Note for the Independence, MO Chamber of Commerce

This is a note for the Independence, MO Chamber of Commerce.  It's one I hope they will see and hopefully act upon.  This isn't about dogs (althought they play a role in this), this is about business, politics and maybe government.  So I hope they're paying attention.

Last week, there was an article in the Independence Examiner entitled "Pit Bulls Need Love too".  It was a nice article that involved an interview with a local 'pit bull' rescue group in the KC area.

Pit bulls can remain silly clowns very late in life," Gipson said. "A happy pit bull will wag his whole body and the joyful expression in his eyes is impossible to miss. Even dogs that are rescued from very difficult situations usually keep a very positive and uplifting spirit."

Because most people think pit bulls are people-aggressive, there is a tendency to shy way from caring for the breeds, Gipson said. Although pit bulls are naturally aggressive, their people-attacking skills are learned, not born, traits.

Another thing noted in the article was that the Missouri Pit Bull Rescue group was having a fund raiser at locally franchised Maggie Moos.  Unfortunately, the fundraiser ended up getting cancelled.

Maggie Moo's franchise owner Debbie Klatt said she cancelled the funraiser after receiving "unspecified complaints" to her parlor and to the company's corporate office.  She declined to comment further on the cancellation other than "We simply decided to cancel the event."

However, some quotes by MPR VP Amy Nash made to KMBC shed some new light on the situation:

“She felt concerned for her safety, and for her staff and asked us if we could not have the event at that time,” said Nash. “While we were there some people called and made phone calls to her. She was quite upset about it."

If I were the Independence Chamber of Commerce, I'd want to do some investigating into these phone calls. Phone records shouldn't be too hard to obtain.  If one of my business owners was either being threatened physically, or with the welfare of her business, over hosting a CHARITY EVENT, I'd be really concerned.  She wasn't hosting an event for the KKK, she was hosting an event for an animal rescue event.

Now, I don't know for SURE who was behind the phone calls, but I have my suspicisions.  Last year, the city of Independence had one city council member that bullied through a ban on 'pit bulls'.  She made threats to other council members.  She stood outside getting petitions signed in case the council didn't pass her ban, she was going to take a harsher ban (without grandfathering) to the voters.  She single handedly bullied the ordinance through with only a handful of local supporters.

If this council member had any involvement in threats to a local business owner -- either with physical threats or threats to this person's business, the Independence Chamber has a responsibility to act and demand she be removed, and depending on the details, potential fined and jailed.  It is not only morally wrong and unethical to do such a thing, but illegal as well.

My hope is that the folks in Independence will stand up to such bullying tactics in order to preserve the rights of the business owners in that community.

Comments

[Caveat]

It's funny you mention the KKK. When I heard about the story, my first impish thought was that if it were a fundraiser for that org, it probably would have gone ahead.

This situation should be of great concern to everyone - whether they like dogs or not. Nothing illegal was being planned, it was an above-board event.

As with most of the "BSL Now!" crowd, it sounds as though some people's personal beliefs and personal fears are dictating which activities can proceed in 'Independence' - talk about an Orwellian name.

This is much bigger than stopping someone from raising a bit of money to help homeless dogs.

Much bigger.

[S Kennedy]

Uh--"although pitbulls are naturally aggressive..."????? Might that have anything to do with her cancelling? People attacking skills? I think there was enough in those 2 sentences for people to call/complain/say they would stop going there. Although there is nothing illegal about that, it might start edging into hate crime if any racial/owner terms were used. The big mistake in the so-called "PR" of this, was that whoever wrote it shouldn't have--they need a real PR person, not someone trying to masquerade as one.

[S Kennedy]

I think the fact that pressure was put on owner to not have event-- is a bigger story than the event itself.

[Caveat]

Yes, the statements about 'pit bulls' were typical of those who are trying to help - and are failing miserably.

It's a particular peeve of mine that while we all fight so hard and spend so much money on lawyers proving that 'pit bulls' are just dogs like the rest, these rescue types continue to differentiate them with statements that are largely unfounded.

[S Kennedy]

Third: I hate to say it, but I doubt 1/600 is the only # adopted, and I doubt 75% go in/out w/o any hope of adoption. If someone can prove it, that's fine; otherwise, it's AR talk and serves no useful purpose in animal rescue to say such a thing. Most adopters have kids /are afraid due to media stories. But a RESCUE should NEVER even be thinking, much less stating, such things. A rescue has a duty to do the best temperament testing they can, and to tell the truth, not make it worse by making it look like the dogs are disposable. That is not the way to build confidence for the breed at all.
The truth is, for example, in the SF shelter, it has been said that the dogs w/bad temperament are allowed to be adopted while the good dogs are put down. Clearly, that would account for SF history on dogs. And remember the city has immunity for lawsuits so they couldnt even be sued most likely. Also, it is known that ARs actually get bad dogs and let them loose on purpose. It adds up to exactly to what we see today. Then in the SF area,awhile back, the CPS took away a lady's kid because she had 2 dogs, a mix pit and another dog (can't remember breed) but in any case, she already has an attorney working on it. It was alleged that 1 dog went after another smaller dog. And that's grounds for taking your kid???!! HA! It is-is-is, ONLY if your dog is a pit or pit mix. If it was a Lassie dog or Lab or poodle or anything not ruined by the media, that kid would have never left home. I talked to the lady myself. The entire story is disgusting.

[Becky]

If there is any way to connect this particular city official to this crime, I want in on it. This civil servant stepped in and in a rage of hatred, irrationality, and bigotry, set out to ruin people's lives. A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER. This person blasted propaganda and slandered our dogs over a local radio station, which should clearly have been against legal protocol.

Further, any of the members of a certain victim's 'gang' who have slandered dogs who look like ours and us, the owners, on their public (and promoted) website, for the damage they have done.

I'm not sure where the line starts and ends, but I do know that publishing blatant lies about certain people is not protected by free speech.

[dan]

I am thinking -
Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA)

- A rescue is an animal enterprise

-this is economic disruption

-involved threats, and phone calls (did they get any letters?) involve interstate equipment

[Tony]

Lawsuits are way part due. And kudos to Dick Dale from 96.5 the Buzz for putting this story and his own outrage on the air.

[Tony]

It actually does qualify as a terrorist act whenever any type of business is affected. Although now that I think about it might only be if and when that business must close. Although I'm referring to the Patriot Act, but hey if they can get away with what they do then maybe we can have them locked up in Leavenworth with their pal Mikey Vick.

[Tony]

Renee Paluka won't be running this year but man she's got what's coming to her. There are a few "okay" people running this year KCdogadvocates.org has all the info.

[S Kennedy]

Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992.
Public Law 102-346--Aug. 26, 1992
102nd Congress
An Act To protect animal enterprises.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992".

SEC. 2. ANIMAL ENTERPRISE TERRORISM.

(a) IN GENERAL.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 42 the following:

"§ 43. Animal enterprise terrorism

"(a) OFFENSE.--Whoever--
"(1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, for the purpose of causing physical disruption to the functioning of an animal enterprise; and

"(2) intentionally causes physical disruption to the functioning of an animal enterprise by intentionally stealing, damaging, or causing the loss of, any property (including animals or records) used by the animal enterprise, and thereby causes economic damage exceeding $10,000 to that enterprise, or conspires to do so; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

There is an aggravated offense for injury which can be very steep. PETA knows this and usually manages to steer clear of one of the elements so as to avoid prosecution. But one of these days they will stumble.