Uno the beagle not welcome in Gwinnett County

Uno the Beagle not welcome in Gwinnett County

America loves a hero. For many dog loving American's Uno the beagle, who won Best in Show last year, is that hero. Uno captured the hearts of America during his celebrity tour that included the first-ever White House visit by a Westminster winner. When his victory was announced Uno's howls of joy were only drowned out by the passionate response from the crowd who cheered his victory.

http://www.clipsyndicate.com/publish/video/515830/beagle_is_numero_uno_at_westminster

Uno's year started the day after he won, when he went to Sardi's for the winner's traditional plate of strip steak. He also made the rounds on a host of television shows delighting audiences with his cheerful personality.

Since then he's spent an hour with Texas Gov. Rick Perry. He rode with Snoopy, America's other most famous beagle, in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade. He threw out the first pitch at Milwaukee Brewers and St. Louis Cardinals baseball games. Well, okay, he fetched the first pitch.

Uno rang the bell to open the NASDAQ stock exchange and spent his third birthday visiting the commander and chief, President George Bush in the White House. Laura Bush gave Uno a red-white-and-blue collar and lead as a birthday present. The famous hound also got a chance to play with 270 school kids and Girl Scouts. Later, he visited injured GIs at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Now retired, Uno is a certified therapy dog who visits Ronald McDonald Houses around the country. "Uno has a wonderful personality and temperament," said Westminster Director of Communications David Frei and TV host for USA and CNBC, who added, "I've been doing this for 20 years and have never seen a dog that the public responded to like Uno."

According to a November 26, 2008 article in the International Herald Tribune Americas, the Global Edition of the New York Times, Uno has had a busy year.
Uno had a day declared in his honor in his home state of Illinois

Uno met the family of Peanuts comic strip creator, Charles Schultz. The comic character, Snoopy, was Uno’s ink-on-paper beagle forebear.

Uno appears to love the applause and the attention heaped on him and people seem to relate to him as a type of underdog champion.

While Uno was welcomed by the White House for his accomplishments it is ironic is that his howls of joy and excitement would be in violation of this county's ordinance on nuisance barking.

If Uno or any of his champion "brood" ever decided to visit Gwinnett our county's ordinance would consider any barking exuberance of more then five times for thirty seconds would be a violation of county code. One is left to wonder whether laws written to condemn dogs like Uno are written to make prosecuting and convicting dogs like Uno rather then written advocating to assure their safety in the community.

The owner of the property Uno was visiting could be cited, pay up to a thousand dollars in fine, face six months in jail and if the animal rights attorney was inclined have Uno seized and become the property of the county governments animal shelter.

While the issue of dog's barking more then five times for thirty seconds is what a vast majority of dogs do - after all they are dogs, an ordinance of this nature will be viewed as a first of it's kind that specifically criminalize owning beagles.

Here's what the Humane Society of the United States says about traits common in beagles.

Shelters
Surrender: “During my years in rescue work, the most common reason for surrender I heard was that the beagle’s barking was causing trouble with the neighbors.”
Adoption: “If a potential adopter is considering a beagle, they need to accept that beagles bark. Beagles love to bark so much that I am convinced they soon forget why they started barking and just continue to bark for the sheer enjoyment of it. A potential adopter should know that their prospective new family member will be a vocal one.

As a long time owner and advocate for beagles in our community I'm convinced too that beagles bark simply because they can. Anyone who has had the pleasure of being owned by a beagle knows that they are fiercely stubborn in their ways, have an attention span of a gnat, and follow their nose to wherever and whatever direction it takes them.

Of all the real crime issues in Gwinnett, an explosive growth in drug trafficking, illegal immigration and gang violence, the beagles are the only criminal element which have successfully visited the white house - doesn't that say something about the county's mixed up priorities?

Nathan's Blog - Why more laws don't work... without shelter reform

L.A. City Council Sheds Crocodile Tears
March 24, 2009 by Nathan J. Winograd

I believe in spay/neuter. I encourage spay/neuter. I promote incentives for spay/neuter. It is a key component of the No Kill Equation. But I am against mandatory spay/neuter laws. That is not a contradiction. It is an understanding that if one is goal oriented, and if the goal is reducing shelter intakes and shelter deaths, one does not necessarily follow the other.

As my colleague Brent Toellner at kcdogblog.com indicated in an interview I did of him last year,

In 2006, Kansas City passed mandatory spay/neuter of all “Pit Bull”-type dogs. Since the ordinance was passed, Kansas City has seen an 80% increase in the number of “Pit Bulls” killed in their city shelter. Many of these dogs are getting confiscated from homes because they were not in compliance with the spay/neuter ordinance. Young puppies are being killed because they look too “Pit Bull” and are not altered by the time they reach eight weeks of age. They’re killed only because they have not been spayed or neutered.

Many other cities have seen similar results with their mandatory spay/neuter ordinances—of both “Pit Bulls” and of all types of dogs. Los Angeles passed their mandatory spay/neuter in February of 2008, and has seen their kill numbers go up 31% this year, after more than five years of steady decline in shelter killings.


Similarly, other cities have struggled with their mandatory spay/neuter ordinances. Problems range from decreased licensing (pushing these people underground and making them harder to reach with low cost services), significant increases in animal control costs, and an increase in shelter killing rates due to the ordinances. Simply put, mandatory spay/neuter ordinances have never led to No Kill success anywhere, ever.

Giving shelters the power to impound and kill even more animals is no way to lower the death rate. Giving animal control the power to divert resources from programs that do work so that agencies can hire yet more officers to write yet more tickets, to no avail, is no way to lower the death rate.

Time and time again, studies show that people who do not spay/neuter belong to those at near, at, and below the poverty line. And Los Angeles should know, it was on the vanguard of this understanding some three decades ago, and put in place a very effective response to overcome it. As I wrote in Redemption,

On February 17, 1971, it opened the first low-cost spay/neuter clinic in the country, with the City of Los Angeles paying for the veterinary staff. By 1973, two more clinics opened and the first was expanded. In 1979, a fourth clinic became operational. The program was so successful, that within the first decade of the program Los Angeles shelters were killing half the number of animals they had been prior to the clinics. Every dollar invested in the program was saving taxpayers ten dollars in animal control costs, due to the reduced numbers of animals these shelters were handling. And despite outcry from private veterinarians and their associations when the program first began, there was no discernible loss of business over time. With four clinics operating, private veterinarians were still performing 87 percent of all neutering within Los Angeles, because the clinics were being used by poor people who would not otherwise have had their pets altered. While national “leaders” were trying to appease private veterinarians, Los Angeles had begun the march to save the animals.

Unfortunately, the clinics were closed in a round of budget cuts, and Los Angeles began following the model of punitive legislation being advanced by those national leaders. Now, it is left scrambling to try to save a badly flawed, unworkable program. And that is why the latest furor over the elimination of subsidized spay/neuter vouchers sadly misses the point.

While some activists simply do not know better and mean well, others obstinately ignore facts, experience, and history and continue to push these types of laws. They will do what they have always done—facts, logic, and history be damned. They will continue to blame the public and they will continue to fight for more and tougher laws. They will argue that their community is different, that their situation is unique, that citizens in their community are particularly—or peculiarly—irresponsible. None of this is true, but they do not care.

While they claim to be motivated by saving lives, there is something much more powerful driving them: the desire to punish. An activist truly focused on lifesaving, who subsequently learns that punitive legislation is not only a dismal failure, but that it has the opposite results (more impounds, more killing), would end their support of such methods and begin to push for regime change at animal control or the programs and services of the No Kill Equation.

By contrast, those who are intent on punishing the public are being driven by other imperatives. In the end, they so want to punish the public for not taking care of their pets as much as they think they should, they are willing to ignore all the evidence about legislation’s true results or about how to truly save lives, and instead empower animal control to kill animals in the process. Unfortunately, animal control is generally more than willing to oblige and do just that. In the end, these activists become that which they claim to most despise—people whose actions result in the impound and killing of animals. They become the “irresponsible public.”

It is clear that these individuals are not truly motivated by saving animals because they spend no effort on shelter reform legislation, and don’t even stop to think about how horrible and abusive the pounds are that the animals get taken to because of their punitive laws. In fact, they stand side by side with the perpetrators—in speeches and legislative hearings. They are the champions of continued killing, the defenders of draconian animal shelters, and the purveyors of punishment through misguided legislative efforts such as pet limit laws, leash laws, feeding bans, and mandatory spay/neuter even when community after community has shown that animals are killed because of it.

The ones that, as another colleague described,

have heard—and repeated—the mantra of “irresponsible pet ownership” as the root of all evil in the animal world. This resonates with them doubly because they tend to dislike/distrust people, and are exposed to animals that are often the result of abandonment, neglect, ignorance, or at least believe this to be true which further reinforces their dislike for people as a whole. When a local Pit Bull advocate loudly proclaimed that Pit Bulls would be better off with a “humane death” than to be adopted to the “wrong family,” the last piece finally fell into place for me. So many animal welfare people have assumed a position of moral/ethical superiority over the “masses” by virtue of their work with the animals. Only they and an elite few can properly know and care for animals. Most animals in the hands of the unwashed masses, in their estimation, would be better off dead at the hands of “caring” professionals than to be subjected to the horror of the POSSIBILITY of being in the clutches of the dreaded “irresponsible pet owner.” Many of these people are truly distraught at the idea of drastically increasing adoptions, knowing that it will be bad for the animals. In their minds, shelters MUST kill animals to protect the animals.

When you’re exposed to ugliness or just thoughtlessness toward animals, it’s very easy to fall into the mindset I describe above. I think this is why getting animal welfare folks to truly embrace No Kill as a reality (rather than just a nice idea) can be such a hit-or-miss affair and I have not yet come up with a strategy to really “reach” the people who so desperately need the killing to continue. They’re not willing to embrace the No Kill Equation because it depends on the public being a key component to solving the problem…and they will simply not accept that the cause of the problem can in any way be the solution to the problem. Only by pummeling and imposing legislative controls on people … do they see the problem being solved. All the while, they sit atop the shining throne of the animal advocate and know they are “doing good.”

They aren’t motivated by saving lives, they are about setting themselves up as “better” because they are in opposition to everyone else, the uncaring masses. They are, as my colleague noted above, “atop the shining throne of the animal advocate,” whose rule is threatened by the emerging success of the No Kill movement which says, yes some people are irresponsible, but most people do care. Most people find killing abhorrent. Most people pass on their own needs during difficult economic times in order not to have to cut back on what their animals need. Most people would do the right thing if given the information they need to make good choices, if we can cut through the fog of deceit that HSUS has been peddling for fifty years. Most people are not only part of the solution; they are the key to it. And that, according to these Naysayers, can’t be allowed to happen. Because guess what? When everyone is special, no one is special. Not only are most people as committed to animals as they are masquerading to be, but they are more so, because they oppose killing, too. So they can’t accept that. And they block it out, because what else do they have? Who else are they? They lose their identity as “saviors”—these addicts of being special at the expense of the animals.

And so they will champion Cardenas. And they will line up at the podium to thank him. And he will get his lackluster voucher program. And he will get a report that says the mandatory spay/neuter law works but its success is being obscured by rising impounds and deaths due to the economy (ignoring the fact that other communities that have been harder hit by the recession are still increasing rates of lifesaving, despite these troubled economic times). And the activists will applaud their “good work” and go back to feeling special. Meanwhile, the animals will continue to be killed.

To read more....

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=885

AJC - Gwinnett ordinance would get tougher on barking dogs

Saturday, January 31, 2009

AJC - Ordinance would get tougher on barking dogs
Gwinnett's Animal Advisory Council is encouraging pet owners to submit comments on these proposals before the draft is submitted to the county commissioners.

http://www.ajc.com/gwinnett/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/2009/01/30/gwinnett_barking_dogs.html

GWINNETT COUNTY

Ordinance would get tougher on barking dogs
By PATRICK FOX

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Friday, January 30, 2009

Gwinnett dog owners will be required to keep a closer ear on their best friends if a draft resolution under consideration becomes law.

The county’s citizen Animal Advisory Council is considering changes to the animal control ordinance that sets more specific limits on how long and how loud a dog can bark. It also expands the description for tethering of animals.

The biggest change is the definition of “intermittent” barking, which would be defined as any vocalization by an animal for a continuing period of 30 seconds or more on five or more occasions in any 30-minute period. The current ordinance does not define intermittent, but only states that such barking cannot go on for more than 30 minutes.

The draft proposal also defines as a nuisance any vocalization plainly audible to a person of ordinary hearing ability not located on the same property as the animal. The proposal would excuse barking “given as a warning to the presence of a person trespassing on the property” where the animal is located.

The proposal has generated some chatter on local blogs, but county officials dismiss some of the criticism as preposterous.

Karen Thomas, director of the county attorney’s office, which is helping draft the ordinance, said the advisory council is addressing the issue because of concerns raised in the community.

“It’s the whole balancing thing of if you have an animal, then you should care for the animal,” she said. “It’s to help make sure there is no mistreatment of animals.”

Penalties include up to a $1,000 fine and six months in jail. The proposal, in its infancy, is not scheduled to be heard by the County Commission any time soon.

Advisory council chairperson Gail LaBerge would not comment on the specifics of the ordinance, saying only that its under review.

Randy DeCarlo, a frequent critic of the animal control ordinance, said there is a more sinister motive behind the effort.

“The main crux of the problem with the animal ordinance on barking is they allow anybody to file a criminal complaint against you, without any investigation from any policing agency,” DeCarlo said. “If you own one dog, you face six months in jail. That’s absurd. You don’t put people in jail because their dogs bark.”

DeCarlo added that the ordinance may curtail adoptions at the animal shelter, resulting in more animals being put down.

“I can’t remember the last time we impounded a dog for barking,” said shelter manager Mary Lou Respess.

The new ordinance, she said, actually makes it tougher to prosecute an owner because it ultimately takes two neighbors — not one — to swear out a barking complaint.

“People don’t say ‘I’m not going to adopt a dog because it might bark,” Respess said. “It just doesn’t come up.”

Yes we can change our animal welfare culture

Studies show that over 66,000 households in un incorporated Gwinnett own on the average 1.2 dogs as family pets. Over 53,000 households own on the average 1.7 cats and an even more astounding number of families in pet rich Gwinnett own both. The needs and wishes of this large voting and taxpaying block has all but been ignored for years in helping to shape the county's animal welfare policies.

One of the agenda issues for tonight's animal advisory council meeting in Gwinnett is a discussion on what the focus of the county's animal advisory council should be. Should this group be beholden to those who own and fund our county's pets OR should it simply be a special interest group that isolates county animal control and leadership with policies that control rather then serve the county's animal needs.

The Board of Commissioners created the Animal Advisory Council (AAC) in 1993 to study animal-related issues in Gwinnett, to provide a channel for dialogue, and to offer advice and recommendations to Animal Control and the Board.

It was created under the auspices that the CITIZENS of Gwinnett were desirous of establishing an animal council to study, make recommendations, and to offer professional advise to the Board of Commissioners regarding animal welfare issues. More importantly, this AAC was created to provide a channel for dialog between the citizens of Gwinnett and the Board of Commissioners they have elected. Only though this open dialog could the community's pet owners maximize the coordination of resources towards resolving the county's animal welfare issues.

Unfortunately, through the years the original inclusive membership of the AAC has morphed into a group that effectively excludes that same open and honest dialog with it's citizens. While many of the county's other "advisory committee's" include members appointed by individual commissioner's representing their district's interest - the AAC does not.

Groups like the County Transit System, Historical Restoration and Preservation, Merit Board, Planning Commission, Recreational Authority, Springfield Golf Course Commission, Tree Advisory Committee and Water & Sewerage Authority (to name a few) all include nominating processes with members from each district and one at large appointed by the county chair. The Animal Advisory Council instead relies solely on members appointed by and only with the approval of animal control.

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. Obviously, the AAC is hesitant about making any professional recommendations that might suggest changes in animal welfare policies that effect the same group that is solely responsible for approving their membership.

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 that include 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/or one cat owner to the council therefore giving pet owners a voice in developing animal welfare policies in the county. This would be a stark contrast to the current makeup of the council which is and has been controlled by special interests if that special interest is merely appeasing the animal control interest that control their appointments..

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. Many local animal advocates feel that wholesale changes in the makeup of the AAC are in order to bring about fresh ideas that would save hundreds of pets that otherwise are being euthanized. This stagnation in having a voice in developing alternatives to catch, hold and kill policies is a major influence in the dramatic drop in rescue participation at the new shelter - which has seen a drop in the last year of over 30% in the number of animals moved into rescue.

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. The new AAC must be able to rebuild these fears with a new partnership of shared respect between the two factions.

The problems of functionality of the current makeup of the AAC runs deeper then just the process of who and how members get appointed to this exclusive group. The bylaws that created this group all but stifle off any creative thinking that might bring about improvement in operational aspects of the shelter.

Section 4 of the bylaws quite clearly states "The AAC has no independent authority to act on any of it's own recommendations" and in fact under Section 6 of the same bylaws it states "The AAC shall only submit recommendations which have been approved by a majority vote. All recommendations for action MUST be submitted in writing to the Chief of Police and Animal Control Manager. Any recommendations to the Board of Commissioners MUST be authorized by and coordianted through the Chief of Police and County Administrator.

With stringent rules like this is there any wonder that no ideas of merit ever surface upwards to our elected commissioners relaying the wants and concerns of the very citizens this group is suppose to provide dialog for? Is it any wonder that the only ideas that have come out of this group of late was the recent passage of the draconian revisions in our county's animal ordinance which not only criminalized many aspects of normal pet behavior but relieved animal control of any responsibility in investigation violations of many aspects of those ordinances?

Those entrusted with the decision making in setting animal shelter policy try to create order by closing off and isolating themselves from those and that which does not fit. They become bureaucratic with an obscured vision to the community's wants and needs while lacking the clarity needed to truly implement successful no kill policies.

Killing and control simply becomes a means to the end.

Over the next few 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.

We need a serious cultural shift from controlling our animal issues to providing animal services that enhance responsibly owning pets in our county.

Common sense dictates that pet owners/taxpayers are relied on to fund animal control and therefore should be entitled to help direct the county's animal policies in a "no kill" or "less kill" direction.

In an era of recessionary times animal welfare issues face the same budgetary struggles as other critical community service programs and are best served by seeking alternatives that not only point a community in a "less kill" direction but drastically reduce the costs of animal control as well.

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.

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

Why Is Gwinnett Killing Our Feral Cats?

With last weeks sad news that a local woman's house cat was mistakenly killed at Gwinnett's shelter after failing what appears to be the shelter's "feral cat" evaluation the question arises "why are we killing our feral cats?"

Even the wildest cat can learn to live around humans and may even exhibit pet like behavior to the person who feeds him. Those locally who care for cat colonies with feral cats witness cats who rub up against their legs and even perhaps purr, just like pet cats. Don't mistake their aloofness as being a symptom of a dangerous nuisance animal.

Contrary, even the most pampered house cat who escapes and runs loose in the wild can survive with the deftness of the most voracious raccoon, rabbit, squirrel or other wild animal. Wouldn't that cat deserve the same respect and rights of survival as any wild animal?

Behaviorally speaking the answer again appears to be that feral cats are wild animals and such should be treated by animal control as such. We have no more right to address feral cats through "trap and kill" policies as we do to the wholesale slaughter of our communities birds, rabbits, squirrels or raccoons.

If a pet cat is abandoned or runs off and gets lost in the woods, has kittens and the kittens that grow up wild because they have no contact with people, are they wild or domestic? Technically, they would be domestic because of domesticated parentage but don't all domesticated cats ultimately come from the wild?

Defining a feral cat as a "nuisance" in the absence of any nuisance behavior is simply wrong. Society goes to great length to protect "wild animals" with great efforts being placed on "allowing" man to live amongst them.

Regardless of whether the cat is the most beloved and pampered pet or the wildest outcast, shelter policies that claim to be based on humane policies view the feral cat as without a human home to protect them and therefore is better off taken to a shelter and killed. Does Gwinnett Animal Control view un-owned cat’s life as a series of brutal experiences? Is Gwinnett responsible for "protecting" these cats from continued andfuture suffering. Or is the ultimately suffering endured when these cats are rounded up and killed within hours of arriving at the shelter?

The reality is that all animals living in the wild face hardship—and feral cats are no exception. Since no animal groups support the trapping and killing of other wild animals—raccoons, rabbits, fox—why do we reserve this fate for feral cats? Wild animals would not choose to have their "suffering" to survive in the wild replaced with feline suicide so why is man so quick to make that choice instead?

If feral cats are genetically identical to wild animals, and they survive in the wild like wild animals, andthey are unsocial to humans like wild animals, and they share the same hardships as wild animals, and if they can and do live in the wild like wild animals, shouldn’t we treat them as we do wild animals—by advocating on their behalf, pushing for their right to life, and respecting and protecting their habitats?

In a humane community why should we condemn feral cats simply because of mistaken logic that some may face hardship while a vast majority peacefully co-exist in nature? I have to say I am not a "cat person" but do respect all animals rights to co-exist in our community. Wholesale rounding up of any animal must be condemned especially in light of other communities that have set up programs for feral colonies implementing trap, neuter, release in controlling the population of the colonies.

Please contact your commissioner and animal control and express your displeasure with Gwinnett's policy of killing feral cats. Slaughtering animals is not part of any animal control policy our community should support.

Foreclosure Market Killing Our Pets

The AJC ran an interesting article that only confirms what those of us in the rescue community have suspected for many months.

The housing slump and high number of homes going into foreclosure have caused shelter intake numbers to dramatically increase.

Families throughout the Atlanta area are having to make the heartbreaking decision of surrendering their family pets when they lose the family home.

Even neighborhoods like my own are not immune to this slumping housing market. A glut of older homes for sale and an over development of new homes which have caused many property owners watch the value of their homes drop. The house next door went unsold for a number of months before it too went into foreclosure last summer.

While those of us who own homes riddled with empty foreclosed homes nearby which causes concerns over decreased housing values and potential crime magnets.

While the housing market has caused a crisis for families and their pets it has also spawned a market for real estate speculators looking to cash in on the glut of foreclosed homes throughout the Atlanta area. Many of these speculators view the pets living in these homes and surrounding neighborhoods as a hindrance in cashing in on this market.

Susie Porter, a local Solid Source realtor, bought the run down home located next to the hounds and I last summer. My initial relief in watching the house being repaired would soon turn to a nightmare when Porter decided that my hounds stood in the way of her attaining her own windfall profit by quickly selling the property.

In the AJC, Susie Porter, a real estate agent from Snellville was quoted as saying "I bought the house next door out of foreclosure last year with plans to fix it up and live in it."

http://community.myfoxatlanta.com/blogs/By20hounds/2008/05/28/Lilburn_man_wont_give_up_dogs_despite_jail_threat

While honesty and ethics seem to get lost in Porter's real desire to make a quick $65,000 cashing in on her new investment property, what doesn't get lost was her obsessive hatred for "hound dogs". While moving her family in was never an option - moving my hounds out was.

Porter's claim that the dogs barked might have been confused with what she really meant "DEAD DOG'S - DON'T BARK..........". After placing her extensively remodeled "must see inside" home on the market for only ten days Porter pounced on the opportunity to have the dogs impounded under Gwinnett's radical barking dog ordinance.

According to her comments in the AJC she didn't want to see me jailed "I just want him to be reasonable." There's nothing reasonable in trying to get my hounds impounded and sent to our new county shelter where they would become simply a blip on a statistic sheet. A brand new shelter already killing for space even though it had only been open for a few short months.

While Cobb County appears to have had a 15% increase in the number of pets killed during the first five months of 2008 Gwinnett's numbers had soared 50% higher. How many of these numbers are from people who simply dump their pets? How many are from people who are encouraged to dump their pets from unethical realtors like Porter who view the family pet as "disposable". How many of the pets being killed could of and should have been offered alternatives that would have kept them out of the shelter in the first place? These are the sorry questions we all need answers to.

Sadly, Porter is not alone in taking socially irresponsible policies on marketing houses that include family pets. Are these corporate positions part of a training program to deal with dogs and cats in marketing theior listings? One of her colleagues offers this advise on "leashing the family dog" in the backyard in order to show the house. Another suggests that "pet odors" are an important consideration when trying to sell your house.

One can only guess how many family dogs and cats end up in our shelters simply because home owners act irresponsibly and follow Solid Source's "professional" advise. Of course, tying the family pet out in the back yard would be a violation of Gwinnett's anti-tethering ordinance but this seems to be inconsequential in making that sale.

http://www.billwagnerhomes.com/SolidSource4.aspx?page=19&content=Getting%20Started%20Selling%20Your%20Home

Those who advocate for our community's companion animals need to speak out against "corporate" policies that put any pet at risk. Realtors who work for Solid Source who don't share these same "sorry" irresponsible opinions on selling homes with pets need to speak out as well.

Marketing of houses must take into consideration the safety of all of our family pets and not become fall out that drives the escalating shelter intake that costs far too many pets their lives.

"Through May, the Gwinnett Animal Welfare and Enforcement Center has put down 2,570 dogs and cats. Last year, during the same five-month period, it euthanized 1,720."

"I don't know if it's [foreclosures], or if it's just sorry people," says Gwinnett Police Lt. Mary Lou Respess, who oversees the center. "But we have noticed an increase" in unwanted animals.

Maybe it's the "sorry" overzealous enforcement of Gwinnett's revised animal ordinance that has animal control recommending impounding pets on fixable offenses that are contributing to this crisis.

The numbers being reported by the AJC directly contradicts the information being posted on Gwinnett's Animal Shelter web site which states: "With pet overpopulation on the rise, we're proud to report a decrease in incoming animals and an increase in animals placed to individuals and rescue groups through our shelter."

The AJC should be commended for seeking out the truth about Gwinnett's shelter numbers especially since that information IS NOT being shared with local residents. It is deplorable that OUR county animal control refuses to post updated records on the number of pets that enter and die in our shelter. Nothing has been posted since year end 2006.

Despite our shelter director's opinion it's not just the "sorry people" causing the increases in "unwanted" pets turning up in our shelter. It's the small number of "sorry" realtors like the state's witness against my hounds that drive these increases as well. It's the new direction of sorry shelter management policies that help drive this huge increase in killing by not investigations allegations before recommending impounding family pets.

Instead of developing programs to help pet owners keep their pets out of our shelter we are witnesses a wave of prosecutorial sentencing that adds to the shelter numbers.

There appears to be a disconnect with our shelter's management still convinced on blaming the "sorry people" in the community for skyrocketing intake numbers. These intake numbers include an equally disturbing number of "wanted" pets that are being forced into our shelter over minor violations of our revised animal ordinance. Correctable ordinance violations that result in forcing pets into an overcrowded shelter is simply irresponsible.

This "sorry" policy comes right out of our county leadership in animal control and the courts that should be protecting the sentinel interests of our community's pets. Our pets are not the problem - it's the owners who should face the burden of penalties under the law.

This disturbing transgression is also shared in our local court system as well. Solicitor Joe Randazzo was quoted as offering me a deal to avoid trial and jail: "give up 10 of the 25 dogs, and accept 24 months on probation." While that was an improvement over animal control's recommendation of surrendering over 20 of my hounds in order to avoid a twelve year and $24,000 fine sentence any sentencing arrangement for barking dogs that leads to even one death is simply irresponsible. Are our courts so ill advised as to how irresponsible those sentencing arrangement would be?

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/printedition/2008/06/27/petsg.html