My Photo

Categories

follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« The problem with mandatory laws | Main | Los Angeles Mandatory Spay/Neuter - Year 1 »

January 14, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451f90869e2010536ce2671970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Louisville, KY -- a case study in a flawed ordinance:

Comments

Selma

The law was voided because its passage (which involved a last-minute switch from a 'pit bull' ban to mandatory neutering across the board) violated the Open Meetings Act. I'm not sure it was reinstated.

The case awaits a hearing at this juncture. The motion for summary judgement is available on my left sidebar under 'useful links' - it nicely outlines the kind of BS that this law enshrines, including giving unbridled power to the AC department - headed up by someone who lost his vet licence in Canada and has shuffled from place to place destroying animal services in the US ever since.

It's a classic case of corruption and of course, stupidity.

My favourite? The part that said that if a dog is out of town for more than 3 days or boarded, etc, it must be relicensed every time. I think they threw in re-vaccinated as well. Gee, what kind of dogs are away for 3 days or more? Show dogs, duh.

Hsus all the way on this one, they even brag about it.

Selma

The law was voided because its passage (which involved a last-minute switch from a 'pit bull' ban to mandatory neutering across the board) violated the Open Meetings Act. I'm not sure it was reinstated.

The case awaits a hearing at this juncture. The motion for summary judgement is available on my left sidebar under 'useful links' - it nicely outlines the kind of BS that this law enshrines, including giving unbridled power to the AC department - headed up by someone who lost his vet licence in Canada and has shuffled from place to place destroying animal services in the US ever since.

It's a classic case of corruption and of course, stupidity.

My favourite? The part that said that if a dog is out of town for more than 3 days or boarded, etc, it must be relicensed every time. I think they threw in re-vaccinated as well. Gee, what kind of dogs are away for 3 days or more? Show dogs, duh.

Hsus all the way on this one, they even brag about it.

Brent

Selma -- yeah, I knew the judge threw out the case last year because he declaired that the passing of it violated some open meetings act. However, it was my understanding that the city had some beefs with the decision and announced that they were going to continue enforcing it until their appeal was heard...and clearly if they are doing sting operations on trying to catch people for selling dogs, they are still enforcing it. Let me know if I'm wrong on that -- it's been a very weird (and yes, corrupt) process down there and I'd lie to say I've been able to fully keep up.

Selma

I'm not completely plugged in. Let me ask around.

Could you delete one of my comments? This is a test.

Rinalia

Quote: "However, I do want to note that at 582 bites is a LOT for a city of 712,000. By comparison..."

To be fair, 582 out of 712,000 isn't statistically much different from the other bite stats you posted - it's a total range of 0.05-0.08% of the populations you quoted reportedly bitten by dogs.

I absolutely agree with your other points, especially about how resources are squandered when essentially unenforceable laws are mandated. I just don't think it's fair to use those particular bite stats as evidence that the ordinance is failing or working.

EmilyS

Selma, your comments are always worth reading twice!
;-)

Selma

Ha ha ha, sure they are, Emily :>)

petdefense

The last doc I saw, took out HSUS' brief twice. Both sides filed SJ. It's still in Fed Ct that I know of, but I will get back and report. On another note, I am advised Sr Appeals Judge in Denver gave no BSL some hope, will update Petdefense w/details if interested thanks.

dog owner

There are some errors in your blog concerning dates and court actions. First, the animal law was originally proposed in November, 2005. It was discussed for a year, pushed by the HSUS, and passed as an anti-intact animal law in December, 2006. In April, 2006, some minor changes were made. Over the summer, after many hearings at which expert testimony was given which debunked HSUS' information, the law was again changed removing many of the unaltered dog requirements (but not all). This final version was passed in December, 2007. In spring, 2008, a judge threw out the December 2006 law and the April 2007 law based on the Open Meetings violations. The December 2007 law was allowed to stand, and it is being challenged in federal court.

Brent

Rinalia,

I would like to note that the difference between .05% and .08% is a 60% differential. That's not insignificant even if the total numbers are small.

Dog Owner,

Thanks for the clarification on dates. The December law that was passed was the one I was mostly referring to (It was signed by the mayor in January 08) -- it's been crazy down there and I really havne't been able to keep up with it all.

petdefense

I trust that whatever provisions remaining in the law that are part of the lawsuit are still those pushed by HSUS and since I don't trust HSUS, I am sure they are suspect. That being said, the case causes Plaintiffs to spend $$ unnecessarily, and HSUS knows it is anti-pet because that's what HSUS is about, but with misleading media. HSUS targets pupmills and pitdogs. Seizes them and kills them or quickly sells dogs they claim are abused. That alone indicates their motivation since deception is used. WP doesn't own pets and doesn't even care for them. He wants them "left alone." A fine outlook for pet protection and owners. Second to killing them all.

The comments to this entry are closed.