My Photo

Categories

follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Low income communities feel the affect of prohibiting dog chaining | Main | Weekly Roundup - Week ending March 16, 2008 »

March 14, 2008

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.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)