Subscribe To Dog Politics

For Your Bumper

  • USA My Dog Votes™ Bumper Sticker 3.75 x 7.5

  • Canadian My Dog Votes™ Bumper Sticker 3.75 x 7.5


Terms & Conditions

    By reading, linking to, quoting, printing out, or in any way making use of the content on Dog Politics in any means, place, or forum, you agree to the following Terms & Conditions: Download DogPoliticsTerms.doc (27.5K) Thank you to InstaPundit -

Support This Blog!

April 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      

Give Them The Boot!

  • WHO WOULD YOU BOOT FROM OFFICE? My Dog Votes asked for nominations. We thought you'd like to know, so click on this map!

    Check out our Frappr!


  • Go on - take it! Use this button to awaken your inner dog activist.

Naughty or Nice?

  • Who's neen Naughty or Nice? And who'll get coal in their stockings in the next election!

Blog Feeds

Blog Roll


My Skypecasts

My Dog Votes GCast

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Dog Politics Tag Cloud

Newsvine dog News

Good Stuff

My Dog Votes Zvents

Blog powered by Typepad

Pitbull Owners Survival Guide

« BREAKING NEWS: Pitbull Owners File Suit Against City Of Denver | Main | Lessons In Truth From My Dead Ex-Husband »

April 13, 2007


daniel jacobson

Hi my name is Daniel Jacobson, I am a proud owner of 8 years of a beautiful american stafforshire terrier, brindle colored.She has been and is my best friend. I recently moved to Denver hearing of this ridiculous law of banning a nonexistent breed of dog. I came home the 15 of June 2007, to find a note at my door, warning me of a possible ordinance violation. After reeding the report and then calling the City of Aurora Animal care division, I find that someone who I cant even confront feels threatened from walking in front of my house with her child because my dog is barking out a screen window, of course not taking notice of my dog Princess's tail wagging for excitement, not hostility. I then find the lady reported that the dog was a "pitbull" in her opinion. According to the Animal Care Division that is grounds to come to my house on Friday morning and if my dog appears to look like a member of the so called "pittbull" then she will be taken from me. This of course outraged me. My friend "Princess" (my dog), has been nothing but good around kids, cats, and lets not forget to mention proud mother of two healthy litters. Ignorance has created this genocide of what I consider to be the best breed of dog there is. I am now dedicated to fixing or at least fighting for the rights of those breeds that cannot defend themselves. The government loves to pick on the defensless and this is wrong and just pure evil in my opinion. Thankyou for taking the time to read this, continute the fight.

Cherie Graves, Chairwoman RDOWS

“The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully, and unawaredly enslave themselves.”_ Dresden James

It is very important to understand exactly what the definition of property is before agreeing to give it away. We tend to devalue the idea of property, as "just property" thus showing our ignorance, and disregard for our precious rights of ownership. Property is divided into two classes: real property such as land, or real estate, and personal property meaning everything to which we own title that is not land or real estate.

The ownership of property is one of our most precious rights granted under the Constitution of the United States of America. It establishes we the people as individuals with the freedom to control our own lives. The founding fathers of this great land came from European kingdoms where all of the people, and all of the land, and all of the animals, and all of the goods belonged to the monarchy. They understood that ownership is freedom. The right of property ownership is given an important place in our enumerated freedoms.

Ownership, and possession of property are two different things under the law. Ownership gives the title holder the right to retain, and to enjoy your property to the exclusion of all others. Possession is the right to temporary custody and does not necessarily include the right to title. For example a renter of an apartment, or garage, or the lessee of a dog or a bitch for breeding purposes has temporary possession without ownership. The landlord, or registered dog owner has the title, and all of the rights that accompany ownership, but is not in temporary possession of said property. Property can be acquired in numerous ways, it can be bought, inherited, received as a gift. A sale transfers ownership from the buyer to the seller. It is the expected responsibility of the owner to maintain the property in such a manner as to cause no harm to either the property, or to the surrounding neighbors, or neighborhood. With ownership, comes responsibilities that are not incurred by those persons having simple possession, such as a guardian. A guardian is simply a buffer between the actual owner i.e. the landlord, or in the case of animals, or human beings the government. The guardian has no intrinsic rights of possession, that possession is transitory and is subject to the terms of agreement between the true owner, and the guardian. A guardian has no rights in buying, selling, or trading of property. A guardian is financially responsible for the property while said property is in his/her possession.

Emotional attachment in an animal is an important reason to retain ownership, rather than relinquishing said ownership. An owner has a legal right to possession. Only when an owner's negligence, or carelessness gives due cause for the removal of the property may authorities take legal steps to remove that property from the ownership, and possession of the titled owner. Each case must be tried on an individual basis so that all owners are not subject to the same punishments as the irresponsible, careless, or negligent owner.

Breed specific dog laws are much easier to fight when we retain ownership, and use rights over our animals. There has been great headway made in the Courts of this land to overturn BSL, after the initial losses. Animals are among the most ancient of traditional property. If we wish to continue to have animals in our possession, then we should fight strenuously to retain our ownership, and property rights.


To the 'lawyer'. It's not about choosing whether you are 'AR or AW' to fight BSL.

The AR gang wants to eliminate pet ownership, therefore, they support BSL. That's why peta sends out that nonsensical piece on 'pit bulls' all the time. It fools people who don't know anything about the subject.

Get it? You don't have to be a genius to understand the issue here. Many well meaning people fall for the public relations and don't see the true agenda of AR extremists. That was the point of bringing the two completely different philosophies into it.

As for winning and losing, stay tuned.


"I also do rescue/adoption work and EVERY breed that is on the market today ends up in rescue sooner or later, mostly as breeder discards or breeder shut-downs, or by people who bought a breed without being prepared to deal with the behavior of that breed."

Kay, your post and specifically the quote above absolutely offends me. As an occasional breeder (2 litters in 12 years) I do not now nor have I ever discarded any dog of my breeding. In addition, I rescue and not just my breed.

I am very stringent about who is lucky enough to receive one of my puppies. In fact the contract on a companion animal requires that said animal be spayed/neutered and the penatly for failure to comply is $5,000.00. My contract includes a clause that the dog must be returned to me if for any reason the purchaser is unable to keep the dog for any reason...the penalty again is $5,000.00. Placing the dog with rescue or a shelter incurs another penatly of $5,000.00. These clauses in my contract are not there to make me money...but are there to help weed out those who would violate those clauses. I would not hesitate to enforce said contract. The reason I have never had to do so is because before my puppies are placed I do a home check, check veterinary references, personal references, employment references and so on. Those who don't want to comply with my requirements can simply go jump in a lake...they do not get one of my puppies that I planned and worked so hard for. The companion puppy is not a "throw away" but it is a puppy that for some reason will not be a show dog.

They are many more provisions to my contract but the point here is that responsible breeders health test their dogs prior to breeding and take responsibility for each and every dog they bring into this world. A good breeder will only bring puppies into this world that they are willing to commit to for the rest of that puppy's life. Health testing for my breed that means, echo cardiogram, 24 hour holter monitor, burcilious, thryoid, hips...etc...etc..

Are there breeders that do not do the bet...and those are the folks that help to create the overpopulation issue. Specifically those breeders are commercial breeders (yep there is such a rotten thing) and back yard breeders that have no clue what they are doing and tend to breed either for monetary gain or the one that really chaps me is "I want my child to experience birth." Damn, go buy a tape and show it to your child. Don't experiment with a dog.

Overpopulation is an issue I might add that is compounded by the fact that many shelters around the country import dogs from other countries to fill the need.

Repsonsible breeders health test, they require and enforce spay and neuter and they take responsibility for the life of that puppy.... oh yeah, and those like me rescue as well.

Why not try to find something positive to say and quit trying to beat up those of us who actually do care and prove that every day.

Charles Brettell

Wow, and I thought being anti-BSL was enough. Now I have to decide whether I'm AR or AW, too! Seriously, this is really sad. Instead of banding together on what should be any easy call - raise your hand if you think BSL is a bad idea - everyone is breaking out the name calling. It's no wonder you people can't stop BSL or anything else. As long as we engage in self-destruction, Kory and his ilk can sit back and relax. Disgraceful!

Oh yeah, and who among you is the genius lawyer? Anyone? Guess what. BSL has been upheld damn near everywhere (OH is still an open question), so these folks are taking a different tack. Turns out, that's what lawyers do b/c you aren't allowed to relitigate the same issues again and again (there's this thing called res judicata). And yes, I am a lawyer so I get to have an informed opinion here. Isn't this kind of ignorant crap the very thing we all fight against? I can't tell you how many times I've used the word "ignorant" to describe a City Councilperson. And now this. Ridiculous!


I sent Sonya some questions so I could 'interview' her.

She has answered the first three and will answer the rest later. The post is on my blog, Caveat.

I saw the statement she sent out this morning, it wasn't completely clear where she stood.

I have to admit that while I obviously support ownership vs guardianship from a legal standpoint, I do understand that some people who are compassionate might lean towards guardianship, not realizing some of the far-reaching implications of that idea.

I know I'm a broken record on this but I firmly believe, and experience shows, that zero tolerance enforcement of licensing, leashing and cruelty/neglect laws are all that is needed to shut down the TINY minority of abusive, incompetent or uncommitted dog owners.

I'd like to see the end of dog-selling in pet shops and over the internet as well, that would go a long way towards curtailing uncaring, greedy breeders and merchants.

Anybody who disputes the fact, backed up my numerous statements from members, that animal rights groups wish to outlaw domestic animal husbandry still doesn't understand the BIG difference between AR and animal welfare.

Animal welfare groups want to educate owners to make pets' lives better. Animal rights groups don't want animals to be pets. There's not much middle ground there, unfortunately.


you showed SUPPORT for Sonya, Barb?
With numerous phrases like these:
"Does she have ulterior motives"; "what are your intentions"; "credibility is at stake" "Which path will you chose"

Oh yeah you did make one off-the-cuff generic "we support anyone" comment which you buried among several rhetorical questions clearly expressing your distrust of Sonya specifically.

Funny way of showing support

EDITOR's NOTE: Oh - yeah - Emily -maybe you FORGOT the previous post - "Breaking NEWS" where I posted the good news and posted the address where dog lovers can DONATE to Sonya & group.... for is that conveniently forgotten??????

Yea - Emily - a funny thing happened on the way the the blog post.............. Regarding those "allegations" - I called Sonya and asked her to respond - and she swore up and down that the suit was strictly BSL - nothing else. So -when the very next morning - Sonya's attorney's comments were posted to a Yahoo Group list, and seemed in direct contradiction to Sonya's assurances the previous day, I made sure to contact Sonya BEFORE posting anything.

I asked Sonya to address the comments made by Karen Breslin - her attorney. Sonya said she would make a statement that would reveal her "secret agenda". Sonya did finally make a statement this morning - which does not confirm or deny the allegations.

I guess we must all wait and see - we will see what happens in court, won't we?


well, I "get" that this is a completely ginned up "controversy" that is DETRACTING from any useful discussion of guardianship as a threat to dog owners. It was evidently prompted by a recent email attack circulated by people who do not have our interests at heart, but only care about their own egos. Shameful that Barb is promulgating their vicious personal attacks on Sonya by accusing her of "ulterior motives". Attacking the victims of BSL serves no-one's interest... except those of our enemies. I am at a loss to imagine why Barb thinks she is advancing the debate by this tactic.

EDITOR's NOTE: First - I did not create the controversy about the Dias v. Denver lawsuit - I merely blogged about it. Writing about a controversy does not constitute an endorsement of the allegations, nor is writing about it an endorsement of those creating the controversey. Writing about the controversy IS NOT a personal attack on Sonya Dias. In the end - I was very clear to show support for anyone taking on the City of Denver. At the same time, I am, and always will be, in support of ownership, not guardianship.


Get what, Barb?

sigh..... sigh.... big sigh.... do any of youa ctually "get it"? Thanks Barb

Laura Gonzo

OK, I'm new to the ownership vs guardianship debate, so please understand i'm honestly trying to better understand the argument. Your indulgence is gratefully appreciated...

OK, I get that I want my dogs to be my property so that the government can't bust down my door and haul them away b/c they don't like how they look. I really get that.

One thing I have seen in cases where a pet is killed by someone other than the owner, is that there is very little recourse since the pet is just valued as an object worth X number of dollars (my dogs were all rescues, what is their dollar value in the eyes of the law?).

SO, for the sake of argument, I have a three year old son. He's not considered property but the government can't come take him away (unless I'm a bad mommy). If something terrible happened to him due to someone else's negligence or worse - God forbid - the potential for legal and financial recourse is significant.

Wouldn't it be good if my dogs were valued more as family members like my son than as objects like my TV?

Again, my mind is wide open here and I'm looking forward to being educated.

Thanks all.


Everyone is so quick to applaud the Tellings V Toledo victory, but deny ACF (American Canine Foundation) credit for winning that case. Since Sonya has spent the day with me and my "property" at the show in Golden, I am only going to express my dissapointment that she did not hire ACF to litigate this suit. Since I warned her very early on about the potential dangers of working so closely with ARM and IDOA, I can only hold my breath and pray for everyone that can potentially be affected by the outcome of this case. I have read Karen Breslins comments posted on CO petlaw and they are truly frightening. If I had but one check to write this week, it would go to ACF for the suit in CA. Sorry Sonya, but I will always back a proven winner. Even one that is so controversial, because in the end, Glen is usually right about these things. ACF has a track record that speaks even louder than he does. Best of luck to all the dog OWNERS in Denver. They sure need it...

Kay Sievers

Has anyone read the link to the lawsuit I posted? People, it is a LAWSUIT, based on the 14th and 5th amendments. It is not proposed legislation. It has nothing to do with proposed legislation. No matter what happens in the future, I see no way that this LAWSUIT could have any effect on proposed legislation regarding ownership. Particularly since it is based on OWNERSHIP and violations of 14th & 5th amendments.

No wonder the fight against BSL is such an uphill battle.

That's all, folks.

EDITOR' NOTE: Kay - The post entitled "Drama In Denver" is written about the CONTROVERSY raised about the suit from allegations by another group as well as comments by Karen Breslin - not the suit or the filing, which at this point, is based soley on constitutional grounds. Please see the previous post - BREAKING NEWS: Denver................


I think we're getting into a forest and trees situation here.

The solution to cruelty and neglect is not writing more laws. It is enforcing the laws which are already on the books, something which has been lacking across the continent.

If necessary, as in Canada, these laws may need review and updating which could include increased penalties for offenders.

You cannot legislate compassion just as you cannot legislate away stupidity.

All the introduction of the 'guardian' meme would do is

i) create more income for lawyers
ii) add to the confusion around animal welfare laws
iii) open the door to abuse of civil rights
iv) see i).

It's a nice idea and I'm sure that most readers of this and other blogs agree that dogs are not just property in the true sense.

I believe that the only way to effectively protect dogs is by keeping them in the property section. Changing that won't change the attitudes and activities of the minority who do not value dogs or other animals. It will only make life more difficult for the vast majority of caring, compassionate dog owners and for the dogs themselves.

The problem with working in rescue is that you only see the dark side of things. Like the police, you go into it wanting to help and make a difference. Stay in it long enough and you become disappointed and cynical. It is only one small area of the big picture.

If Kay is referring to my comment, I'd like to clarify that I really meant she should get a blog - she has something to say and should get it out there for others to see.


The complaint as it was initially filed looks just fine, it's the stated INTENT of both lawyer Karen Breslin and plaintiff Sonya Dias that has the hair standing up on the back of my neck.

Plaintiff Dias quoted per 7-News Denver:
> Dias said it's inappropriate for governments to consider pets just as property.
> "He's my family. I'm not just going to give him away or let the city of Denver kill him," she said.
> The argument that pets are not just property is going to be a key point in the case.

Lawyer Breslin as quoted in the Rocky Mountain News:
> Karen Breslin, a Lakewood lawyer representing the three women, said they will try a different tack than was used in previous challenges to the pit bull ban, which she said treated dogs as a piece of property.
> "This isn't a piece of property," she said of Gryffindor, whose name comes from the Harry Potter novels. "This is a beloved family member.",1299,DRMN_15_5474747,00.html

The unintended consequences of "guardianship" for pets scare the bejeezus outta me. There are many laws and rules already in place for guardianship and they were written for PEOPLE rather than pets. Do pet owners newly annointed by law as "guardians" want to be compelled by law to find a sitter or daycare to keep their pet(s)/"companions" each time they need to visit the store? Do we wish to file a court order to receive permission to have an ill and suffering pet euthanized? Do we want to be responsible for the mounting vet bills (and daycare or sitter bills if more than a single pet household) because choice to euthanize is not ours to make? And that's the short list. I haven't read up on guardian laws extensively, but I suspect we're talking reams of pages of new "do" and "don't" rules for our animals if the courts give a "guardian" proposal wings.

The initial Complaint that was filed looks innocuous enough, but court filings get amended and take twists and turns along the way. What Dias and Breslin say they intend to do will NOT be good for owners or pets, IMO.

Kay Sievers

since you do own the blog, and control what is posted, why haven't you posted:

Please show me where it states that animals would be elevated to a status beyond property.

Kay Sievers

Well, thanks for clarifying something for me. I've been trying to figure out why some people fight so hard to retain the "property" status of dogs. Now I know. It's because they care more about their own perceived loss of "rights," or are on some neurotically fearful trip about government interference in their lives (ps. laws are what make a civilized society), than affording dogs some legal protection from those who neglect and mistreat their dogs.

Unless you are involved in trying to save lives by rescue and rehoming, you simply don't know or don't care what you are talking about. No matter how responsibly you care for your dogs, there are many many more who do not.

As far a not being welcome on this blog, I guess you're right. I thought this was a forum to discuss the issue of BSL and hopefully join together to fight it.

I'll continue to fight BSL and save dogs' lives. Wish you would do the same instead of stonewalling legislation that you apparently know nothing about.

Why hasn't it been posted here, as has been repeatedly requested? Guess on this blog, ignorance is bliss.

EDITOR's NOTE: Kay - First things first. This is my blog, and therefore my soapbox, and by definition, not a forum. I write opinion, and then readers are free to make comments, which are published at my whim.

Next - let's just clarify something. As the author and owner of this blog, I started this blog in 2005 in response to BSL. I am also the owner of a rescued pitbull, who, btw is spayed, as have been all my rescued pets.

Guilt trips (thank you, I have my own mother) and statements like "If you cared".......blah, blah, blah - will not guilt me out of giving up my right to own a dog.

Whether it is the likes of Kory Nelson or Ingrid Newkirk - or even you, the motives in the end do not matter - Kory want's to deprive me of my dog because he hates pitbulls and uses BSL as a front to bypass the justice system and enter homes, seize property and bypass due process.

You may want to deprive me of my right to own a dog becasue you think no one should "own" animals, but who in the end, Kay - would control "guardianship"? You? The state? PETA? Kory Neslon?

Last I recall - we still live in a democracy and are protected with a Constitution and a Bill of Rights - including Free Speech, Due Process and Equal Protection, and in particular - the 14th Amendment.

Dianne Singer

I'd like to see the full text of Karen Breslin's post or e-mail. I don't like making judgments from excerpts.

Next, removing pets from property will cause them more suffering. You will be unable to stop any government action, undoubtedly fostered by the AR crowd, to eliminate your right to own a pet animal.

I've watched Peta, HSUS and their ilk for quite a while and cannot believe how people still swallow their carefully-crafted marketing wholesale.

Peta and HSUS have staggering incomes but do not run a single shelter. If memory serves, HSUS went to Katrina and had to borrow a boat froma smaller, true rescue organization for some goombah's photo ops. They are not charities, they are political lobby groups and as such should lose any tax-exempt status.

brenda shimmell

I have a real huge problem that I need to get out to every voter in uniontown pa who loves dogs. I am being prosecuted by the city of uniontown for have over the limit of animals allow by our so called zoning law and I need all the help I can get . I have already been fined over 400.00 and I was told by our great democratics canidate that my problem would have gone away if I had changed my voter affiliation.well the mayor, the judge and the local magistrate who convicted me are all up for re- election this years let give them the royal boot and please help me with any leagl advice I can use


HSUS is not an animal welfare organization, it is animal rights.

Kay should get her own blog.

The state has no place in the dog beds of the nation, ie, it's up to me whether or not I sterilize my pets (I do because I'm not interested in breeding, too complicated).

I dispute the 'millions' figure. Spay/neuter compliance is at an all-time high. Dogs are better cared for today than at any time in history.

It is the ease with which the unprepared can acquire dogs that results in their ending up in shelters and private rescues.

If the AR freaks spent their time working towards outlawing the sale of dogs in pet shops, that would go a long way toward weeding out incompetent dog owners and unhealthy dogs.

Unfortunately there will always be dogs needing homes, just as there will always be children needing homes.

'Guardianship' and mandatory sterilization don't go together. Nor does euthanasia to relieve suffering.

I think the AR guys had best think things through and get their stories straight before they start throwing terms around that they don't fully understand.

I've had dogs for over five decades. I've never thought of them as property, but as my friends who need protection. All dog owners I know feel the same way. However, feeling that way and having it legislated are two entirely different things.

Peta's defense at their recent trial was that they 'owned' the animals they killed (right after promising to find them homes), so they could basically do what they wanted with them. I guess taking them out of the property section could have helped to convict peta which would have been nice.

For a gang who claims to believe that all creatures are equal, it must have required some mental gymnastics to justify their actions in that case.

Kay Sievers

Hi All,
Well, first of all ARM is not a "moderate" animal rights group. Our ethics are similar to PETA except for their position on BSL and companion animals. I believe that PETA has abandoned an ethical animal rights position when it comes to companion animals. If they are here, they should be cared for, not killed or banned. Ingrid Newkirk is a former animal control officer and was bitten by a pitbull and I believe this past has colored her thinking.

HSUS is hardly an animal rights group. It is one of the oldest animal welfare groups that is now moving toward more of a rights ethic since Wayne Pacelli took over the helm several years ago.

If animals are not bred and sold for profit it would take us the next hundred years just to find homes for the ones that are "accidents" and end up on the street or at animal control. We kill millions each year in the USA alone.

I also do rescue/adoption work and EVERY breed that is on the market today ends up in rescue sooner or later, mostly as breeder discards or breeder shut-downs, or by people who bought a breed without being prepared to deal with the behavior of that breed. In any case, instead of being fixated on certain breeds, perhaps we should all be more concerned with the dogs dying every day for the lack of a home.

And if we don't "own" dogs, our relationship to them will be similar to our relationship to a retarded child. Much loved, but never able to make it on their own. We need to recognize, ethically and legally, that dogs are their own selfs, with their own interest in living a life free of pain, hunger, neglect and abuse.

In any case, the fight against BSL has been badly hampered by injecting this property vs. rights issue. And of course the rabid objection to any legislation that requires spay/neuter, even if not breed specific.

If we want to win on this issue, we need to put aside our, admittedly great differences, and not get lost in objecting to issues that are not breed-specific, even though they include other issues with which we do not agree.


"Oh, and BTW, it's not at all clear that major AR groups like HSUS, ASPCA and Best Friends are unequivocably anti-BSL. They speak out of both sides of their mouths on this issue."

Its very clear. Look how hard they lobby for anti-pet legislation but spend little to no time on BSL. Particularly the HSUS.

Rhonda Pumphrey

Thank god everyone else is finally posting on here how sick they are of hearing the biting tone of these blogs. I continue to subscribe b/c I do appreciate all POV's BUT I believe it has gotten out of hand and Shaster you hit it right on the nose re we can't get anywhere if we're constantly fighting with each other.
In any event, why are we quibbling over exactly WHAT the attorney's aims are at this point, ie property vs "companion"? The point IS Denver is FINALLY being called to answer for the atrocious law they've been able to get away with for several years now. The pit bull ban has been and always will be an ineffective and barbaric form of public policy that maybe now we have the chance to chip away at or at best, eradicate all together. Further, this is a chance to change the wave across the NATION. If Denver falls other municipalities will think twice before EVER imposing this backward legislation.
Do you mean to tell me that, because you disagree with Ms. Breslin's legal phrasing of according animals their right to life, you would sacrifice the lives of THOUSANDS of pit bulls in Denver (and ostensibly) this country ? Don't you think its time for everyone to get behind this lawsuit and hope to GOD the pits win instead of mincing words with an attorney who is trying to make this country a more dog-friendly community?
Furthermore, might I remind you that you sound dangerously like an old Southerner--you know, the ones that argued that it was in the slaves' best interest to be considered property???
I really do believe that some of your ideas about how invasive pet "guardianship" will become if dogs are not considered property are pretty far out there--being considered "property" without any feelings or pain or souls is not exactly a benefit EITHER...its "property ownership" that resulted in the lax enforcement of punishment against animal cruelty for SOOO long--we are just now making more strides in that area.
Oh, and by the way, property is NEVER 100% guaranteed yours despite what you may think--you ever hear of the concept of eminent domain?


HSUS supports breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter. That IS BSL. It has only one possible outcome - extinction.

I doubt they expected to luck out and ever get laws put forth (such as AB 1634 in CA) to mandate all-breed s/n. Weird that orgs purporting to have the interests of animals at heart would propose s/n at four months, when studies have shown this to be harmful to dogs. Ah well, they talk the talk, never walk the walk.

Must be corks popping at HSUS and elswhere. 'For the animals', of course. If you believe that, I've got a piece of property...

I will wait for more information before I make up my mind about the Denver situation but I very much doubt that AR groups would be involved in this matter.

I have a feeling the rumour mill is working overtime, likely fed by a few well-placed emails intended to foment distrust of the Pit Bull Band thereby undermining their fundraising efforts.

Must do some digging.


Kay, I disagree strongly with you.

It's not "breeders" (whatever you mean by that) who are supporting BSL. There is not a single organized breed club that supports BSL or other anti-pet legislation. In California, it was the RESCUERS who supported mandatory S/N for selected breeds. And now it's the RESCUERS, various humaniacs and AR types who are supporting the new mandatory s/n bill that will restrict pet ownership in onererous and discriminatory ways.

Pets do not live independently of us. Nor are they equivalent to a stereo. They are our companions. We are NOT their "guardians". If you claim you don't understand the legal consequences of that term, I would call you disingenuous, at best.

Pets can and should be bought and sold like property. How else can they exist? How do you imagine that HEALTHY pets will get into the hands of people except through the efforts of responsible breeders perpetuating the best qualities of specific breeds? Are we supposed to all have feral mutts now? Are we not to be allowed to have CHOICE in the kinds of breeds we own? Yes, to me, THAT is the agenda of the more "moderate" AR types as you present yourself. (not the elimination of pets/companion animals, which is a stupid, irresponsible agenda, but then PETA is a stupid irresponsible organization)

Pets are "more" than property, which I think is Breslin's point, though not the point of the lawsuit, which is exactly about property rights and due process.

I don't like Barb carrying water for the wackos on the "dogs are merely property" side. And I don't like arguments like yours that claim to care about pit bulls while advocating for public policies that will impose onerous sanctions on owners and on those who choose the hobby or livelihood of perpetuating unique breeds.

But this suit is a good thing, whether it succeeds or not. Attacking the VICTIMS of BSL, as Sonya and the other parties are, is just wrong.

Oh, and BTW, it's not at all clear that major AR groups like HSUS, ASPCA and Best Friends are unequivocably anti-BSL. They speak out of both sides of their mouths on this issue.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Dog Votes Friends

Stop Breed Bans


2007 My Dog Votes Worldwide Candlelight Vigil

  • Lightacandlesavealife2_3
    Light A Candle, Save A Life!

    Please join the 3rd Annual My Dog Votes Worldwide Candlight Vigil Against Breed Bans on Sunday, August 19th, 2007 at 8 PM. Please stand up for responsible ownership and take a stand against breed bans and killing innocent dogs. To join - send an email with name/city/province/state/country/postal code to:

Dog Politics Widget!

  • AddThis Social Bookmark Button

  • Get this widget from Widgetbox

Political Party Pets!

Report Breed Discrimination!

Support Bloggers Rights

NEW! DP Guest Authors

  • Mahlon Goer
    Dog Politics is expanding! We'll welcome a series of Guest Authors who will share their viewpoints on, you guessed it - dogs and politics - and the legislators who just can't get enough of both!

My Dog Votes Gear!

Voter Inspiration!

Dog Politics Map

About Dog Politics

  • Dog Politics provides news, commentary and opinion on anti-dog law and policy.

    We're for dog ownership. We're for The Constitution. Period.

    HOT TIPS? Send yours to: Store

My Dog Votes Pledge Map

  • Take The My Dog Votes Pledge! Pledge To Vote & Send This To 10 Friends!

Dog Sites