purchase of a kennel license by residents with less than 5 animals if they breed, show, or compete in field or obedience trials.
Establish a $5 “show dog” fee for every dog participating in conformation that can not show proof of license in another jurisdiction.
Specify that an animal may not be deemed dangerous solely because it bites or attacks.
In applying for any animal dealer or kennel license, dog owners would be forced to comply with a long list of provisions, including submitting to property and record-keeping inspections. Breeders would also be required to report all sales and provide license tags to new owners.As dog owners may recall, in late 2005, Councilwoman Cheri Bryant Hamilton introduced a breed-specific proposal targeting Rottweilers and “pit bulls,” defined as Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, or any dog which has the appearance and characteristics of these breeds. While AKC applauds the council’s decision to pursue strong dangerous dog and animal control legislation in lieu of a breed-specific ordinance, this proposal does nothing to address irresponsible ownership, makes it harder to declare a dog dangerous and places severe burdens on responsible dog owners.
From the dates on the AKC notices and the statements from the laws’ proponants, this fight seems to have been going on for a while.
Would anyone like to share their side of the story with the rest of us?
All I can say is “Bravo!” for Louisville’s taking a hard line stance against backyard breeders, and for NOT imposing breed specific legislation. Pet overpopulation is a far more serious problem than is the issue of “dangerous dogs,” and it appears that the new requirements and restrictions set forth by the Louisville City Council are aimed at abating the overpopulation problem. Serious, responsible breeders should have no problem agreeing to property inspections and paying higher license fees. The property inspection is to protect the breeding dogs and puppies from neglect, abuse and exploitation. The higher license fees for unaltered dogs is the price one SHOULD expect to pay for bringing yet MORE dogs onto this earth while millions suffer unnecessary and often inhumane deaths each year via euthanasia, abuse or starvation.
While I am adamantly opposed to any form of breed specific legislation, I am wholly in support of bringing the axe down on backyard breeders and the irresponsible owners who contribute to pet overpopulation by failing to spay or neuter their animals.
P.S., it is not at all surprising that the AKC would be opposed to Louisville’s new breeding restrictions. The AKC is money-making entity that profits greatly from backyard breeders. The AKC’s motives in fighting this kind of legislation is not in the interest of the welfare of dogs but only in the interest of maintaining their cash flow.
The post marked “Maggie and Lucy” exemplifies the kind of ignorance that allows this poor legislation. This legislation is aimed at backyard breeders of mixed breed dogs. The dogs the mayor of Albequerque parades around are muts. The law HURTS legitimate breeders of pure breeds who do NOT end up in shelters! Unless the world and sport of pure breed dogs is to be overtaken by rich large kennels, these laws must be stopped. They prevent life-long breeders, people who give up every dime of extra income and every moment of extra time to showing, raising and improving the qualitiy of breeds they love. They produce the dogs you watch at Westminster and Eukenuba. And yet, they are to be punished b/c some losers don’t get their mutt spayed or nuetered? There’s got to be a better answer.
I absolutely agree with Maggie and Lucy. These types of laws will help to reduce pet overpopulation and minimize the number of animals being put down each month. Maybe people will think twice before taking on the giant responsibility of owning a pet.
Stacey- I worked at the SPCA for several years and I can assure you, 30% of the animals we took in were purebred animals with well intentioned, yet irresponsible owners. These are the people who spent a lot of money on purebreds, but ended up getting divorced, moving, having more children, or just decided they weren’t dog people. Breeders, even responsible ones, DO NOT know where every puppy from every litter ends up after two years.
Backyard breeding and “accidental” breeding should be discouraged by any means possible. But don’t hurt the responsible breeders in the process.
One thing in the proposed law that really upset me was the section stating that Mommas and their litters should be kept away from all people except their owners until the age of 4 months. That’s ridiculous! Puppies need to be socialized at an early age or they have great difficulty ever relating well to strangers. This can cause a fearful dog that could be prone to fear biting. In orher words, it could cause exactly what the lawmakers are trying to prevent.
I don’t understand the big controversy here. I’m happy to hear that these ordinances have been passed. Of course I don’t see why this falls under the category of “dangerous dog” laws.
There are certainly flaws, such as keeping intact and young animals away from other people and dogs. After all, lack of socialization is a big factor in making dogs “dangerous.” But overall, it’s going to do a lot for preventing overpopulation.
I can understand that responsible breeders are feeling put out, but there are options that will allow them to continue breeding. A breeder’s or kennel license should absolutely be required. The kennel should also be subject to strict provisions and inspections. Unfortunately for the responsible breeders, these are now necessary measures to put a stop to the rampant puppy mills and irresponsible breeders.
A note to Stacey…
“Ignorance” is all a matter of perspective. I am well aware of the distinction between “responsible” breeders and “irresponsible” breeders, i.e., backyard breeders and “accidental” breeders. However, TRULY responsible breeders acknowledge that the pet overpopulation is out of control. TRULY responsible breeders should have no problem paying higher license fees as they acknowledge it is the price of “doing business”–they are, afterall, selling the puppies they breed–often for a very handsome price. The higher cost in licence fees a TRULY responsible breeder would have to pay is relatively small compared to the amount of money they make selling the puppies. And any TRULY responsible breeder who has a problem with mandatory inspection of the breeding facility or home environment in which the puppies are raised must have something to hide (and, thus, is probably not a TRULY responsible breeder in the first place).
Lastly, your blatantly discriminatory tone toward mixed breeds–mutts, as you so disdainfully refer to them–is, I’m sure, quite offensive to the many TRULY responsible dog guardians who work tirelessly and sacrifice “every dime of extra income and every moment of extra time” to try to make this world a kinder, gentler place for dogs of all breeds or mixes thereof. Dogs are our friends and companions–not livestock whose only worth is judged by its pedigree. Shame on you for asserting that “mutts” do not deserve the same rights and respect as do your precious “purebreds.”
Regarding the proposal to not allow the pups to be around other dogs or other people except their guardian(s), that is to protect other dogs and people from rabies. Puppies cannot be safely vaccinated against rabies until the age of 4 months. I suspect the city council’s motive for this new law is in consideration of this.
Bravo! As a native Louisvillian currently residing in rural Texas, and as the founder and executive director of a home-based no-kill rescue and shelter, I must say that it is about time more cities and counties are forcing dog AND cat guardians to be responsible and at the very least, spay and/or neuter and microchip their animals.
I’ll keep my nose out of the breeding issue, but would like to point out that we have had numerous purebred dogs and cats come through our facility in the 5 yrs we’ve been operating, and provide purebreed cat rescue through area breeders associated with and members of the Cat Fancier’s Asociation. We provide volunteers for local cat shows in order to raise funds for our organization (a 501(c)3) with nonprofit status.
The ONLY answer is education and emphasis on spay/neuter….the number of kittens and puppies we have to turn away is disgusting and I know what happens to them when we can’t take them in, as we are the only no-kill in our county.
These unwanted and abandoned animals do not deserve to die simply because their people no longer want them, or are pregnant, or moving, or divorcing, or didn’t bother to housetrain the dog and/or didn’t bother to spay/neuter the dog or cat. It is not the fault of the animals – it is a problem resting solely with the irresponsible pet owner.
Okay. So maybe I’m just ignorant or something. I don’t get it. Why are people upset with spay/neuter?
Let puppies and kitties be born all over the place – and then kill them.
That is exactly what is happening right in our own communities. The moment I and my five siblings were born – six puppies were going to do die. I don’t know the fate of my five siblings, but because my momma choose me – I lived and the pup that my momma did not choose was killed. As with my five siblings. Ten puppies. Five homes. Five deaths.
It is unfortunate that there are more irresponsible\uniformed humans than responsible\informed humans, and it is because of this tragedy that so many innocent lives are slaughtered. This is the reason that very strict spay\neuter legislation are needed. Humans just don’t get it, or maybe they just don’t care.
For every puppy you breed (purebred – mixed – mutt) and find a home for, you are causing the death of another.
For The Love Of Dog – Spay and Neuter
Dakota
“Don’t be blinded by the lie. When you breed – dogs die!”
Unfortunately, I have read a great deal of this 94-page legislation. I would hope everyone will do that before jumping on this bandwagon. It’s not only about breeders and spaying & neutering. There is definitely an underlying BSL here. This piece of legislature needs to be canned. Sorry if that offends anyone, but if you think this is a good thing, READ IT. It covers “dangerous dog” and they lay out what THEY think dangerous dogs are and also “potentially” dangerous dogs. What is that? Who can say what dog is potentially dangerous? And the laws and requirements are absolutely absurd. Think about it – 94 pages! No, no , no…. This needs to stop.
I agree that when you read this legislation, you see more than what is tapped on here. THAT is the stuff that I am more upset about. The Spay and Neutering, well that needs to be handled. I dont totally agree with the way they are doing it, but there is the huge problem needing dealt with. But the BSL in this, and its still there floating just under the surface, that worries me.
And I think in part the 4 month thing with the puppies is also to keep people (especially the mills nad back yarders) from shoving puppies out the door that are only 4 or 5 weeks old in order to get more puppies out. But the very bad side effect of that law will cause more damage than they think. Its vital that the pups get handling and socialized while they are young. As a breeder you handle your pups, often. And most allow contact with a very select group of outsiders (IE prospective buyers that choose their pups when they are still young, and come visit thier pups while they wait for them to come home. Friends of the family, and a select group of outside dogs.) A pup without contact with the outside world, by 4 months!? That is totally asking for the kind of trouble that they dont want: dangerous dogs.
In some ways what they did here was a good thing. In some it shows ignorance and fear. Ingorance of true dog behaviors, misinformation spouted by people who have no idea what they are talking about, and the fears of people who’s only dog knowledge comes from what they see in the news…. these things lead us down a road we dont want to go people!
I have lived in Louisville, Kentucky all my life, left a few times and even come back. I am ashamed to say I live here now.
At first I was all for this ordinance, in regards to the dangerous dogs (aka stupid owners)
In certain parts of the city it is nothing to literally have to run away from a lose dangerous dog on every corner. Not to mention the Morons that are allowed to bring their dangerous dogs in to the pet stores with no collar, just a Thugged out 50 pound chain around it’s neck.
But now, this ordinance is just another one of the *cough* beloved *cough* Mayors attempt to please those who are kissing his butt for other motives. It is really asinine.
At this point in the game, if my neighbors call twice to lodge a “complaint” just because they don’t like me, which there is really no true definition as to what a “complaint” can range from, then my fully licensed, fully trained, spayed & neutered dogs will be picked up and held for “boarding & Vet fees” that will be around $450.00 + $15.00 a day and of course court costs and anything else they decide to tack on.
Of course, the way the initial “complaint” is respondend to will be up to “the discretion of each individual Animal control officer” – meaning if they want to investigate or just come pick them up, it will be up to them.
Now really, if you want to read the entire, just officially approved and signed 01/04/2007 ordinance click the above link.
And don’t forget to keep in mind, our Tax dollars at work with the sections about “Poisons”, “Sexual Acts with Animals” and the, Oh Louisville just got with the GreenPeace program “Release of Balloons”.
It is OK for my welfare neighbor with 5 kids let them run the streets barefoot and only underwear on at all hours of the day and night. No ordinances restricting that type of behaviour. But let my dog look at them the wrong way from behind my fenced yard or Bark too loud, and the games will begin.
The first few months this Ordinance will really make the news, especially in the West end. But once the Animal Control Office realizes they best be able to control those East End Mayor friends complaints it will all go on the back burner like everything else in this city.
I live in KY and have been involved in this ordinance mess for the last 6 months, so I can give you the exact low-down on what’s going on here. First, our Mayor-For-Life (as he likes to be known), Jerry Abramson, hired Dr. Gilles Meloche, a DVM from Canada who pled guilty to 24 counts of selling steroids without prescriptions/required recordkeeping in Canada. Told that once his Canadian DVM license expired, they would not renew it, he moved to the US and became the dog catcher in Durham, NC in 2001. He was fired from that job for insubordination (he started a huge fight on the City Council); and 2002 found him in Tallahassee, FL as Animal Services Director. Depending on who you speak with, he either resigned or was fired from that job after turning that town upside down and starting a huge political fight. There were also allegations on animal abuse/maltreatment at his hands. Next, he surfaces in Louisville in 2005 where our nimcompoop of a Mayor doesn’t bother to actually check his work history or background and hires him (he makes $90K/year for a job that he doesn’t even qualify for since he’s not a US Citizen, but that’s another story…..). Since arriving in “The ‘Ville”, he has earned the enmity of nearly everyone involved with animals—the stories of what has gone on at the animal shelter would literally turn your stomach. The pain and suffering and loss of animal life at the hands of this man is incredible! Due to Meloche’s incompetence and unwillingness to do his job, a man lost his life, killed by an attack by two loose dogs, allegedly both Pit Bulls, although eye witnesses claim one was a Border Collie. Local residents had made 4 calls to Animal Services to pick these dogs up, but because they were in the “bad part of town”, nobody ever showed up. When a little girl lost her life, attacked by the family PB, one of our Council members decided to go on a crusade against all dogs. She enlisted the help of Dr. Meloche and that ever-popular organization, HSUS, to help her draft her ordinance. It took 13 months, nearly as many drafts and ended up being over 100 pages in length. Despite the constant efforts of many local dog clubs and animal interest groups to help craft the law, all their advice and input (including that of the KY Vet’y Medical Assn!) was ignored and the result was a behemoth code that’s no more than a playbook for the Animal Rights Agenda. Sold to the public as a ‘Dangerous Dog’ ordinance, it’s nothing of the kind. It’s a direct attack on every pet owner in the County. Furthermore, it’s a direct violation of numerous Civil and Property Rights Laws as well as being unconstitutional. People are already selling their homes and closing their businesses to get out of Dodge. The economic impact of this on the County will, I believe conservatively, be around $20 million in lost revenue, and likely much higher. The worst part is that it’s established a beach head of the worst sort of legislation which HSUS/PETA and the like will use as a model for other communities. So if you think this law is a good thing, I urge you to get online and read if for yourself. When you’re done puking, start packing, because it’s coming to a town near you real soon. Be afraid. Be very, very afraid….
Thank you to everyone who has barked in about this post.
Barbara, you mentioned that the HSUS has been involved in writing this document. What has been the extent of their involvement as far as you know? Anyone else who has good information on this is welcome to bark in too!
At first look this ordinance started out as a good thing for me personally, but now having read it I have since discovered that it is only about KICK BACKS and Good Ol Boy politicing…I only own a cat, but today I put my home on the market….Why??? Because I know what will happen next….Yep, you guessed it…A rather large increase in my real estate taxes and home insurance policy. We homeowners will end up being the ones to pay for all the dogs surrendered, the court appearances and the jail times and the extra staff and more government it will take to put all this into effect…..Total insanity is being commited here.
You asked how much HSUS was involved? HSUS was
the PRIMARY supporter of this legislation. This is
evident in my favorite part of the ordinance: “It is unlawful
to intentionally release balloons into the atmosphere”.
Why?? because balloons
float eastward and fall in the ocean, where dolphins eat
them and die with blocked digestive tracts. Now I love
dolphins, but how many dolphins will be saved by this??
Why didn’t they outlaw smokers from owning pets??
Second hand smoke hurts animals as much as people!!
Oh wait…this is Kentucky. How did we get from vicious
dog attacks to balloons??? answer: HSUS
I also don’t understand why such laws are enacted
to “protect” dogs, when human children receive less
protection. Isn’t there a human overpopulation as well??
Laws in China and India say so. Why not have an
ordinance to spay/neuter a runaway child who ends
up picked up by the police? Why not a “breeders fee”
for any “intact humans”? How about mandatory
inspections of homes with more than 3 children??
Don’t our children deserve as much “protection” from
inhumane treatment, backyard breeders, and over
population as much as our pets?
Am I crazy?? check back in 20 years, if people like HSUS
take control of the country.
- Kevin, a resident of Lexington, KY
If the human population/area ratio in the U.S. approaches that of China and India, it won’t be just “people like HSUS” that propose regulations on human breeding. People and other domesticated animals are protected from the population-limiting forces of nature (aka. unpleasant early death for the majority), and therefore must either show restraint or be restricted in regards to their reproduction rates if they are to avoid running out of room and resources or being euthanized to make room for the new litters.
There is no such thing as a responsible dog or cat breeder, because it is irresponsible to add to the epidemic pet overpopulation while the so many suffer and die in cages.
And purebreds are inbreds. Anyone devoted to keeping them genetically isolated from other breeds and mutts is not doing what’s best for the dogs’ health and temperament.
And Stacey, you might want to do a little more research into your “purebreds raised by legitimate breeders don’t end up in shelters” theory before throwing around the word “ignorance” again.
I noted “Barbara’s” comments on Gilles Meloche with interest. Despite what everybody has said, one question has not been answered. Does Meloche actually have a US Veterinary School diploma? I can’t find a reference to one and my veterinarian is just a courious about this as I am. Knowing the ease with which a “diploma” can be ginned up with a computer, I should think that this avenue would be one of the first to be examined if we want to get rid of him.
Years later, here’s an update to let you know how this has worked out. First, ALL pet owners are now targets. Folks are afraid to even get their animals vaccinated for fear their vets will turn them in to Animal Control (not true, but that’s the perception they have).
Passed as a ‘dangerous dog’ law, attacks on citizens actually INCREASED REMARKABLY after this law was passed, making it a complete failure as per its intended outcome.
Meanwhile, citizens have had their homes entered while they were away and all their animals seized in “sting” operations that tie up between 2-8 police cruisers. All animals confiscated are altered & owners are handed a tab of between $2,000-$4,000 to get their dogs back.
90% or more of the dogs going back home are costing an additional $200-$800 in vet fees because they are all SICK with Parvo, Brucellosis or worse.
One young man, caught in a ’sting’ for not having a license for 2 dogs attempted to pay his fee, only to find that his $60 license fee went up to $341 in less than a month. He went to court 8 times, ended up with over $2,000 in fines, fees & atty costs, and unable to pay it within the week demanded (he makes $10/hr); they destroyed both his dogs.
Meanwhile, animals in the shelter suffer & die daily. Built to house under 200, it currently is bulging with over 535 dogs and cats. Needless to say, disease is rampant.
Most of the “sting” operations are taking place on purebred dog breeders in the hopes people will abandon their animals when the huge fines of thousands of dollars are assessed. Those dogs are then sold at DOUBLE to TRIPLE the adoption fee of the “lesser pooches” and there is a huge question about where all that $$ is going.
Citizens are living in fear. Even an ex-SWAT team member had ACOs and cop cars show up at his house to seize ONE YORKIE PUPPY.
Meanwhile, in a nearby county, HSUS is hard at work trying to get a similar bill passed which they also helped write, like the one here. In it, discretion is given for non-ACOs and non-police officers to be designated as “agents” and given the right to enter people’s homes if they suspect a “dangerous dog” lives there. Also, they are given the right to CARRY A WEAPON, and the county has already said they will provide NO TRAINING ON PROPER POLICE PROCEDURES FOR WARRANTS/SEARCHES/SEIZURES.
Welcome to the new police state, baby! While you sit around and point fingers at who is worse, AKC or back-yard breeders, YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE BEING TAKEN FROM YOU! You’re too busy pointing your fingers to see that YOU ARE ALL IN DANGER! First, your dogs. Then, your guns. Then they’ll come for you. Achtung!