Judges rule on proper value of a dog's life

What is the proper value of a "dog's" life? That is a question debated in legal circles for decades.

The law in Georgia still views pets as nothing more then a person's property. Yet, many county's have implemented new animal ordinances which seem to ignore both the premise that the state is not entitled to seize property without "due cause" and without upholding the constitutional issues related to due process.

"Freedom just around the corner from you

But with the truth so far off, what good will it do?"

The truth is Gwinnett's revised animal ordnances, passed in January of 2007, grant huge discretionary power to the county attorney's office in seizing, impounding, or forcing citizens through threats and intimidation to get rid of pets even over such mundane violations of the county's public nuisance animal laws.

What is even more ironic is the law was drafted, passed and is now being enforced by the county solicitor who lauds herself as an animal advocate.

"Friend to the martyr, a friend to the woman of shame,

You look into the fiery furnace, see the rich man without any name."

There is an extreme disconnect between advocating for the safety and well being of animals while proposing laws that land these animals in high kill shelters for minor infractions.

Drafting and passing an ordinance which even allows fines of up to $1,000 and jail time for up to six months on pet owners is an unusual way for the county to advertise itself as a great place to raise your family especially if that quality of life includes owning pets.

If the county continues with it's policy of treating pet owners as criminals won't we morph into a community where only criminals will own pets?

Those of us who "own" pets know better. We do not place a "replacement' value on what we view as a priceless part of our lives. A true animal advocate understands that domesticated pets are far more then simply pieces of property we own but intrinsic parts of our family that are entitled to be kept safe and protected - even if that protection is against the county judicial system itself.

"Well, the rifleman's stalking the sick and the lame,

Preacherman seeks the same, who'll get there first is uncertain.

Nightsticks and water cannons, tear gas, padlocks,

Molotov cocktails and rocks behind every curtain,

False-hearted judges dying in the webs that they spin,

Only a matter of time 'til night comes steppin' in."

Is the Gwinnett of the future nothing more then the mess we now call Atlanta? Will Gwinnett continue to push aside responsible citizens turning this county into a Clayton County quagmire? Affluent communities are nothing more then the sum product of those who choose to call it home. When that product is made up of negative influences Is it only a matter of time before night comes steppin in?

There has been an outpouring of opposition to the county's flagrant attacks on pet owners with demands that the animal ordinances once again be revisited in order that those laws represent the core values of our citizens concerning the role of our family pets. The county attorney's have once again missed the entire point in that the minor changes that have been proposed do not deal with the core issue that the county does not have the right to take property from it's citizens without equal due process being afforded to those charged with violating that same ordinance.

Just to be clear, pet owners are not entitled to a trial by jury in recorder's court. Further, there seems to be an air of arrogance with a county solicitor's animal advocating office that makes it it's own rules of discovery by lowering the bar of a defendant being guilty until and if they can prove innocence beyond a reasonable doubt as opposed to a recognized standard that people are indeed innocent until the state proves their guilt.

This whole process makes a mockery of justice in our county court with an assumption that the court's primary function is to extract and generate revenue for the county as opposed to being a court room where justice is served. Maybe it's a little too much to expect our county courts to understand the role pet's play in a community's vibrant lifestyle but what excuse do our elected officials have?

Judges rule on the proper value of a dog's life

http://www.sj-r.com/homepage/x2094350144/Dave-Bakke-Judges-rule-on-the-proper-value-of-a-dog-s-life

Some families wouldn’t take a million dollars for their pet. But, to the law, a family pet may be nothing more than a piece of property.Molly is a dachshund and is part of the family as far as Mark and Mindy Leith and their boys, Corbin and Colby, are concerned.

At the end of April 2006, Molly, who was 7 years old then, was in the Leiths’ back yard in Lincoln. Another dog, allegedly their neighbor’s Siberian husky, Cosmo, got out of its yard, over or under two fences, and attacked Molly.When Mindy Leith got home, the attack was under way. She saw Molly being ripped apart by the bigger dog she recognized as Cosmo. Mindy got between the dogs, kicking the attacker, which growled and lunged at her while a bleeding Molly crawled under a table, her body torn open.

The Leiths rushed Molly to their veterinarian in Atlanta. They were told to take their dog to the animal hospital at the University of Illinois immediately if they wanted to save her. There was no hesitation.Molly spent three days in intensive care in Urbana.

The Leiths visited every day. Their dog had four broken ribs, muscle damage, a punctured lung and cracked vertebrae, but she lived. The cost of keeping Molly alive was $4,784.72.

The Leiths took out a loan to pay the bill.In 2007, the Leiths sued Cosmo’s owner, Andrew Frost of Lincoln, for their medical and travel costs.

On Sept. 26, 2007, in Lincoln, 11th Circuit Court Judge Paul Lawrence found Frost negligent and that Cosmo had indeed attacked Molly. However, the judge awarded the Leiths just $200 despite the fact that they were out more than $4,700 in vet bills.

The judge based the damages on testimony from an area kennel owner and dachshund breeder. She testified that a dog Molly’s age and breed is worth $200, tops. The judge found that, according to Illinois law, the damages awarded by the court could not be more than the dog — their property — is worth.Illinois law can treat a pet as if it were a car. If a car is worth $5,000 and the owner pays a repair bill twice that amount, then goes to court to recover the $10,000 from the driver who hit him, the court would probably rule that the owner cannot be awarded more than the value of the car.

The only time intangibles come into play is if the monetary value of the car, pet or family picture of Aunt Matilda is negligible, perhaps having only emotional value to the owner.

Both sides appealed Lawrence’s ruling to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Springfield. The Leiths argued that the damages should be higher. Frost said there is no proof that it was his dog that attacked Molly so he shouldn’t have to pay anything. Attorney Nick Burgrabe of Lincoln represented the Leiths, and Andres Padua of Bloomington argued on behalf of Frost.

The Leiths testified that Molly is like a member of their family. She goes with them on vacation. She sleeps with the boys. Anyone who has ever had a beloved pet knows you can’t put a price tag on that. But if you could, it would be more than $200.On New Year’s Eve, appellate court Justices Thomas Appleton, Sue Myerscough and Robert Steigmann agreed. Appleton wrote the decision.

The crux of it is that Molly’s market value at the time of the attack was negligible. The judges questioned whether anyone would pay $200 for a 7-year-old dachshund that was not a show dog.But, Appleton wrote, the Leiths “demonstrated how much Molly is worth to them by paying $4,784 for the dog’s veterinary care.”

The family, said the court, should be awarded the full amount.Padua said it is too early to say whether Frost will ask for a rehearing or take this to the Illinois Supreme Court.Molly had no comment other than a wag of her tail.

Dave Bakke can be reached at 788-1541 or dave.bakke@sj-r.com.

The Death of Animal Welfare Politics

There will be a meeting of the Gwinnett Animal Advisory Council tomorrow evening (January 20th (2009) at 7:00 PM) at the county shelter. There are a number of issues on the agenda including a follow up on proposed changes in the county's dog barking and tethering laws.
In addition the council will begin discussing the role that the animal advisory council has in serving the needs of pet owners in the community. The agenda is posted at the following link:

http://www.gwinnettcounty.com/departments/police/pdf/GAACAgendaJan20_2009.pdf

The shelter has released it's annual shelter report for years 2007 and 2008. Those figures are posted at the following link:

http://www.gwinnettcounty.com/departments/animal_welfare/pdf/ANNUAL_Shelter_2008.pdf
The figures just released show many disturbing trends since the new shelter was opened. For the 5600 dogs that found themselves in our brand new shelter facility over half - 2966 - would die in that facility. Only 924 of these beloved dogs would be reunited with their owners.

The numbers were even more disastrous for cats. Of the 4823 cats that went through the county shelter, 80% - 4025 were killed.

One would assume that Gwinnett didn't need to spend several million dollars if the sole purpose was to find new and more innovative ways to kill our way to animal control. Yet, under the current policies and advise of our leadership in animal welfare issues the number of dogs and cats being killed in our new facility are staggering - in two short years the kill numbers have gone from 5400 dogs and cats to 8000.

While the problems with the economy have been frequently used as excuses for the an increased amount of killing in our new shelter the figures compiled by animal control don't support that claim. In 2008 animal control did have an increase of about 500 canines (15%) and 700 felines that were picked up on the road but it is unclear whether this increase is the result of an increased occurrence of dogs not being properly restrained or owner abandonment.

More discouraging is the 50% increase in the number of stray cats picked up by animal control. The number of stray cats picked up has grown from 1700 a year in 2006 to close to 2500 in 2008. This would appear to be a shift in focus on ridding the county of feral or yard cats by animal control. Cats dropped off at the shelter as owner surrenders increased by 300 during the time period of 2007 to 2008 from around 2000 to 2300 and yet this number is down from the number posted in 2005 of over 2600. There does not appear to be a correlation of an increased number of pets being surrendered at the shelter by pet owners effected by our current economic turmoil.

Sadly, the number of pets being killed that the new shelter has risen as well. Dogs being killed at the shelter has increased from 2100 in 2005 to close to 2700 in 2007 to close to 3000 in year end 2008. This represents an increase of over 33% over the past three years. If we do nothing at all this number will continue to escalate.

While the number of cats being killed remained constant during the years of 2005 through 2007 with 3000 cats being killed that number rose dramatically in 2008 to over 4000 cats dying in our new shelter - again an increase of over 33 percent.

Despite a claim on the shelter's web site of an increased number of pets being adopted or placed in rescue adoptions have dropped off from a high of over 2300 in 2005 to 1982 in 2007 and 1906 in 2008. Despite all the promises of providing the community access to a new facility it would appear that the new shelter is not showing any increase in the number of pets adopted out of our new shelter.

By far the most disturbing number in the 2008 annual report is the drop in number of animals going to rescue. Those numbers show 1770 animals rescued in 2007 as opposed to only 1200 on all of 2008. One is left to wonder why our new shelter is having such a problem with placing dogs and cats into rescue despite having access to a brand new facility supported by the rescue community.

The only area of animal control that seems to be trending upwards is in the number of citations being issued. Perhaps thanks to the changes in our county's poorly advertised animal ordinance in January of 2007 the total number of citations issued has increased from 1400 in 2005 to close to 2300 in 2008.

Has the county's animal welfare focus shifted from saving and rescuing pets to cracking down with criminal enforcement of our new ordinance? Citations issued for "nuisance" animals has rose 20% in 2007 while the number of pet owners issued citations for "restraint" almost doubled. Citing rather then educating pet owners appears to be the focus of Gwinnett's current pet enforcement trends.

Pet owners throughout the county are outraged with the direction our pet friendly community has taken. Impounding dogs that bark, threatening responsible pet owners with jail and the total disregard with seeking real solutions for the thousands of innocent pets that end up in our new "state of the art" shelter needs a leadership voice that has been lacking with our animal advisory council. Please plan on attending and giving your voice and support for those voiceless victims who cry out.

Permission to cross post

What Happened To Michael Vick's Dogs?

While most of the public has been inundated with stories about the "fall from grace" of Michael Vick and the emerging success of Atlanta's football team under star quarterback Matt Ryan little has been written about the true victim's in Vick's crime -

In a remarkably poignant article of the fate of Vick's dogs Sports Illustrated writer Jim Gorant writes "The Humane Society of the U.S., agreeing with PETA, took the position that Michael Vick's pit bulls, like all dogs saved from fight rings, were beyond rehabilitation and that trying to save them was a misappropriation of time and money."

"The cruelty they've suffered is such that they can't lead what anyone who loves dogs would consider a normal life," says PETA spokesman Dan Shannon. "We feel it's better that they have their suffering ended once and for all."

"Well, the chances are against it and the odds are slim,
That he'll live by the rules that the world makes for him.
'Cause there's a noose at his neck and a gun at his back,
And a license to kill him is given out to every maniac." - Neighborhood Bully

So, "they" (PETA & HSUS) feel it's better that the dogs suffering is ended once and for all...? Maybe, "they" should have not used have exploited the victims of this heinous crime by soliciting donations in the name of helping provide humane treatment for Vick's dogs while lobbying to have them killed.

What is wrong with an animal rights movement so far removed to lose focus over lobbying for compassion for the very rights of the victims whose rights they are defending?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/magazine/12/22/vick.dogs/index.html

Gorant's story is not only heart warming but paints a different picture on a breed that has come under attack by communities seeking to ban this breed out of existence (BSL) to a collaborated effort on the part of the large animal rights groups and law enforcement who views death of the breed as the only viable option.

Dogs debunk the theory that aggression is the product of combined genetics and social upbringing with a startling story of dogs responding to love and kindness with an unconditional love of their own. Unlike their human counterparts dogs don't live in the past refusing to forgive but instead live in the world of today.

The neighborhood bully just lives to survive,
He's criticized and condemned for being alive.
He's not supposed to fight back, he's supposed to have thick skin,
He's supposed to lay down and die when his door is kicked in. - Bob Dylan

It is this premise that raises the question on whether dogs should be judged by "canned" extreme temperament tests that ignore a dog's future when condition of abuse and torture are replaced by an existence based on love and respect.

Is canine temperament a product of the past or can dogs be taught to trust simply by removing the fear that drives the demons of mistrust? Should dogs who are victimized by gamers who fight have their rights victimized again by paying with their lives?

How many shelters, fueled by merciless prosecutor's who claim to advocate for animals place unrelenting restrictions on this breed which all but seal it's doom?

BSL makes no sense.........

A Gift of Death to an Extreme Animal Rights Movement

Nathan Winograd once wrote in his personal opinion that PETA's Ingrid Newkirk was suffering from Munchausen by proxy. he drew this analogy based on PETA's animal rights philosophy that tends to encourage "humane euthanasia" as a viable option to end an animal's suffering.

Based on their own reporting PETA has a mind boggling 97% rate of killing animals in their care. Much of this Munchausen illness translates into PETA's "animal rights" policy that defends being opposed to No Kill philosophy's, killing and dumping the bodies of "saved" animals in dumpsters, identifying those who rescue as demented hoarders, rigid opposition to TNR for feral cats, and a morality that shelter animals are better served by being humanely euthanized all while holding a moralistic approach that killing animals is reprehensible.

This philosophy of defending policies of humane euthanasia while professing to protect animal rights is a contradiction that can not be explained. One would assume that at the point an animal is killed any right or lack of it the animal might be entitled to becomes a mute point.

A few years back I made the choice to distance myself to such "extreme" thinking that included a vision of the future that domesticated pets be returned "to the wild". A philosophy that does not represent my core values. After all, if PETA has an issue with those of us who "own" our pets then am I too a villain and therefore a target of their extremist thinking?

Owning and enjoying pets should be about choice and responsibility. The nucleus for moderate animal advocate philosophy must include legal opposition to pet limit laws, BSL, mandatory spay/neuter and nuisance animal laws that include provisions that allow for impounding and killing as a sentencing guideline.

Those of us who include ourselves as part of an animal advocate movement must speak out and oppose positions of killing with kindness that the extreme animal rights movement like PETA promote.

"In 2006, an official report from People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) shows that they took in 3,043 animals, of which 1,960 were cats, 1,030 were dogs, 52 were other companion animals, and 1 was a chicken. Of these, they killed the chicken, killed 1,942 cats, 988 dogs, and 50 classified as “other companion animals.” PETA found homes for only 2 cats, 8 dogs and 2 of the other companion animals."

To understand why Ingrid Newkirk and PETA seek out animals to kill we must understand the vast differences in political philosophy those of us who advocate for owning and rescuing animals have as opposed to those who seek to destroy that human/animal bond.

By PETA's own admission they have a 97% kill rate. This is based on PETA's own reporting to the Commonwealth of Virginia, which only requires "record keeping and reporting of only those animals taken into custody... for purposes of adoption." It does not include those animals taken into "rescue" that are not for adoption but instead end up being humanely euthanized and deposited in a convenient dumpster.

Despite $30 million in revenues, PETA found homes for only 12 animals. An additional 21 cats and 25 dogs were transferred to "another agency" (likely a kill shelter since PETA has a “policy against No Kill shelters.”) The rest were put to death. Arguing "animal rights" for animals that are just been killed seems to be an exercise in disingenuous thinking.

There is also something far more disturbing going on here than Newkirk’s history. Newkirk has been a long time opponent with "No Kill" sheltering. Groups like PETA, ASPCA and HSUS have historically supported sheltering policies like extreme temperament testing and the twisted practices of self proclaimed "temperament goddess" Sue Sternberg.

Sternberg's claim to fame was "inventing" that often maligned "Assess A Pet" shelter extreme temperament testing system. With her views on killing frightened but innocent shelter animals who fail her unscientific tests, she herself should be classified as a sociopathic animal killer.

Yet, the "Big Three" in the animal rights movement embrace the very theology used to justify killing shelter dogs. Extreme temperament testing that lacks any scientific clarity has proven to be the tool utilized in killing shelter animals where otherwise justification does not exist.

Animal advocates can describe the theories behind this extreme thinking but they can not explain how killing a confused shelter animal protects that animals rights. If we really care about supporting animal rights as opposed to the rights to humanely kill without reason then there is no alternative then to oppose such negative thinking.

This is not just a disagreement in philosophy between No Kill supporters and traditional “catch and kill” proponents. That is the debate going on with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), where their reputations and donations are being threatened. With the Humane Society of the United States the philosophy of manipulation and over regulation of animal ordinances which take away choice and responsibility have come in question. HSUS can not explain the humane choices they support that allow for impounding and killing the very pets they claim to advocate for. Advocating to kill is simply not humane.

HSUS is the nation's largest and wealthiest humane advocacy organization in the nation. It has assets in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and it has a budget in excess of one hundred million dollars annually. It claims the support of twelve million members and it has a powerful media presence.

More importantly, their magazine, Animal Sheltering, is sent to over 3000 shelters nationwide. Their animal sheltering conference, HSUS Expo, is the nation's largest of it's kind, drawing sheltering staff from across the country. In fact, HSUS Expo invites Newkirk to give presentations at their national animal sheltering conference.

Two years ago Newkirk gave a video presentation on why "Pit Bulls should be killed" to unwitting shelter directors who swallow this garbage philosophy and transform it into policies that all but eliminate even the meekest of pits. Armed with PETA's "kill all pits" rantings and the twisted temperament testing theology of Sue Sternberg is it any wonder that pit bulls have become the target of every shelter maniac with a message and license to kill?

The ASPCA has distributed Sternberg's video "Temperament Testing for Dogs in Shelters" to over 3,000 shelters as well. That the APSCA continues to sponsor Sternberg's seminars that teach shelter directors "how to" select dogs to kill speaks volumes on the real agenda of an animal rights movement gone mad.

Not to be outdone, Sternberg is a frequent contributor to The HSUS Animal Sheltering Magazine as well. There seems to be a competition in the animal rights movement on who can wrestle the support of shelters by providing the most up to date methods for justifying the business as usual practice of killing what they do not understand.

Sternberg continues to cash in and be "awarded" for her contributions to a shelter killing crusade lead by the generals of HSUS/ASPCA while animal rights followers worship at Ingrid's sacrificial altar as well. While the leaders of the animal rights movement can continue to look the other way in seeking life saving alternatives do those who truly support humane treatment for all companion animals do the same with an undying support?

PETA’s strategy for engaging in “damage control” and “public relations spin” when a shelter or community which kills is challenged by those seeking an alternative to systematic killing of shelter animals only undermines their other platforms. After all, how can an animal rights proponent so opposed to the killing of chickens lobby, promote and support theology that kills pit bulls and feral cats? Chickens and livestock deserve the right to live but feral cats and pit bulls do not?

With animal rights friends like these, animals truly do not need enemies.

Animal shelters nationwide look to the leaders of PETA, HSUS and the ASPCA for guidance and direction. Many have blindly followed the slick spin of huge advertising budgets that allows them to "drink the kool aid spiked with killing philosophy that run rampant with this "gift of euthanasia" philosophy. In all my years of doing rescue and advocating for shelter animals I have yet to encounter one who wants to die. In fact, animals are remarkably resilient and only understand a genetic disposition to survive.

When activists in communities working for reform pressure local government to embrace the alternatives to killing, HSUS responds by defending shelter policies, their failures and refusal to change, calling advocates for change "impossible", "unreasonable," and even professing "hoarder tendency" - after all "we can't save them all from this miserable world in which we live". By sowing seeds of doubt among public officials, including our county leaders in government, our county attorney's and animal control we are now inundated with extreme animal ordinances which mystify the constitutional legal community.

It is time that the "Big Three" of an extremist animal rights movement be held accountable. It is no longer acceptable that animal advocates swallow every attempt to tighten the noose on those who lack the knowledge of how to be a responsible pet owner with a huge net that also ensnares those who are responsible pet owners.

No kill does not support hoarding. Yet, the insinuations of hoarding have been used to justify pet limit laws, total bans of tethering, nuisance dog barking ordinances and veterinary care laws that counter a philosophy of education as opposed to persecution in the new wave of animal ordinances being promoted throughout the country.

Those who support total bans on tethering have theorized that tethering causes social issues in dogs that leads to aggressive canine behavior. There is no scientific data or studies that support these claims. In fact, as long as a dog is trained, socialized, and given proper attention the containment method used is not a factor in it’s behavior, or temperament. Dogs left in fenced enclosure who are not socialized or given proper attention will display the same behavioral characteristics as dogs who are constantly tethered.

An unsocialized dog, regardless of containment method with be genetically disposed to try and escape. Dogs lacking socialization will display "guarding" tendencies regardless of the method when forced to survive in an unsocialized environment. Dog behavior, including running at large and aggressive behavior only becomes problematic when a dog is not properly trained, not properly socialized, and not given proper attention, to think otherwise is simply Orwellian double-speak.

Yet, animal rights groups continue to support legislation that allow tethered animals to be impounded to enforce what in effect are total tethering bans. This thinking is not to be confused as supporting chaining or tethering any animal 24/7, in fact, those who advocate for animals would not support fencing to contain an animal 24/7 as being more humane. Pet owners need to be taught and offered other alternative on teaching their pets to be part of the family as opposed to part of the landscaping that surrounds one's home.

Ingrid Newkirk once said “How dare you pretend to help animals and turn your back on those who want an exit from an uncaring world!”. The uncaring world she is describing is the ignorance of thinking that an animal would prefer death as the only alternative to survive. That has always been the disconnect the hard core animal rights movement cannot defend. You can not espouse "rights" on an animal you want to see killed - well, unless those are "last rights".

Those who truly advocate for an animals "rights" to existence should vehemently reject this point of view and actively campaign against it. Not only for the dogs and cats that HSUS and PETA propose to kill in the future but whose interests in theory they exist to protect.

Moreover, HSUS/ASPCA/PETA’s position that animals in shelters, pit bulls, feral cats, confused dogs, do not have a right to live subverts the entire foundation upon which animal advocates claim to support. Once you understand that philosophy then it becomes apparent why supporting animal advocating attorney's who include impounding and killing tethered animals, dogs genetically predisposed to bark or dogs and cats that simply need medical attention contradicts the universally accepted fundamental right advocating for shelter animals to live.

In any truly humane movement enjoyment of the "right to life" is a necessary condition of the enjoyment of all other rights. A movement cannot be “rights” oriented and ignore this fundamental right to live. If an animal is dead, the animal’s rights cease to exist, the rest of this theology become irrelevant.

We can not reject nor refuse to acknowledge the right to life as it relates to dogs and cats while supporting those same rights for other animals including chickens and pigs. It is condescending for PETA to claim one can not "eat a hamburger" while wanting to kill my dog. We can not advocate against "fur" while wanting to kill off feral cats.

Nathan Winograd wrote "The relationship between Americans and their animal companions can open a door to larger animal rights issues. In our daily interactions with dogs and cats, people experience an animal’s personality, emotions, and capacity both for great joy and great suffering. They learn empathy for animals. It is not a stretch that someone who is compassionate—and passionate—about their pets would over time and with the right information be sympathetic to animal suffering on farms, in circuses, in research facilities, and elsewhere."

Teaching compassion and responsibility towards animals as opposed to this blatant attempt to criminalize far too many aspects of owning pets will not only support a true movement of those who understand rights for animals, but more importantly the rights of people to continue to own animals as pets.

I am not my dogs "guardian" - I am their keeper with ownership rights recognized by our legal system. It is a folly to think we will have more protective rights to "keep" our pets if we simply follow the twisted thinking of an animal rights movement that quite frankly doesn't appear to understand the relationship domestic companion animals have in our lives. As a guardian of my pets am I therefore subjected to more governmental bureaucracy on the choices I make in caring for and raising my pets?

Regardless of whether you believe in “animal rights” or not; regardless of whether you are a vegetarian or not; regardless of where you stand on animal issues unrelated to animal sheltering, PETA’s position of "killing for kindness" is not only insane but irresponsible as well. Giving money to support irresponsible political posturing of the Big Three simply supports the very killing animal advocates oppose.

The best gift we can give is the gift of death to a truly inhumane animal rights movement.

Fallacy of Change - NO on Gwinnett's Proposed Barking Dog Revisions

Gwinnett County has rolled out the proposed changes in the now controversial "Public Nuisance" dog barking provisions. These changes are in "draft" form as submitted by the county attorney's office.

While there are a few "cosmetic" changes to the ordinance nothing at all was changed under the penalty provisions which allow the county solicitor's office to recommend six month jail terms, up to $1,000 in fines and potential loss of any family pet cited under the ordinance.

Since these sentencing guidelines can be stacked for owners of multiple pets there is nothing in the proposed changes that would prevent pet owners from facing life altering jail sentences, financial ruin through extremely large fines and more importantly the loss of a families pets. In other words, those who own four pets still face up to two years jail and $4,000 in fines while those who own eight pets could see those penalties doubled.

The revised law still fails to address the county's practice of charging barking violations based on the number of dogs owned as opposed to only citing dogs accused of actual violation of the barking ordinance. You could still face jail time - pay fines and even have impounded dogs who aren't even involved in a complaint.

The ordinance also fails to address the costs associated with enforcing laws that still don't include involving animal control in investigating any allegations of ordinance violations. These costs will include the additional expenses occurred trying to enforce another poorly written ordinance in Gwinnett's Recorder's Court.

The county attorney's office failed to take heed to the costs being run up in my failed prosecution on violating the existing dog barking ordinance. Do the citizens of Gwinnett really want to see huge increases in our county court budget that already faces an overloaded case load on crimes that seriously do impact our community?

Are we going to see recommendations further down the road for courts set up exclusively to prosecute dog barking cases and jails to house pet owners convicted of owning a "barking dog"?

As written in this draft these changes are totally not acceptable.

Absent the issue of ignoring the major problem of common sense sentencing guidelines here are the proposed changes. I will address a number of legal and constitutional issues this draft still fails to address.

Instead of seeking new solutions towards laws that encourage and reward responsible pet ownership our leaders in "animal law" issues continue to draft and pass draconian animal ordinances which provide for the impounding of family pets for even minor first time violations.
Instead of seeking ways to prevent pets from becoming "shelter fodder" our leadership creates new categories and excuses for impounding and adding to the number of pets killed. In effect, our laws discourage and punish those who might choose to adopt a pet that otherwise is killed.

10-33. Public nuisance animal.

(a) A public nuisance animal shall mean and include any animal that:

(1) Is repeatedly found at-large; or
(2) Damages the property of anyone other than the owner; or
(3) Is vicious; or
(4) Attacks without provocation; or
(5) Makes any vocalizations for more than 15 minutes without interruption or more than 30 minutes if the vocalization is intermittent. These time limits do not apply if the vocalizations are given as a warning to the presence of an intruder. Officers enforcing this subsection are not required to measure the vocalizations with the use of a sound level meter. Upon notification of a complaint concerning such vocalizations, the owner of such animal shall be given written warning indicating that such animal is creating a disturbance, so long as the complainant provides the officer with the address of the owner. If the disturbance is not resolved within two days or a subsequent compliant is made for such animal by a different individual, who resides at a different location from the first complainant, a court summons shall be issued in accordance with the requirements of this articles; or(5)

(a) animal that makes any vocalizations or more than 15 minutes without interruption or more than 30 minutes if the vocalization is intermittent shall be defined as a public nuisance animal.

(1) These time limits do not apply if the vocalizations are given as a warning to the presence of an intruder.
(2) Officers enforcing this subsection are not required to measure the vocalizations with the use of a sound level meter.
(3) Upon notification of a complaint concerning such vocalizations, the owner of such animal shall be given a written notice from the Animal Control Unit indicating that such animal is creating a disturbance and advising the owner of some possible solutions to rectify the nuisance. The complainant must provide the officer the address of the owner and a physical description of the offending animal before any written notice shall be sent. The owner shall have three (3) days to resolve the disturbance.
(4) If the disturbance is not resolved within three (3) days and the animal control unit receives a second complaint from the original complainant, he or she will be asked to provide a sworn statement regarding the disturbance. The original complainant will also be required to obtain a sworn statement from another individual regarding the disturbance. The statements must be from individuals residing at different addresses in close proximity to the animal creating the disturbance. Upon receipt of the sworn statements, a citation will be issued in accordance with the requirements of this ordinance.
(5) If the disturbance is not resolved within three (3) days and the animal control unit receives another complaint from another individual in close proximity to the animal creating the disturbance, both complainants will be asked to provide a sworn statement. Upon receipt of the sworn statements, a citation shall be issued in accordance with the requirements of this ordinance.
(6) The original barking complaint will remain on file and active for a period of thirty (30) days following the three (3) day resolution period. If no further complaints are made during the thirty (30) day period, the complaint shall expire and the process begin again.

(c) Any such public nuisance animal may be impounded and the owner or possessor charged for a violation of this article.

What follows are the pitfalls and legal issues this draft fails to address. They are:

!) While section (1) addresses an exclusion for "intruders" the law fails to identify what the court's interpretation of intruder is. In my case the judge ruled that intruders DID NOT include what most pet owners view as customary issues they would EXPECT their dogs to bark at including cars parked in front of your house with people who could be stalking your property, strangers walking your neighbors back yard, strangers attempting to access your neighbors property or parked in their driveway thieves breaking into your neighbors, pedophiles watching and filming neighborhood children playing.

This law is written to interpret an intruder to be "someone who physically enters your property".

In fact, our county solicitors office has pointed out that under the current law dogs left outside even in fenced and secure yards for more then the allotted thirty minute timeframe the law allows for "intermittent" barking would be an admission of violating the ordinance even if the only evidence was based on a complaint statement.

2) Section (2) not only doesn't require animal control to measure the noise levels but fails to require any type of investigation to verify that the pet owner is in violation of the ordinance. In fact, these complaints can be filed AT animal control with animal control issuing citations without even verifying that any of the facts stated on complainant's sworn statement are true. Animal control is not required to investigate or even visit the location were the dogs are being cited.

In my case the sworn statement filled out that resulted in my citations being issued included several obvious false statements INCLUDING the fact the complaining party claimed to reside at the house located next to me when in fact she lived several miles away. Animal control not only failed to investigate this issue but did NOT require her to furnish any PROOF of residence including displaying a driver's license. Obviously someone who doesn't even reside in "close proximity" of where the alleged barking dog violation occurs CAN NOT swear to facts such as the "dogs bark day and night".

This law allows for abusive manipulation by real estate speculators and those who might seek some sort of vindictive retribution on issues that have nothing to do with the dogs being cited.

In fact, the sentencing guidelines encourage those who simply don't like dogs, don't want dogs living in their neighborhood to have these dogs removed by exploiting this poorly written ordinance. Those of us who have responsibly owned dogs for years are at the mercy of any unethical predatory realtor only interested in selling a property nearby with no long term commitments to our neighborhoods.

No where in our county codes do we grant private citizens the power to not only bring about criminal charges but in fact manufacture evidence to support those changes WITHOUT any policing investigation except for barking dogs. We would not allow a citizen to go to their local police station and swear out a statement that they witnessed someone driving under the influence or committing road rage WITHOUT assigning an investigating to verify if these changes were even remotely true - yet dog owners do not have the same DUE PROCESS rights?

Further it is an embarrassment when our county attorney's office who writes these drafts and laws fail miserably in addressing truth and credibility issues with their own witnesses. This is the same attorney's office that threatens lengthy jail terms while denying trials by jury, that completely fails to understand what compliance to discovery motions are all about. Only in dog barking cases would the solicitor be allowed to introduce manufactured video's at the trial while ignoring any filed discovery motions in the process.

I would suggest that Gwinnett County Attorney's office spend a little more time brushing up on a document called the U.S. Constitution - especially the first year law school sections that address due process and cruel and unusual punishments. That would be a change we as citizens are all entitled to. We don;t ask for much as citizens on this fine community but we do ask for fairness.

3) Section three is equally confusing - while it suggests that the owner of such animal shall be given a written notice from the Animal Control Unit indicating that such animal is creating a disturbance and advising the owner of some possible solutions to rectify the nuisance - it doesn't address HOW the owner is going to be advised on possible solutions if animal control is not required to investigate any of the accusations involved. I would suggest that this issue of investigating allegations prior to bringing about citations is seriously needed in any ordinance change being proposed.

It is ironic that dog barking appears to be the ONLY animal violations that lacks this step in the process. All of the other issues addressed including dogs running at large, no tags, damage to property require investigations and citations being written based on this investigation.

4) Section (4) addresses the requirements of requiring sworn statements but what are the penalties involved for those who file false and frivolous charges? Is the county going to continue a practice of accepting at face value that all citizens are being honest with their allegations or are pet owners entitled to an accepted "innocent until proven guilty" concept that seems to get lost in these cases.

Simply because a citizen "owns" a dog is not evidence that the dog violated the statute absent of any investigation into the claims on the sworn statement. Going back to my case in addition to being falsely accused of "harboring" dogs that barked day and night I was also accused of breeding dogs, kicking and beating my dogs, keeping my dogs in horrible conditions and that in fact all of the dogs I owned were guilty of violating the ordinance. Despite their being NO evidence that any of these allegations were even remotely accurate animal control focused on the allegation that there might have been a violation of the barking dog ordinance. I say might because even knowing all the facts they still failed to verify any of the claims and accusations on this "sworn" statement so why should pet owners feel any more protected under the revisions being proposed?

The statement " The statements must be from individuals residing at different addresses in close proximity to the animal creating the disturbance. " would require definition as well. This change would have eliminated one, two or all three of the witnesses used in my case who did not "live" in close proximity to the animals doing the barking. The fact is the old law allowed two witnesses who lived several miles away and a third witness who lived over a football field away and admitted to being hard of hearing at the trial. Arguably he couldn't possibly hear "disturbing" dog barking coming from my address. Even IF barking could be heard coming from the direction of my house it would be impossible to determine IF those dogs were mine or IF an intruder was responsible for causing the dogs to bark.

It is ironic that our county attorney's office used a witness with those hearing limitations who testified that while he was hard of hearing and required a hearing aid he could still hear my dogs from his bedroom which prevented him from being able to sleep. I guess the thought of turning down the volume on his hearing aid never crossed his mind? Does the law address these issues? No......it does not but instead uses these weak excuses in obtaining convictions.

5) Section (5) has the same problems as section (4).

6) Section (6) is the only provision that makes any sense. It would have also prevented my case from ending up in court and ending up costing local taxpayers thousands of dollars in court costs that could have been spent elsewhere. Under the existing ordinance it is unclear as to if a pet owner makes substantial changes to correct a problem whether or not those changes were effective or whether there might be a different issue involved.

There are a number of common sense issues that the county attorney's omitted from the proposed changes. I often wonder if the people who draft these laws even own a dog let alone more then one.

News flash for the county attorney's office - DOGS BARK 0 but typically they have a very good reason for doing so. While I fully understand that neighbor's are entitled to privacy and I too would be upset if my dogs or my neighbors dogs barked well into the night the fact is under this law it is also virtually impossible to allow your dog out in your yard for more then thirty minutes without risking being cited if a neighbor feels so inclined.

A much simpler approach would be to address the issue of barking dogs under the county noise ordinance. It is ironic that if a pet owner chooses to allow their dog(s) out in the yard while they are mowing the lawn and that process takes more then thirty minutes they can be cited if there dogs bark intermittently for noise but the much louder noise coming from the lawn mower is legal. It's also concerning that a pet owner who simply takes their dog(s) out in the yard to play at lunch time could be cited if that activity includes playful intermittent barking that lasts for more then thirty minutes - YET property owners who enjoy "playing" with their leaf blowers are completely legal. While can understand the outrage if a property owner pulled out their lawnmower or leaf blower at 3:00 AM it defies logic why the close to 40% of Gwinnett families who own pets are denied access to their own yards during daytime activity. My "offense" occurred in the middle of a Sunday afternoon when many of my fellow neighbors were tending to their chores including possibly mowing their lawns.

I'm still waiting for one of our county legal scholars to explain to me why three minutes of dogs allegedly behaving like dogs on a sunny afternoon is such a danger to the community that twelve year jail terms are in order?

Wouldn't it be much to eliminate all the large government ineffective bureaucracy by simply developing a mediation process to settle these "neighborly" disputes? While that doesn't support case loads for the legal community in arguing when and if the dog barked it does act as a guardian to the county's funds.

A mediation group of enlightened adults (who stop acting like adolescent's) which could include someone representing animal control and the county solicitors office and who could mediate any disagreements without tying our courts on such frivolous nonsense?

This law can be easily manipulated by neighbors who have issues or squabbles that have absolutely nothing to do with the dogs involved. Rather than drawing our neighborhoods together, squabbles that lead to the loss of our family pets will instead serve as a catalyst for ripping them apart. Many citizens who choose Gwinnett as their home also have a love affair with their family pets. The image of having Fluffy or Fido ripped from the family home is one that will seriously damage an already depressed market for the homes we own.No one wants to live in a community where a family lives in fear---even that fear that their family pet could very well be next to be accused of being a "public nuisance." Our community will be judged on how we treat our elderly, our children and our family pets. That is the community's core of family values.

Please forward your comments to:

Our commissioners

Charles.Bannister@gwinnettcounty.com
Commission Chairman:Charles Bannister770.822.7010

District 1 Commissioner: Lorraine Green 770.822.7001 Lorraine.Green@gwinnettcounty.com

District 2 Commissioner: Bert Nasuti770.822.7002 Bert.Nasuti@gwinnettcounty.com

District 3 Commissioner: Mike Beaudreau770.822.7003 Mike.Beaudreau@gwinnettcounty.com

District 4 Commissioner: Kevin Kenerly 770.822.7004 Kevin.Kenerly@gwinnettcounty.com
Current Animal Advisory Board

allisonwilkerson@bellsouth.net Allison Wilkerson Rooks Gwinnett Municipal Association

carla.brown@gwinnettcounty.com Carla Brown Member at Large
Tricia.Smith@gwinnettcounty.com Tricia Smith Gwinnett Extension Service

DK1011@aol.com Dennis Kronenfeld Feline Issues

calicoglk@netzero.com Gloria Kennedy Gwinnett Humane Society

outland@laberge.org Gail Laberge Chairperson - Lawrenceville Kennel Club

CPSeals@aol.com Clara Seals - Member at Large

Mary.Respess@gwinnettcounty.com Mary Lou Repress New Shelter Director

Meeting Gwinnett Animal Advisory Council

There will be a meeting of Gwinnett's Animal Advisory Council's at the Gwinnett Shelter this Thursday evening (October 16th) at 7:00 PM.

While it is unclear what the agenda of issues to be discussed there are early a number of animal welfare issues that need clarification. With the dramatic increases in dogs and cats being killed at the new Gwinnett's Animal Shelter the focus has shifted to the role the county's animal advisory council should have moving forward.

Commissioner Mike Beaudreau has recommended a dialog be opened with local animal advocates and pet owners on alternatives that would open up county animal welfare policies and solutions to those who feel disenfranchised in the process.

Proposals that are being raised which include replacing four council members up for reappointment, term limits on how long volunteers can serve on the AAC and a process of having each of the four elected commissioners nominate one dog owner and one cat owner to the council thus expanding the makeup of the AAC.

Changing the stagnation of ideas coming out of the current AAC is only the first process in turning the tide in our shared animal welfare policies. We must rebuild the current "bridge to nowhere" between the shelter and the local animal rescue community in order to accomplish our community goals.

This recent article in the Gwinnett Daily Post addresses many of the challenges the new shelter faces.

http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=50301&SectionID=23&SubSectionID=37&S=1

Just because you build a larger, newer shelter does not mean you'll have more adoptions - especially if you leave everything else the same. Comparing numbers from June of 2007 from the old shelter and June of 2008 in the new shelter adoptions are down by 20%. There is an even more dramatic reduction in the number of pets going to local rescue groups with those numbers down by close to 60%.

In June of 2007 there were 124 animals sent to rescue out of the old shelter on Hi Hope Road while that number dropped to 54 in June of 2008. While the problems associated with numbers of pets increasing in the new shelter makes finding solutions more tenuous the issue of a dramatic reduction in the number of pets going to rescue groups is more problematic. There is clear evidence that the rescue community feels not only disenfranchised in the process but fears the intimidation issues as well.

Despite repeated requests animal shelter reports for all of 2007 and the first three quarters of 2008 are not available through the county's web site.

A huge market for second hand pets has flourished when instead people are exposed to wonderful dogs and cats while shopping at local pet supply stores. Shelters finding their numbers of pets being killed increasing have turned instead to building solid working relationships with local rescue groups and by seeking out community volunteers to participate in off site adoptions.

Common sense dictates that pet owners/taxpayers are relied on to fund animal control and therefore should be entitled to help with oversight on county's animal policies. Taxpayers have the right to choose between funding "kill as you go" shelter policies as opposed to implementing cost saving no kill or low kill policies.

This would be a stark contrast to the current makeup of the council which is and has been controlled by special interests.

The last several years has been a turning point for many animal welfare programs seeking to find solutions to rising euthanasia rates when they discovered that pets sell themselves if you simply get them in front of people who are most likely to adopt. No matter how much you dress up any kill shelter there is still going to be the issue that many pet owners simply don't want to have to face the guilt associated with picking out the next family pet in that type of environment.

For shelters that partner with local pet supply stores opportunities are many. Throughout the Atlanta metropolitan area there are dozens of pet supply stores like Petsmart that have formalized adoption centers on weekends and catered the programs to meet the community's needs.

The advantage of marketing pets through rescue groups and pet supply stores also serves pet owners too. People adopting a fostered dog or fostered cat from a licensed rescue group have an abundant choice of pets who are more socialized, healthier and a better fit for their family. Many pet owners who would like to add a rescue pet as the next family pet are ill equipped for dealing with many of the issues that come with adopting straight out of a county kill shelter.

When you cut off that line of local discussion with pet owners and animal advocates as well you destroy all hope towards finding economical and compassionate solutions that no kill movements offer. To get to no-kill it involves developing the partnerships with rescue groups in the community AND with involving local volunteers as part of that solution.

True partnerships only flourish in an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust not in one where condemnation and threats flourish instead. True partnerships grow through seeking out solutions rather then focusing on finding blame. A no-kill community learns how to harness the expertise of many of it's experts in those fields.

A true no-kill policy benefits all pets, mutts, pure breeds, cats by providing an example of responsible pet ownership. Responsible pet owners, responsible animal advocates and responsible shelter staff work as a team in helping to teach others the role they play in that no-kill community.

Over the next four years Gwinnett is in serious need of major changes in nor only our poorly written animal ordinances but more importantly how the county handles it's animal control issues. It is no longer acceptable to simply accept killing off excess dogs and cats as an acceptable solution financed by county funding. Revamping the animal advisory council in a manner that will encourage new ideas is a step in the right direction.

Please take the time to attend tomorrow evening's meeting and have your voice heard on these very important issues that serve all of our community's pets.

Our long drawn out trial on dog barking came to a conclusion today with Judge Muise finding me guilty on ten counts of violating Gwinnett's Barking Do

Our long drawn out trial on dog barking came to a conclusion today with Judge Muise finding me guilty on ten counts of violating Gwinnett's Barking Dog Ordinance. I am thankful that Judge Muise chose not to punish my hounds and instead placed me on two years probation.

I am forever grateful for the excellent work of Attorney's Anna Sumner and Jennifer Miller of Alston & Bird for representing the hounds in this case. Anna and Jennifer took this case on pro bono and understood that my primary concern was and has always been to make sure ALL my hounds were safe. So tonight the only noise I hear is the sounds of hounds snuggling and snoring beneath my feet.

The hounds and I would also like to extend a warm thank you to all in the rescue community and fellow pet owners for your support over these last difficult months.

AJC - Lilburn man with 25 dogs gets 2 years’ probation for noise

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/2008/08/29/hounds_noise_ordinance.html