July 13, 2009

Mr. Brent Howard
President, Whitehall City Council
360 S. Yearling Rd
Whitehall, OH 43213
RE: “PIT BULL” BAN – OPPOSED

Dear President Howard and Respected Members of the Whitehall City Council:
The American Rottweiler Club, Inc. (ARC), the parent club of the American Kennel Club (AKC) for the Rottweiler breed in the United States, representing thousands of dog owners, is writing to express our grave concern over a Whitehall breed ban ordinance.

Since its inception, the American Rottweiler Club has devoted significant time and resources in educating the public on dog bite prevention and safety around dogs. Our highly specialized knowledge and expertise in dogs is derived from literally hundreds of years of collective canine experience in matters of training, behavior and sound temperaments.

We therefore respectfully submit our official and unequivocal opposition to any breed-specific ordinance, AKA Whitehall Pit Bull Ban Ordinance and to any other bill creating breed specific legislation for “pit bull dogs” or any other breed or “type” of dog.

As outlined in detail below, as such legislation is dangerous and irresponsible. In addition, breed-specific ordinances – AKA a Whitehall Pit Bull Ban Ordinance:

 Criminalizes dog ownership
 Deprives dog-owing citizens of Due Process
 Creates a proxy for warrantless searches and seizures
 Set the stage for mass extermination of innocent dogs and in the end
 Fail to protect the public health and safety

The Duty To Protect The Public Health & Safety

Protecting the public health and safety – especially that of innocent children and the elderly – is and always has been the top priority of The American Rottweiler Club, a priority which the Great State of Whitehall, Ohio no doubt shares and which may be the very reason A Whitehall Pit Bull Ban Ordinance may have been intended.

Recent news reports about dog bite incidents in Whitehall, Ohio have heightened awareness about the dangers of loose running or uncontrolled dogs, an issue responsible for the vast majority of dog bites in the U.S.

However, we feel it our duty to advise the Whitehall City Council that breed specific legislation is a failed policy in the prevention of dog bites or fatalities, and that the enactment of a Whitehall Pit Bull Ban Ordinance will not only fail to protect the public but may actually increase the risk of dog bites or fatalities.

Breed specific policies pose a danger to public health.

The American Rottweiler Club bases its position on official information from The Centers For Disease Control (CDC), the country’s highest authority on matters of public health and safety.

As you are aware, the CDC is the federal agency charged with overseeing the public and safety for the United States, and as such is the official governmental repository for dog bite data, which is collected from public health offices on an annual basis.

In terms of a WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE, we must advise the Whitehall City Council that the Centers For Disease Control, as well as the American Veterinary Medical Association, both strongly oppose breed specific legislation and have stated their respective official positions for the public record.

According to the CDC, the vast majority of 800,000 dog bites that occur annually in the United States are minor in nature. Fewer than 24 fatalities occur each year due to dog attacks, and are extremely rare events, according to the CDC, is .000578 rated next to human and dog populations in the U.S.

Dog bite incidents are highly preventable through basic dog bite prevention education of children, parents and elderly populations, as unsupervised children and the elderly are often victims of loose, roaming dogs, or because they fail to recognize when a dog feels threatened or is ill, or aggressive canine behavior and respond appropriately.

The American Rottweiler Club works with communities across the nation to educate the public and policy makers about simple measures that yield large results, such as strict enforcement of local leash laws, educating parents about the importance of never leaving children unsupervised around dogs, and community dog bite prevention education.

Correcting The Myth – CDC Dog Bite Facts

With regard to A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE, the presumption of the bills’ author is that “Pit Bulls” are inherently dangerous animals. This is a myth that must be corrected.

We therefore advise the Whitehall City Council that the CDC and the American Veterinary Medical Association conducted an extensive study of dog bites and fatalities in the United States, covering a period of over 20 years of data.

Published in the Journal of American Veterinary Medicine, the study concluded that no one single breed of dog is inherently dangerous, (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf), and that other breeds or types of dogs may bite at a higher rate.

In addition, it was found that other factors – especially owner behavior – were more predictive than breed. The CDC thus concluded that the breed of dog was not relevant in tracking or preventing dog bites and fatalities.

The CDC study also concluded that breed bans and other laws aimed at specific breeds or types of dogs are not effective in the prevention of dog bites or attacks; and such laws actually places the public at greater risk of harm due to a false sense of security these laws create.

Upon completion of the study, the CDC and the AVMA issued a joint report entitled A Community Approach To Dog Bite Prevention, which outlines in detail sound public health policy in the prevention of dog bites and fatalities and strongly advises local governments against the enactment of breed specific laws and measures, warning of the dangers of breed specific legislation.

For your reference and convenience, we have attached a copy of A Community Approach To Dog Bite Prevention as well as a warning letter from the American Veterinary Medical Association regarding any misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the data.

We strongly recommend that the Whitehall City Council act to protect the public by following the public safety guidelines set forth by the Centers For Disease Control.

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE: Criminalizing Dog Ownership

A primary flaw of A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE is criminalization of the ownership of dogs and the attempt to regulate “pit bulls”.

We advise you that no such breed of dog exists, and a “Pit Bull” is not recognized by any registry anywhere in the world.

It should be known that the term “Pit Bull” is a slang term coined by the media and inappropriately applied to describe a collection of dogs that “look” a certain way.

In recent years, the term “Pit Bull” has been used indiscriminately used by the media to sensationalize and inflame news stories concerning dog bites or attacks, which are relatively rare occurrences in contrast to human and canine populations.

The misuse of this slang term, “pit bull”, has led to widespread issues with breed identification or rather breed “misidentification – so much so that the Centers For Disease Control, the country’s top dog bite experts, stopped collecting dog bite data by breed in 2004.

We must point out that A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE carries a provision that defines a “vicious” animal as:

“Any animal, whether wild or domestic, which by virtue of its species, physical attributes, temperament and other characteristics presents a substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons.”

This discriminatory language and its intent are in direct contradiction to the findings of the Centers For Disease Control, and automatically makes criminals of dog owners simply for owning the “wrong breed” of dog.

Interference With Lawful Activities

By criminalizing dog owners, the State Of Whitehall, Ohio, will, under A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE, unnecessarily interfere with the normal and lawful activities of all dog owners, dog clubs and dog registries that organize and participate in lawful, sanctioned dog events and other legal activities.

 A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE may criminalize dog shows & dog sports and other canine activities
 A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE may criminalize the breeding of dogs
 A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE may criminalize the sale or transfer of dogs
 A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE may criminalize the transportation of dogs

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE: Breed Identification Issues

It is of the very greatest concern that the language of A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE is so broad and so extremely vague that if enacted, would encompass more than 30 breeds of dogs – literally a multitude of breeds and mixed breed dogs would be incorrectly deemed “illegal” as “Pit Bulls”.

The language below could be used to inappropriately, subjectively and arbitrarily indentify dogs as the mythical “Pit Bull”:

“Any animal, whether wild or domestic, which by virtue of its species, physical attributes, temperament and other characteristics presents a substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons.”

The danger in this language is that A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE could be interpreted to include almost any mixed breed dog or any dog of unknown parentage.

Again – there is no such breed as a “Pit Bull”.

Next, it seems A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE leaves breed identification of dogs solely to county or local officials, or shelter workers, none of whom have the training, skill or depth of experience to appropriately identify specific breeds of dogs against a set breed standards, let alone a non-existent breed termed “pit bull”.

In practice, the identification of purebred dogs, matching a dog against breed standards, takes years of training and education in order to appropriately identify breeds within the context.

The identification of mixed breed dogs, or shelter dogs whose background or parentage is not known, is not based in any science whatsoever.

As the Esteemed Members of the City Council would no doubt agree, merely “guessing” at a dog’s breed or parentage by such non-experts as local officials, animal control officers or shelter workers is certainly not the basis upon which to predicate a decision that may cost an owner his or her beloved dog or worse, a cost a dog its life.

Enforcement: Difficult, Expensive & Ineffective

Numerous communities across the country have considered breed specific legislation and made the determination that such laws are ineffective, expensive and difficult to enforce.

Breed specific laws such as A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE can add significant costs to local municipal budgets; dramatically escalate the number of hours police or animal control work, and all without of reducing dog bite incidents, vicious dog complaints or achieving the objective of enhanced public safety.

Cities opting out of breed specific legislation have instead chosen to enforce or strengthen existing laws and address the issue of dangerous dogs following the guidelines set forth by both the CDC and the AVMA.

Increased Surrenders, Overburdened Shelters & Out-Of-Control Budgets

Shelters in cities where breed specific laws have been enacted have seen a sharp spike in owner surrenders, which in turn increases sheltering costs and euthanasia of formerly-owned dogs.

This is directly due to the fact that many dog owners become fearful of new, breed-specific laws, and find it difficult, expensive to comply or cannot afford to move out of town or out of state with their dogs.

The impact of breed specific laws is the swelling of already overburdened shelter populations, budgets that quickly spiral out of control, and the unnecessary euthanasia of healthy dogs.

Instead of functioning life-saving stations, local shelters will become death camps for innocent dogs.

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE: Liability Issues

The City of Whitehall must made aware of, and bear the serious liability it will incur under A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE, for allowing such non-experts as law enforcement personnel or shelter workers to act in any capacity which would result in the unnecessary deaths of innocent animals.

In doing so, the City of Whitehall, Ohio will facilitate the arbitrary seizure, impoundment and destruction of private personal property – thereby depriving a citizen the right to Due Process – all on the basis on a dog’s “looks” and not any behavior.

We respectfully ask you to consider just what qualifications do local police or animal control or peace officers, or shelter workers possess as “breed identification experts”, with the power to seize and kill?

Just as questionable is the use of technologies such as DNA testing to establish canine breed identity, which is not just cost-prohibitive ($65 – $200 per test), but unreliable, as the DNA test accuracy may be as low as 23%.

These low and/or unstable levels of the accuracy of canine DNA identity tests then may leave the door open to significant liability for the municipality, county and the state.

As previously stated, the “pit bull” is a breed which does not exist and is not therefore recognized by any dog registry anywhere in the world.

Therefore, we ask the Esteemed Members of the City Council to consider what personnel at the local or state level will be responsible for identifying dogs as “Pit Bulls”?

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE, left to the subjective interpretation of breed identification of local animal control or police, or humane societies will criminalize ordinary dogs and make criminals of dog owners and send innocent dogs to their deaths.

It is the position of the ARC that that the liability incurred under A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE is an unintended consequence of significant magnitude.

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE: Eliminating Presumption Of Innocence

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE eliminates the presumption of innocence making all dog owners of “targeted breeds” guilty and without recourse.

Under the rules of our judiciary, it is unimaginable to think that local or state government would create a reverse onus – thus shifting the burden of proof from the state to the accused.

Our response is to respectfully remind the City Council Members that our judicial system operates upon the presumption that all citizens in the United States are innocent until proven guilty, not the reverse.

It is frightening to think that in Whitehall, Ohio the average dog owner will be deemed a criminal by any local authority which will apply a highly subjective interpretation of the term “Pit Bull” and lacks any expertise in canine identification.

Since:

A) “Pit Bulls’ are not a breed of dog, and

B) there is no rational basis in science or law to “prove” any dog is “not a Pit Bull”, and

C) there are no genetic tests that exist to prove or disprove with any accuracy that a dog is “not a Pit Bull”, dog owners and the lives of innocent dogs will be at the complete mercy of local officials, and their respective, if not prejudicial opinions.

Furthermore, it is unclear if there exists a hearing or an appeals process by which may defend themselves against charges.

Under this bill, after a dog owner has had his or her dog seized by local law enforcement, and the loss of presumption of innocence automatically makes dog owners guilty.

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE then violates every principle of democracy and mocks our judicial process.

Dog owners are then are subject to the forfeiture of their property – their dog – prior to any hearing or disposition of the “criminal charge”, and then the final insult is to suffer the euthanization – the deliberate killing of their beloved pet by the State of Whitehall, Ohio.

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE: Proxy For Warrantless Search & Seizure

It should be noted that A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE contains the proxy for warrantless searches and seizures, seriously compromises the constitutional protections to which all citizens are entitled under the guise of animal protection.

Civil liberties groups and criminal defense attorneys should be alerted to the fact that A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE is a smokescreen to lower the threshold of evidence needed to support the issuance of search warrants.

We respectfully ask the Committee Members just what constitutes “probable cause” – just a law enforcement officer’s word that a pet is a “Pit Bull or “vicious”?

Lowering Thresholds of Evidence For Probable Cause

Furthermore, the issuance of any warrant would be highly questionable since:

A) the basis for “probable cause” is nothing more than the subjective and arbitrary opinion of breed identification of alleged “Pit Bull” breed by local animal control or police with no legal or rational basis

B) is done so in the context of reverse onus clause, thereby eliminating the presumption of innocence.

In contemplating the enforcement of A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE, there exists any number of situations that would be the basis for bypassing Due Process.

For example:

SENARIO A: Warrantless Search of Premises

The mere possession of a “Pit Bull or vicious dog” constitutes a criminal act OR the word of a law enforcement office that an animal is in need of food or water allows access to the premises.

EX: A police officer drives by a home and sees a dog in the yard. The officer (subjectively) identifies the dog as a “Pit Bull”, the presence of which is “illegal”. The dog owner is presumed guilty of a criminal act. The police officer now may access the premises and bypasses the need for a search warrant.

SCENARIO B: Warrantless Searches – Traffic Stops

Driving with a “Pit Bull” dog in a car constitutes a criminal act in that possession of a “Pit Bull” is an illegal act and transporting a “Pit Bull” is an illegal act.

EX: A police officer on highway patrol or traffic duty sees a car with a dog inside. The officer has no probable cause for a traffic stop (speeding, seat belt or other violations).The officer (subjectively) identifies the dog as a “Pit Bull”, the presence of which is “illegal”.

The dog owner is presumed guilty of a criminal act. The police officer now has “cause” for a traffic stop.

Establishment Of Unequal Protection

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE also sets the stage for Unequal Protection, in that owners of “targeted breeds” or mixed breed dogs that “display the physical traits of any one or more of those breeds”, are held to a different and higher legal standard than other dog-owning citizens, which is then subjectively and/or arbitrarily applied.

Does the City of Whitehall, Ohio seek to criminalize the ownership, possession, transfer, transport or sale of Golden Retrievers or Labradoodles as well?

The provisions of A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE are completely without merit, as the State of Whitehall, Ohio has not proven nor cannot prove a rational or legal basis upon which to base these provisions.

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE begs the question, “Are owners of a certain type of dog entitled to any fewer Constitutional protections than owners of Golden Retrievers or Labradoodles”?

Selective Enforcement & Racial Bias

We urge you to reconsider and reject this ordinance, since it is already quite clear that should A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE become law, it could only be enforced selectively and subjectively.

Under A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE, almost any medium or large dog from more than 30 different purebred dog breeds and almost any medium or large mixed breed dog could be subjectively identified by local officials as an illegal “pit bull dog”.

However, there is an even greater risk in A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE as it relates to Unequal Protection, which is where race or ethnicity comes into the equation, and may hold the potential for the abuse of our justice system.

There is a pervasive myth, perpetuated throughout the media, that the majority of dog owners of alleged “pit bull dogs” are “gang members, criminals, and drug dealers”. This notion is completely unsubstantiated and without merit.

However, this viewpoint is interpreted by most to mean that “pit bull dogs” are owned by those in the minority community. It then becomes a question of which dog owners will be selectively targeted for enforcement and prosecution by local authorities and to what extent will law enforcement engage in racial profiling.

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE leaves to the door open to abuse of powers by local law enforcement officials and creates a number of questions. For instance:

• Will minority or poor dog owners be targeted for enforcement over non-minority or middle class dog owners?
• Will owners of multiple dogs or breeders be targeted for enforcement? • Will A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE be used to dispense with evidence thresholds necessary to establish probable cause and create a proxy to bypass due process?Civil Rights & Constitutional Issues

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE presents a multitude of civil rights issues and constitution challenges, including but not limited to unequal protection, violation of due process, removal of the presumption of innocence, selective enforcement, and the taking of private property.

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE also sets the stage for unequal protection in that owners of subjectively targeted breeds or mixed breed dogs are thus arbitrarily and subjectively held to a different and higher legal standard than other dog-owning citizens, for which the State of Whitehall, Ohio has not proven nor cannot prove a rational or legal basis.

And since dogs are considered private and valuable property, violations of the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments are of concern, as outlined in the attached report by the Centers for Disease Control and the AVMA.

Expensive Legal Challenges

A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE, with its many issues and potential infringements of civil rights and constitutional protections, would place the State of Whitehall, Ohio, and the counties and municipalities in the state in a position of defending against what could be a multitude of lawsuits brought on behalf of dog-owning citizens.

The American Rottweiler Club respectfully points out that A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE is fraught with issues not only with regard to public safety, but issues that make A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE a potential minefield of expense, legal issues, unintended consequences and a waste of valuable taxpayer dollars.

Closing Thoughts

In closing, the American Rottweiler Club rejects the criminalization of responsible dog ownership, the flawed concept of outlawing a breed of dog which does not exist, and the erosion by proxy laws of the civil rights and liberties guaranteed to all citizens of the United States under the guise of public safety or animal protection.

The American Rottweiler Club, having conducted a thorough analysis of this bill, concludes that a Whitehall Breed Ban/Pit Bull Ban Ordinance would:

• Criminalize dog ownership
• Fail to protect public health & safety
• Allow dogs to be arbitrarily seized and killed
• Create a proxy for warrant search & seizure under the guise of animal protection
• Deprive citizens of Due Process
• Violate 4th, 5th & 14th Amendments
• Incur liability for local, county and state governments
• Waste valuable tax-payer dollars

The American Rottweiler Club urges the City of Whitehall, Ohio and the Esteemed Members o the City Council to act appropriately and responsibly to protect the public safety of its citizens by adopting and enforcing strong breed-neutral laws as recommended by the American Kennel Club, the American Veterinary Medical Association and the Centers For Disease Control.

It is our further recommendation that the City of Whitehall, Ohio focus efforts on dog bite prevention and public education efforts, as well as the effective enforcement of existing animal cruelty and animal control laws, with an emphasis on loose running dogs.

We urge the Committee Members to reject A WHITEHALL PIT BULL BAN ORDINANCE in its entirety, and not allow this dangerous and misguided piece of legislation, no matter how well- intentioned, to bring about the destruction of innocent dogs, rip families apart from their beloved pets, deprive people of their civil rights and create untold heartbreak for the dog-owning citizens of the City of Whitehall, Ohio.

Very truly yours,

Jeff Shaver
President
American Rottweiler Club, Inc.
jshaver522@yahoo.com
web site) www.AmRottClub.org

cc: American Rottweiler Club Board, Peter Piusz, Delegate

ADDENDUM

EXHIBIT A: Centers For Disease Control Special Report: Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998,
JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000

EXHIBIT B: A Community Approach To Dog Bite Prevention, American Veterinary Medical Association Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions, JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001

EXHIBIT C: American Veterinary Medical Association Letter Regarding Misuse Of Data To Support Breed Specific Legislation

The Honorable Kevin de Leon

VIA FAX
Chair, Assembly Appropriations Committee
California State Assembly
State Capital
Sacramento, CA  95814

RE:  CALIFORNIA 250 – OPPOSED

Dear Chairman de Leon and Respected Members of the Appropriations Committee:

The American Rottweiler Club, Inc. (ARC), the parent club of the American Kennel Club (AKC) for the Rottweiler breed in the United States, representing thousands of dog owners, is writing to express our grave concern over California SB 250 – A Bill That Potentially Criminalizes Dog Ownership

Since its inception, the American Rottweiler Club has been deeply engaged in advancing animal welfare and the humane care and treatment of dogs.

ARC members and supporters devote significant time, effort and resources in educating the public on responsible dog ownership, dog bite prevention and safety around dogs, especially where children and the elderly are concerned, and supporting to scores of animal rescue and sheltering organizations across the United States through direct donations and grants and volunteer support.

The American Rottweiler Club is adamantly opposed to the cruel and inhumane treatment of dogs, the exploitation of innocent animals, and illegal, sub-standard breeding operations.

We therefore respectfully submit our official and unequivocal opposition to California SB 250 and to any other bill which makes criminals out of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens and home and hobby breeders, or anyone owning intact dogs.

California SB 250 is not only irresponsible, cruel and inhumane, it sets a dangerous precedent for the type and scope of legislation.

• CA SB 250 potentially makes criminals of responsible, tax-paying pet owners based on the reproductive status of the pet
• CA SB 250 will escalate costs for the state and municipalities already in financial crisis
• CA SB 250 will reduce licensing compliance
  
• CA SB 250 places arbitrary limits on animal ownership
• CA SB 250 kills or harms innocent animals

CA SB 250 – Criminalizing Dog Ownership

It is abundantly clear that the intent of this bill is to criminalize certain dog ownership – starting with the very title of the bill – and adding the language of this bill under the criminal code, as follows on Line 4:

To establish licensing requirements and standards of care of certain dog breeding kennels, dog intermediaries, and animal rescues for dogs.

We take exception to the very language of CA SB 250 which alludes to “possession of intact dogs” as if intact dogs were in nature a dangerous, illegal substance – and needing to be heavily regulated as illegal drugs.

We question whether the State of California truly intends to set a precedent of criminalizing the ownership of dogs, and the ownership of breeding dogs, and animal rescues as statute can and will be interpreted to criminalize the ownership and breeding of any animal.

CA SB 250 – Criminalizing Dog Breeding

CA SB 250 seems to take aim at anyone engaged in the breeding of dogs, and makes criminals out of vast majority of breeders who are responsible, law-abiding and caring individuals or establishments, deeply dedicated to the welfare of dogs.

This misguided bill seems to stem from a misrepresentation that owners of breeding stock, intact dogs, or multiple dogs are presented as de facto “puppy mills” – which is certainly not the case.

We respectfully point out that the term, “puppy mill” is highly inflammatory and deliberately misleading.

Most home and hobby breeders – as well as the vast majority of commercial kennels – operate under a set of standards set forth not just by the state, but by the very organizations to which we belong, concerning the care, treatment, feeding, and training of healthy dogs.

We would like to make very clear that any substandard and inhumane conditions at kennels – whether they be commercial operations or privately-owned home or hobby kennels – are still substandard and inhumane, and therefore subject to the strict enforcement of California’s anti-cruelty statutes.

Sadly, it is the lack of enforcement, and the lack of state or municipal funding for enforcement, combined with a lacking of understanding of basic animal husbandry, that often is to blame for allowing such conditions to exist.

We, therefore, recommend to the Committee that strong enforcement of the State’s animal cruelty laws are the correct remedy to such filthy and cruel establishments, but that criminalizing the ownership and breeding of dogs – or criminalizing the ownership or breeding of any animals for that matter – is not only a misguided approach, but may in fact constitute a serious violation of the 14th Amendment.

CA SB 250  – Substantially Increases Costs Through Unfunded Mandate

Already in a fiscal crisis, the State of California can ill-afford yet another unfunded mandate that will dramatically increase costs or the state, municipalities and pet owners.

The State of California’s Department of Finance strongly recommends AGAINST SB 250, in an analysis released on May 5, 2009, a copy of which is attached:

FISCAL SUMMARY

This bill would result in a substantial increase to the General Fund cost of the Animal Adoption mandate. The Animal Adoption mandate currently costs more than $24 million annually to reimburse local government shelters’ cost to care for impounded animals. Given the current economic climate, requiring the owners of dogs and cats to pay for sterilization procedures would result in more animals being abandoned or surrendered because of the owners’ inability to finance the sterilization procedure and pay additional fines.

This bill could create a new state-mandated local program by requiring local agencies to utilize existing procedures or establish new procedures for unaltered dog license denials and appeals, which would create additional pressures on the General Fund. The increased administrative costs of these new tasks are unknown.

Because fines for owning an unsterilized dog or cat would only be assessed if there were a concurrent citation for another violation, this bill would also limit local agencies’ ability to collect additional revenue to offset new costs associated with enforcing the bill’s new provisions.

COMMENTS

The Department of Finance is opposed to this measure because it would increase costs for an existing state-mandated local program, potentially create a new state mandated local program, and result in General Fund costs that are not included in the 2009-10 Budget Act.

For the members of the California Legislature to impose such a mandate is highly irresponsible and resulting in extreme harm to pets, pet owners and to the citizens of California.

CA SB 250 – Reduced Licensing Compliance & Loss of State Revenue

Punitive anti-pet laws like CA SB 250 actually reduce licensing compliance.  As reported by the National Animal Interest Alliance, only 17% of California’s pet owners license their pets.

This low compliance rate will dwindle even lower – resulting in the LOSS of state revenue, not a gain.

Proponents of CA SB 250 have relied on a punitive and permanently flawed “self-funding” revenue model which imposes high fees and has a dismal track record.

CA SB 250 – Increased Surrenders, Overburdened Shelters & Killing Innocent Animals

Shelters in cities where mandatory sterilization laws have been enacted have seen a sharp spike in owner surrenders, which in turn increases sheltering costs and euthanasia of formerly-owned dogs.

This is directly due to the fact that many dog owners become fearful of new, anti-dog, anti-breeding laws, and find it difficult, expensive to comply or cannot afford to move out of town or out of state with their dogs.

The impact of anti-dog laws such as CA SB 250 is the swelling of already overburdened shelter populations, budgets that quickly spiral out of control, and the unnecessary euthanasia of healthy dogs.  Instead of functioning life-saving stations, local shelters will become death camps for innocent dogs.

In short, mandatory sterilization laws are a proven failure and KILL innocent animals.

CA SB 250 – Government Interference In Practice Of Veterinary Medicine

Does the State wish to dictate the practice of veterinary medicine to veterinarians?

By mandating sterilization procedures for all pets, the State of California is creating government interference in the private practice of veterinary medicine.

The direct result of this will also be that veterinarians will find themselves constrained in their practice by what any state legislature deems to be a “mandatory practice”.

If such government interference is allowed to take hold, which veterinary procedures will next be mandated or outlawed, banned or restricted based on political correctness or the opinions of a small but vocal group of animal activists?

Will the practice of veterinary medicine then be subject to the whims of uninformed local or state legislators? Such policy is folly, and can only lead to great harm to animals, pet owners and to the veterinarians themselves.

CA SB 250 -  Interferes With Private Relationships With Veterinary Healthcare Providers & Pet-Owning Clients

As responsible and caring dog owners, we depend on our veterinarians to work with us to make wise decisions concerning health of our dogs.

CA SB 250 will significantly interfere with the private and protected relationship between an animal owner and his or her veterinary healthcare provider.

Decisions about surgeries that carry risks – are decisions that pet owners need to make in consultation with their veterinarians – not the state legislature.

CA SB 250 –  Negative Impact & Health Risks Mandatory Spay/Neuter Surgeries

The veterinary literature is overwhelmingly conclusive in finding that spay and neuter is not therapeutic in nature, but rather is extremely detrimental to the health and welfare of the dogs.

Spay/neuter surgeries cause some cancers, hormonal interruptions, aggressive behavior and other maladies attributed to the spaying or neutering of dogs.

In the May 15, 2009 edition of the Journal o the American Veterinary Medical Association, the AVMA wrote:
AVMA: Mandatory Spay/Neuter A Bad Idea

“Prevention of unexpected litters; reduced incidences of some cancers and reproductive diseases; and prevention and amelioration of certain undesirable behaviors have been documented as benefits to spaying/neutering dogs and cats. However, potential health problems associated with spaying and neutering have also been identified, including an increased risk of prostatic cancer in males; increased risks of bone cancer and hip dysplasia in large-breed dogs associated with sterilization before maturity; and increased incidences of obesity, diabetes, urinary tract infections, urinary incontinence, and hypothyroidism”.

http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/may09/090515j.asp

Animals undergoing mandatory spay/neuter surgeries:

• suffer pain
• are at increased risk of infection
• experience extended recovery times
• suffer a host of ill-effects

Furthermore, most spay/neuter surgeries are “for the benefit of humans” and the positive effects are outweighed by the impressive list of negative side effects.

CA SB 250: Threatens Food & Agriculture By Changes To Legal Status Of Animals

CA SB 250 further threatens California’s immense agricultural industry with a backdoor assault on the legal status of animals as property.

Extremists in the animal rights movement see the elimination of the legal status of animals as property, and the subsequent elimination of animals in the food supply chain, and indeed all animal use as the end goal.

In is analysis of CA SB 250, the California Department of Finance calls attention to this issue in the following statement:

This bill would add the term “custodian” to the Food and Agricultural Code, which would have far-reaching implications. Specifically, the term “custodian” may reduce the legal status and value of dogs and cats and restrict the rights of owners, veterinarians, and government agencies to protect and care for animals.

Clearly, CA SB 250 could have deep and devastating consequences for the future of animal agriculture in California.

CA SB 250:  Eliminating Presumption Of Innocence

CA SB 250 eliminates the presumption of innocence making all dog owners of “intact dogs” guilty and without recourse.

Under the rules of our judiciary, it is unimaginable to think that a state government would create a reverse onus – thus shifting the burden of proof from the state to the accused.

This bill is counter to the very principles upon which our democracy stands.

Our response is to respectfully remind the Committee Members that our judicial system operates upon the presumption that all citizens in the United States are innocent until proven guilty, not the reverse.

Furthermore, there is no hearing or an appeals process by which may defend themselves against charges.

Closing Thoughts

In closing, the American Rottweiler Club rejects the criminalization of responsible dog ownership, the flawed concept of outlawing or eliminating through heavy-handed regulation the lawful breeding, ownership, and custody of dogs – or ANY animals.

We formally oppose the erosion by proxy laws of the civil rights and liberties guaranteed to all citizens of the United States under the guise of animal protection.

The American Rottweiler Club, having conducted a thorough analysis of this bill, concludes that California SB 250 would:

• Criminalize dog ownership
• Fail to protect the welfare of ALL dogs
• Threaten animal agriculture and food production
• Waste valuable tax-payer dollars

CA SB 250:  In Summary

The American Rottweiler Club urges the State Of California and the Esteemed Members Committee to act appropriately and responsibly by voting NO on California SB 250.

We urge the Committee Members to reject CA SB 250 in its entirety, and not allow this dangerous and misguided piece of legislation, no matter how well- intentioned, to bring about the destruction of innocent dogs, eliminate the responsible and ethical ownership of dogs, discriminate against owners of intact dogs, and deprive people of their civil rights.

We thank you for your attention to this very important matter and remain committed to providing the State of California with expert advice in matters of animal husbandry and the humane care and treatment of dogs.  We would be honored to be called upon to serve.

Very truly yours,

Jeff Shaver
President
American Rottweiler Club, Inc.
jshaver522@yahoo.com
(web site) www.AmRottClub.org

cc: American Rottweiler Club Board, Peter Piusz, Delegate

July 7, 2009

The Honorable Don Davis

VIA FAX:  916-327-2188

North Carolina Senate
300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 525
Raleigh, NC 27603-5925

RE: NORTH CAROLINA SB 460 – OPPOSED

Dear Senator Davis:

The American Rottweiler Club, Inc. (ARC), the parent club of the American Kennel Club (AKC) for the Rottweiler breed in the United States, representing thousands of dog owners, is writing to express our grave concern over North Carolina SB 460 – A Bill That Criminalizes Certain Dog Ownership

Since its inception, the American Rottweiler Club has been deeply engaged in advancing animal welfare and the humane care and treatment of dogs. ARC members and supporters devote significant time, effort and resources in educating the public on responsible dog ownership, and supporting to scores of animal rescue and sheltering organizations across the United States through direct donations, grants and volunteer support.

The American Rottweiler Club is adamantly opposed to the cruel and inhumane treatment of dogs, the exploitation of innocent animals, and illegal, sub-standard breeding operations.

We therefore respectfully submit our official and unequivocal opposition to North Carolina SB 460 and to any other bill which makes criminals out of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens and home and hobby breeders, or anyone owning intact dogs.

North Carolina SB sets a dangerous precedent for the type and scope of legislation including

• NC SB 460 makes criminals of responsible, tax-paying pet owners based on the reproductive status and/or numbers of pets
• NC SB 460 will escalate costs for the state and municipalities already in financial crisi
• NC SB 460 deprives dog-owning citizens of Due Process
• NC SB 460 creates the possibility of warrantless searches and seizures

NC SB 460 – Criminalizing Dog Ownership & Dog Breeding

NC SB 460 seems to take aim at anyone engaged in the breeding of dogs, and makes criminals out of vast majority of breeders who are responsible, law-abiding and caring individuals or establishments, deeply dedicated to the welfare of dogs.

NC SB 460 imposes higher standards for dog breeding than any other animal including pets such as cats

Additionally, this bill requires a veterinarian’s certification for suitability to breed – such certification does not exist and opinions could be very diverse.  Accidental breedings could result in criminal penalties and revocation or failure to renew license.

This bill seems to stem from the misconception that owners of breeding stock, intact dogs, or multiple dogs are de-facto “puppy mills” – which is certainly not the case.

We respectfully point out that the term, “puppy mill” is highly inflammatory and deliberately misleading.

Most home and hobby breeders – as well as the vast majority of commercial kennels – operate under a set of standards set forth not just by the state, but by the very organizations to which we belong, concerning the care, treatment, feeding, and training of healthy dogs.

We would like to make very clear that any substandard and inhumane conditions at kennels – whether they be commercial operations or privately-owned home or hobby kennels – are still substandard and inhumane, and therefore subject to the strict enforcement of North Carolina’s anti-cruelty statutes.

Sadly, it is the lack of enforcement, and the lack of state or municipal funding for enforcement, combined with a lacking of understanding of basic animal husbandry, that often is to blame for allowing such conditions to exist.

We, therefore, recommend that strong enforcement of the State’s animal cruelty laws are the correct remedy to such filthy and cruel establishments, but that criminalizing the ownership and breeding of dogs – or criminalizing the ownership or breeding of any animals for that matter – is a misguided approach.

NC SB 460 – Fails To Improve Upon Existing Animal Cruelty  Statutes

NC SB 460 does nothing to improve the state’s current animal cruelty laws.

Furthermore, there ALREADY is existing law to deal with puppy mills:

•    Cruelty laws (The Wayne County operation has been indicted for 12 criminal counts)
•    Animal Welfare Act currently regulates commercial breeders who have more than 5 litters annually
•    Adds second duplicative level of licensing for the target audience – the large scale commercial breeder who is currently covered as a dog dealer

NC SB 460 – Vague and Unacceptable

NC SB 460 carries the requirement for annual veterinary certification of “suitable health” for breeding.  This vague and completely unacceptable.

Certification could require anything from routine physical exam to an expensive panel of blood tests and x-rays.

There are no standardized, specific laboratory tests or specialized reproductive examination procedures that are suitable for assessing the health status of bitches for breeding. No other species has this pre-breeding regulation in place.

This provision only serves to make breeding dogs more expensive and more complicated.

Finally, the decision to breed or not breed a dog should remain at the discretion of the owner and their veterinarian and not become a legislative mandate.

NC SB 460  – Fiscally Irresponsible

Implementation of NC SB 460 adds greatly to the current state budget deficit.

The State of North Carolina’s Fiscal Research Division shows in an analysis released on June 29, 2009, estimate the cost of annual licensing, inspections and enforcement will exceed $425,000 per year.

In addition, the Fiscal Note indicates previous kennel takeovers have cost more than $345,000 in additional costs for care of animals while in custody and the cost to Wayne County for assuming custody of seized dogs for less than a week was greater than $100,000

There will be no “windfall” of underpaid sales taxes to accrue to the State North Carolina exempts the sale of animals from sales tax.

58-24 ANIMALS AND ANIMAL CAGES   Purchases of animals from a commercial animal breeder or producer by
manufacturers, research laboratories, other businesses or individuals
are exempt from tax.

Furthermore, there is also no “windfall” of under-reported income tax from dog breeders as puppy farmers already pay income taxes just like pig or turkey farmers and other citizens

It would be fiscally irresponsible for the members of the North Carolina Legislature to impose new costs while at the same time cutting other social programs, cuts which hurt the citizens of North Carolina.

NC SB 460: Violations of the 14th Amendment & Constitutionality Of Imposing Limits On Animal Ownership

It is the contention of the American Rottweiler Club that the State would exceed its authority by attempting to regulate the ownership or possession of property – a violation of the 14th Amendment.

The Committee of course is fully aware that the 14th Amendment makes clear that:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

NC SB 460 violates the 14th Amendment by predicating animal ownership upon compliance with these arbitrary and revokeable licensing requirements:

§ 19A 29.2. reads

“Denial of access to the commercial breeding operation shall be grounds for revocation of the commercial breeders license.” The law should be very clear that only the kennel area can be inspected. Entry and search of private residence should not be included as a requirement of inspection and licensure; to do so would be considered a warrantless search and invasion of privacy.

In addition, § 19A 30. (3a) reads that a license can be revoked for failure to comply with the statutes and rules governing commercial breeding operations. This would include infractions of required paperwork and record-keeping. License revocation is far too severe a penalty for such mistakes.

Does the State of North Carolina intend to limit the ownership of property by making it “revokeable”?

We, therefore, ask if it is the intent of this Committee to see that the rights of tax-paying, law-abiding and dog-owning citizens in North Carolina be abridged, and is it the intent of NC SB 460 to deprive such citizens not only of Due Process but Equal Protection as well?

NC SB 460: Possible Warrantless Search & Seizure

It should be noted that NC SB 460 contains provisions making warrantless searches and seizures likely, seriously compromising the constitutional protections to which all citizens are entitled under the guise of animal protection.

• Allows Inspections of private property at any time. The bill allows law enforcement and local animal control to search the private property at any time of day or night of anyone who falls under the definition of “commercial breeder”.

• Allowance for seizure of animals for those who do not comply with the new regulations, with no opportunity to come into compliance. If a commercial breeder is unlicensed, animals will be subject to immediate seizure and impoundment and may be sold or euthanized with no opportunity to come into compliance with the law.

We respectfully ask the Committee Members just what would constitute “probable cause” under NC SB 460 – is it the appointed, authorized representative’s word that pets “may” be intact?

NC SB 480 – Civil Rights & Constitutional Issues

NC SB 460 presents a multitude of civil rights issues and constitution challenges, including but not limited to unequal protection, violation of due process, removal of the presumption of innocence, selective enforcement, interference with lawful activities and loss of personal rights.

NC SB 460 also sets the stage for unequal protection in that owners of subjectively targeted breeds or intact dogs of breeding stock are thus arbitrarily and subjectively held to a different and higher legal standard than other dog-owning citizens, for which the State Of North Carolina has not proven nor cannot prove a rational or legal basis.

Closing Thoughts

In closing, the American Rottweiler Club rejects the potential criminalization of responsible dog ownership, the flawed concept of outlawing or eliminating through heavy-handed regulation the lawful breeding, ownership, and custody of dogs – or ANY animals.

We formally oppose the erosion of the rights and liberties guaranteed to all citizens of the United States under the guise of animal protection.

The American Rottweiler Club, having conducted a thorough analysis of this bill, concludes that North Carolina SB 460 would:

• May criminalize dog ownership
• Fails to protect the welfare of ALL dogs
• Deprives citizens of Due Process
• Wastes valuable tax-payer dollars

NC SB 460:  In Summary

The American Rottweiler Club urges the members of the General Assembly of the State Of North Carolina to act appropriately and responsibly by voting NO on North Carolina SB 460.

We urge the Committee Members to reject NC SB 460 in its entirety, and not allow this misguided piece of legislation, no matter how well-intentioned, to bring about the destruction of innocent dogs, eliminate the responsible and ethical ownership of dogs, discriminate against owners of intact dogs, and deprive people of their rights.

We thank you for your attention to this very important matter and remain committed to providing the State of North Carolina with expert advice in matters of animal husbandry and the humane care and treatment of dogs.  We would be honored to be called upon to serve.

Very truly yours,

Jeff Shaver
President
American Rottweiler Club, Inc.
jshaver522@yahoo.com
web site) www.AmRottClub.org

cc: American Rottweiler Club Board, Peter Piusz, Delegate

FREE DOWNLOAD OF ENTIRE ARC SPECIAL REPORT -  CLICK THE ADD TO CART BUTTON BELOW

The Impact of Animal Rights Extremism Upon the Veterinary Profession and Globalization of Animal Welfare Legislation

June 17, 2009

Prepared By The Legislative Committee
Of The American Rottweiler Club

About The American Rottweiler Club

The American Rottweiler Club is a 501 (c) 3 organization dedicated to the promotion of the Rottweiler breed in the United States, the advancement of animal welfare and animal health, and advocating for fair, enforceable legislation that protects animals and the public health.

About This Special Report

The American Rottweiler Club has gathered citations from numerous veterinary journals, publications both on- and off-line and out-of-print texts for commentary and criticism; which constitutes “fair use” of these materials in the preparation and presentation of this Special Report.

We wish to thank the ARC Legislative Committee, specifically Barbara Haywood and Gwen Chaney, for their extensive research and contributions to this report, Ms. Barbara Kolk of the AKC Library for her specialized contributions of the historical texts and knowledge of breeds in the context of 18th, 19th and 20th century literature, and the many breed clubs around the world who have shared their insights regarding animal rights extremism and its impact upon the veterinary profession, positions and legislation on a global basis.

ARC’s Commitment To Animal Welfare

The American Rottweiler Club is deeply committed to the highest level of care for our dogs, and NOTHING is more important than the health and welfare of our dogs, which is the very reason for the existence of our club.

That the American Rottweiler Club is a clearly and unequivocally opposed to inhumane treatment of any animal is a fact without question.

As careful and conscientious stewards of our breed, our mission is and always has been to promote the health and welfare of the Rottweiler. The dedication, knowledge and passion that our members bring to the table helps to elevate the welfare of the Rottweiler and indeed, all dogs.

Rottweiler owners, through various Rottweiler groups, fund veterinary medical research at numerous vet schools across the country, and provide financial support to at least forty-five different Rottweiler rescue groups, including groups that rescue mixed breed dogs, as well as dogs with and without docked tails.

Our commitment to our dogs, the advancement of animal welfare and the human-animal bond, runs deep.

The Rottweiler Breed Standard and ARC Mandatory Practices

The American Rottweiler Club welcomes all input, suggestions and recommendations from the AVMA, as we value this input which in turn facilitates an open dialogue between our organizations.

We advise the AVMA that it is the American Rottweiler Club, in our role as the AKC Parent Club for the Rottweiler in the United States, which is solely responsible for setting and maintaining the Breed Standard for the Rottweiler.

Safeguarding the health and welfare of the Rottweiler is one of the purposes for which breed clubs are intended. The American Rottweiler Club also supports Mandatory Practices for its members. These rules and guidelines have their basis in the support and advancement of the health and welfare of our breed. Through these practices and other guidelines, our members ever strive to protect future generations of our breed.

The Breed Standard and Mandatory Practices are truly a testament to the deep and unshakeable commitment the American Rottweiler Club and its members have in the advancement of animal welfare.

Changes to our Breed Standard have been carefully developed and managed since the recognition of the Rottweiler in 1939.

The ARC Position On Tail Docking

We concur with the American Kennel Club that ear cropping and tail docking, as prescribed in certain breed standards, is an acceptable practice integral to defining and preserving breed character, enhancing good health, and preventing injuries – and not merely for cosmetic purposes.

The Rottweiler Breed Standard was first approved in 1939, eight years after the first Rottweiler was registered in the AKC Stud Book.

Prior to that time, the Rottweiler was a docked breed in Europe. The ARC stands firm in supporting our Breed Standard “Tail – Tail docked short, close to body, leaving one or two tail vertebrae.”

These Breed Standards have been carefully developed from centuries of breeding and sound veterinary medical advice to promote the optimum health and functionality of the Rottweiler in every role imaginable, from beloved household pets, to therapy dogs, to herding or working dogs.

As the many veterinary medical professionals who have cared for our breed since 1939 can attest, as well as those veterinarians caring for any number of the 79 docked or cropped breeds, tail docking and dew claw removal, when done within days of birth on a healthy puppy, are as non-invasive a surgery that is ever performed on any canine. The puppies never miss a meal.

It is the position of the American Rottweiler Club that the AVMA’s revised policy defining all tail docking as “cosmetic” by default does a great disservice to our members and their professional veterinary medical care providers, who have worked together over the years to provide the very highest levels of care to our beloved breed.

ARC Rejects The AVMA’s Revised Crop & Dock Policy

The American Rottweiler Club, having duly considered each and every aspect of the AVMA revised policy on ear cropping and tail docking, rejects this policy in its entirety.

The AVMA position change carries the burden of a vast number of intended and unintended consequences, which are detailed in this letter.

The American Rottweiler Club has articulated the core issues with the revised AVMA policy on ear cropping and tail docking, which include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. The AVMA now defines ALL cropping/docking procedures as “cosmetic” – and in so doing negates any other basis for these procedures

2. The AVMA position lacks any empirical, data-driven scientific evidence

3. The AVMA position aligns with animal rights extremists, relies solely on citations specific to anti-crop/anti-dock campaigners in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, responsible for driving the anti-cropping/docking legislation in those countries or outdated, historical materials dating to the 19th and early 20th centuries.

4. NONE of the AVMA citations emanate from veterinary authors or related veterinary journals in the United States

5. Current AVMA publications concerning ear cropping and tail docking are deliberately false and misleading

6. The AVMA “Guidelines For Response” are in effect a reverse onus

7. The AVMA “Guidelines For Response” holds dissenters to a different and higher standard of “proof” than the AVMA requires of itself

8. The AVMA position interferes with the private relationship between dog owners and their veterinary healthcare providers

9. The AVMA position is the foundation for the criminalization of dog ownership and standard and legal veterinary medical practices.

10. The AVMA position is part of an initiative to “globalize” animal welfare laws

About Our Official Response

It was imperative that the American Rottweiler Club respond to the AVMA regarding this important policy change in a thoughtful and precise manner.

With regard to the direction given to the ARC by the AVMA in the context of “AVMA Guidelines for Response”, which dictates that “requests for revisions of policy be accompanied by “data-based evidence” that supports the benefits (or detriments)” of said policies, we have worked hard to fulfill these guidelines.

Therefore, due diligence dictated that if our response was to adhere to the AVMA Guidelines or Response, that we conduct in-depth research and review of the contemporary and historical veterinary literature, and follow it with a complete audit and analysis, in order to provide the requested data-based evidence.

To aid in our research, the American Rottweiler Club has gathered a broad network of expert veterinary medical, historical and legal resources.

The scope of our research has literally covered several hundred years, and you will be pleased to know that our efforts have included a complete and thorough search for each statement made by the AVMA, and every publicly available reference cited by the AVMA in support of its revised position opposing all ear cropping and tail docking.

We are sure that the esteemed members of the AVMA Animal Welfare Committee will agree that the sound research, analysis and summary of the AVMA position materials is of benefit to all stakeholders, including other dog clubs or animal-related organizations, pet owners, veterinarians and public policy makers concerned with the AVMA’s revised policy on cropping and docking.

ARC Research & Analysis Summary

Our research included sourcing each AVMA citation, analyzing the written text of AVMA position publications concerning tail docking in the context of the citations, and providing a summary of the relevance of the actual citations to the AVMA’s position paper.

We felt it important to facilitate a clear understanding of this response for both the members of the American Rottweiler Club as well as the AVMA.

Therefore, we have provided the esteemed members of the AVMA Animal Welfare Committee a compendium of our research and analyses, which includes:

• A full audit and analysis of the AVMA’s revised crop/dock position
• A full audit and analysis of the AVMA’s online publication, Canine Tail Docking: Frequently Asked Questions, inluding research & analysis of twenty-five (25) citations liste
• A full audit and analysis of the AVMA’s paper, The Welfare Implications of Dogs: Tail Docking, (Oct. 2008) including research & analysis of each of the thirteen (13) citations
• Inventory of non-US-based citations
• Bios and biases of authors cited by AVMA’s Animal Welfare Committee
• Timeline of anti-cropping/docking movement

Summary Of Findings

Our findings of the materials and citations used by the AVMA are troubling, to say the least.

The results of the research and audit conducted by the ARC clearly show that the revised AVMA policy is not based on any data-driven science whatsoever, but rather a political philosophy, which signals a new and disturbing change from within the AVMA organization.

This change is one clearly aligned with a political agenda and reveals the drive to “harmonize” animal welfare laws and policies with those found abroad, (UK, EU, AU, NZ) here in the United States.

In other words – the globalization of the animal rights agenda is within reach and proponents seek to impose its extremist philosophy upon the citizens of the United States via the AVMA.

Most alarming is the fact that the AVMA, an organization which purports to be an “authoritative, science-based resource for animal welfare”, has now departed from its standard of veterinary and journalistic ethics by publishing a biased position, one which lacks any basis in science, an action which seriously undermines the public trust.

While a complete summary our research can be found in the Addendum to this document, we note the following:

NONE of the citations used by the AVMA contain any empirical, science-based or data-based evidence whatsoever

Most of the authors cited by the AVMA show a clear bias for an “animal rights” agenda

Many of the AVMA citations date to the 19th century, when medicine in general, let alone veterinary medicine, was practiced without the benefit of sterile instruments or in sterile environments

None of the contemporary veterinary citations used by the AVMA originate in the United States

The Reverse Onus In “AVMA Guidelines For Response”

The “AVMA Guidelines For Response” – sent to the American Rottweiler Club by the AVMA – contain the singular yet disingenuous requirement that anyone opposing or challenging the AVMA Revised Policy on Ear Cropping and Tail Docking must supply “data-based evidence” (as compared to anecdotal opinion) that “supports the practices of tail docking and ear cropping as “cosmetic procedures”.

By its own admission, the AVMA is fully aware that no such data-based evidence exists – because no studies have been conducted to support the therapeutic value of “cosmetic” procedures – i.e. cropping or docking of dogs.

Yet, the AVMA has set the submission of such “data-based evidence” to be the only means by which the AVMA will consider any request for a revision to the policy.

Such a requirement might be analogous to the famous directive in the Wizard of Oz, in which the wizard utters “Bring Me The Broom of The Wicked Witch Of The West”, clearly setting a task which is deemed a failure from the start.

By requiring that one must PROVE the existence of research that does not exist, the AVMA has thereby created a reverse onus.

This seems more an act of backroom political manipulations, one designed to squash any legitimate criticism, rather than a sincere effort coming from an organization founded for the purpose of advancing science and ethics in the practice of veterinary medicine.

The AVMA Sets Double Standard For Dissenting Groups

The American Rottweiler Club is submitting this letter to the Animal Welfare Committee in an earnest and sincere effort to appeal this revision of policy.

However, we have found that the parameters set by the AVMA for submissions of opposition to be quite disingenuous.

This is due to the fact that the AVMA has set a higher and different standard of measure against which the Animal Welfare Committee would judge the merits of a possible review of those in dissent, while at the same time lowering or eliminating the application of those same standards when applied to itself.

Again, we are specifically referring to the requirement that those in opposition “supply data-based evidence”, when none exists.

Therefore, the AVMA has knowingly set a task which cannot be accomplished by any organization which disagrees with or challenges the AVMA policy – because such research does not exist, for or against.

Transparency & Composition Of AVMA’s Animal Welfare Committee & Subcommittees

In making this policy revision, we naturally asked the questions, “How was this decision made?” and “Who at the AVMA made this decision?” and “Whose interest does this decision serve?”

The answers to Who, How and Why, we’re told by the AVMA in the context of the AVMA Guidelines For Response, is that recommended revisions to policy are made:

1. After completion of literature reviews by the Animal Welfare Committee (or subcommittee)
2. Followed by deliberations by an assigned subcommittee of the Animal Welfare Committee
3. Followed by deliberations by the full Animal Welfare Committee
4. Followed by submissions of the subcommittee to the Executive Board

In addition to the professional community, the AVMA serves the public interest – and in doing so, has an ethical obligation to ensure that its organizational structure is fully transparent.

Such transparency is necessary to ensure that policies and position statements are made in the interest of the science of animal welfare, and not in the interest of special groups. As to Why and How the committee came to decide upon the revised cropping and docking policy:

“As part of the review of the 1999 policy, which began more than 18 months ago, the committee and the Animal Welfare Division searched the scientific literature for evidence showing cosmetic ear crops of dogs have therapeutic effects. That search revealed that justifications for the procedures lacked substantial scientific support, with the exception of some suggestive, but inconclusive, data related to German Shorthaired Pointers before and after a docking ban in Sweden, Dr. Golab said.”

We therefore ask the AVMA the following questions:

Who sits on the AVMA Animal Welfare Committee?

Who sits on the AVMA Animal Welfare Subcommittee?

How many members sit on each committee?

What is the composition of the committees – how many veterinarians versus the number of allied professionals or laypeople

What are the organizational affiliations of the committee members?

Transparency & Composition Of AVMA’s Animal Welfare Committee & Subcommittees – cont’d.

In the interest of transparency, we respectfully ask the AVMA to release for the record, the names of the members of both the AVMA Animal Welfare Committee and the “assigned subcommittee” who served to recommend the policy change on ear cropping and tail docking.

In terms of the history of this committee, on January 15, 2005, JAVMA News reported that then president, Dr. Bonnie Beaver instituted the creation of the Animal Welfare Division, Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, “intended to be a ‘visionary group’ that would advise the Executive Board about future welfare issues”.

Consisting of five voting members appointed by the Executive Board, at least three members must be veterinarians, which infers that there are members who are not veterinarians, assembled to “judge proposed animal welfare position statements and resolutions”, “recommend positions or actions”, and “work with the animal welfare committees of allied organizations”.

We also respectfully ask the AVMA to make full disclosure regarding this committee.

AVMA Defines ALL Docking & Cropping As “Cosmetic”

The revised AVMA policy – by default – now defines all cropping and docking procedures to be “cosmetic” – a position which has no basis in science.

“The AVMA opposes ear cropping and tail docking of dogs when done solely
for cosmetic purposes. The AVMA encourages the elimination of ear cropping
and tail docking from breed standards”.

AVMA Policy: Ear Cropping and Tail Docking of Dogs
(Oversight: AWC; HOD 07/1999, EB revised 11/2008)

This simple-sounding statement may sound innocuous on the surface. It is nothing of the sort. n It holds a deep well of consequences for animals, animal owners, and the veterinary profession, both intended and unintended.

AVMA Position Lacks Scientific Support

We respectfully point out to the AVMA that there is a lack of scientific support regarding the procedures – both for and against ear cropping & tail docking” – period.

Defending the revised policy, the AVMA stated,

“The basis of the policy’s most recent revision wasn’t just someone’s
unsubstantiated opinion,” Dr. Golab said. “The results of the committee’s
scientific review provide good justification for the policy. Any policy that
comes out of the AVMA will be a combination of professional opinion,
practical experience, and what we know about the science. In this
case, the science appears to lend clear support to the policy.”

Ear crop, tail dock policy not a radical departure, AVMA says
Science doesn’t show therapeutic benefits of cosmetic procedures
- AVMA News, March 15, 2009

We respectfully but adamantly disagree with Dr. Golab’s statement above. Having conducted a thorough review of the veterinary literature:

1. We find that the basis for the AVMA revised position IS unsubstantiated opinion – albeit a published unsubstantiated opinion.

2. We find the results of the committee’s “scientific review” do not provide justification for the change in policy due to the fact that there is no data-based science to support the AVMA position – only opinion, and primarily the opinion of anti-docking, animal rights activists.

3. We find that the basis for formulating AVMA policy as stated above – “professional opinion, practical experience and what we know about science”, to be extremely vague and lacking the basic foundation of true, empirical data-driven science.

4. We find that science does NOT support this AVMA policy.

By its own admission, the AVMA recognizes the lack of any scientific studies with regard to cropping and docking, stating “the practice has been the subject of very few controlled studies comparing otherwise equivalent dogs whose tails are docked or undocked”.

AVMA Backgrounder: Welfare Implications Of Dogs: Tail Docking
(October 13,/2008)

WELFARE CONCERNS—RISKS
The welfare issues surrounding tail docking have been extensively reviewed,1,2,3,4
but the practice has been the subject of very few controlled studies comparing otherwise equivalent dogs whose tails are docked or undocked.

http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/dogs_tail_docking_bgnd.asp

In fact, NONE of the AVMA referenced citations listed as sources in the AVMA Backgrounder: Welfare Implications Of Dogs: Tail Docking refer to any controlled studies whatsoever.

The truth is that no research has ever been conducted in this area to prove or disprove the “therapeutic” value of ear crops or tail docks, and any inference by the AVMA that such procedures are harmful or cruel are false and misleading.

We respectfully request that if the AVMA has knowledge of any controlled studies comparing the differences between docked and undocked dogs, that the AVMA make full disclosure of this critical information.

“There have been no scientific studies or double blind trials conducted to compare the effects of tail docking in one sample of dogs with a similar sample of undocked dogs. Similarly, there have been no studies to measure the initial pain and the ongoing pathological pain inflicted on docked dogs”.

Robert Wansborough, Australian Veterinarian & Anti-Docking Activist
AVMA Welfare Implications of Dogs: Tail Docking Oct. 13, 2008 – Citation # 3

Furthermore, there is no compelling evidence anywhere in the world, nor in any repository of veterinary literature, which proves that docked dogs suffer from pain, impaired ability to communicate with humans or other dogs, or that they suffer behavioral or emotional issues, or a loss of balance.

We therefore submit that there exists no data-based, empirical evidence “proving” that ear crops or tail docks cause pain, increase risk of infection, prevent or inhibit communication or locomotion, or are in any other way, detrimental to dogs.

AVMA Position Aligns With Animal Rights Groups

While the AVMA claims not to support one side or the other in issues, we have noted that this particular AVMA revision in policy signals a troubling change within the organization.

The March 15, 2009 edition of the JAVMA News contained an article which was clearly intended to defend its newly revised position from critics, especially those making the obvious connection between the AVMA and the radical Animal Rights agenda of anti-cropping and anti-docking.

The JAVMA News article entitled, “Ear crop, tail dock policy not a radical departure, AVMA says” (http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/mar09/090315c.asp) also contains the sub-headline, “Science doesn’t show the therapeutic benefits of cosmetic procedures”.

It opens with a mention that the Humane Society of the United States, an animal rights lobbying group, commending the AVMA for its stance and outlines the history of the policy, and how the Animal Welfare Committee came to review the position.

Perhaps to justify its new position, the AVMA prominently featured a quote from a letter to the JAVMA editor by Dr. Barbara Hodges on behalf of the Humane Society VMA,

“It is a strong statement in opposition to these procedures when performed for nontherapeutic purposes,” wrote Dr. Barbara Hodges.

Notably absent from this JAVMA News article was an opposing point of view, along with balance. Such balance is an ethical necessity in journalism – whether published in a professional journal such as JAVMA or in public-facing media such as the New York Times.

The exclusion of other points of view, make clear the direction in which the AVMA seems headed. Along with the AVMA, other groups that oppose ear cropping and tail docking include:

 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
 Humane Society of the United States
 Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights
 In Defense of Animals

In 2008, the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights “combined” – or merged with the Humane Society of the United States to form the Humane Society VMA.

Humane Society of the United States = Association of Veterinarians or Animal Rights.

New name, same agenda.

According to past JAVMA News articles, the Humane Society VMA (Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights) now submits resolutions to the AVMA for consideration on a regular basis.

ARC Rejects Tail Docking Myths Unsupported By Science

As the AVMA’s own citations show, no “data-based evidence” exists regarding tail docking.

The American Rottweiler Club rejects the hyper-inflated claims of extremist groups seeking to advance a legislative agenda of anti-cropping/anti-docking measures.

Unfounded claims by these groups include animal cruelty, extreme pain, risk of infection, impairment of locomotion, impairment of communication, and so on.

There is a complete lack of any proof period, and none of these “conditions” have been the experience of breeders, or the veterinarians who have cared for the millions of cropped and docked dogs over the course of the last century.

Comparison Of Tail Docking To Other “Non-Theraputic” Procedures

If there was a procedure to be singled out for comparison on the issues of pain, risk of infection, length of recovery – and a lack of therapeutic effect – it would be spay/neuter surgeries.

The veterinary literature is overwhelmingly conclusive in finding that spay and neuter is not therapeutic in nature, but rather is detrimental to the health and welfare of the dogs, causing some cancers, hormonal interruptions, aggressive behavior and other maladies attributed to the spaying or neutering of dogs.

Furthermore, most spay/neuter surgeries are “for the benefit of humans” and the positive effects are outweighed by the impressive list of negative side effects.

JAVMA News: EXECUTIVE BOARDCOVERAGE (May 15, 2009)
AVMA: Mandatory Spay/Neuter A Bad Idea

“Prevention of unexpected litters; reduced incidences of some cancers and reproductive diseases; and prevention and amelioration of certain undesirable behaviors have been documented as benefits to spaying/neutering dogs and cats. However, potential health problems associated with spaying and neutering have also been identified, including an increased risk of prostatic cancer in males; increased risks of bone cancer and hip dysplasia in large-breed dogs associated with sterilization before maturity; and increased incidences of obesity, diabetes, urinary tract infections, urinary incontinence, and hypothyroidism”.

http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/may09/090515j.asp

Science has indeed shown that animals undergoing such procedures suffer pain, are at increased risk of infection, experience extended recovery times and also suffer a host of ill-effects.

Will then the AVMA revise its existing policy, to recommend the elimination of spay/neuter surgeries as procedures done purely for the benefit of humans, with little or no therapeutic value?

AVMA Materials Are Misleading
The AVMA has published several papers on its website regarding cropping and docking which contain false and misleading information. The American Rottweiler Club, having researched each and every citation presented by the AVMA, concludes that the information the AVMA presents is misleading, at best.

While a full list of the citations is found in the addendum, we call your attention to the alarming number of misleading citations contained just in one document alone.

AVMA Welfare Implications of Dogs: Tail Docking (Oct. 2008)

Written by the AVMA’s Animal Welfare Committee,

A full audit of each of the references cited by the AVMA is included in this document.

In the paragraph below is an excerpt of the AVMA Welfare Implications of Dogs: Tail Docking (Oct. 2008), in which the AVMA deliberately infers that tail docking is considered unacceptable by most veterinarians and the public:

LEGISLATION AND ACCEPTABILITY
Across a range of countries routine docking is considered unacceptable by most veterinarians (83 to 92%9,10) and the general public (68 to 88%11). In contrast, many breeders with a prior commitment to this practice12 remain in favor of tail docking (84 to 87%13,).

After reading the paragraph above, most readers would conclude that both the veterinary community AND the public – including those here in the UNITED STATES – view routine docking as “unacceptable” by large margins – 83 to 92% for veterinarians and 68 to 88% for the public.

The above section of this AVMA publication is misleading.

The AVMA presents this information A) as if this was true in the United States and B) as if the AVMA had firsthand experience of this study by presenting this information in the context of being written by the AVMA itself – seemingly to represent those views to include those held in United States.

But most readers would be shocked to learn that the percentages quoted by the AVMA in the paragraph above have NOTHING to do with any survey of the views of the veterinary community here in the United States, nor does it represent the views of the public here in the United States.

Instead, this paragraph deceptively refers to two highly disputed surveys in Australia and the UK.

The AVMA writes that “routine docking is considered unacceptable by most veterinarians (83 to 92%9,10) and the general public (68 to 88%11).

Other misleading citations in this AVMA document refer to:

 Citation #9 refers to a 1996 article in the Australian Veterinary Journal by three activist veterinarians, seeking to support the enactment of anti-docking legislation. The article was entitled, “Tail docking in dogs: a sample of attitudes of veterinarians and dog breeders in Queensland.

 Citation #10 refers to a 1992 survey of a small sample British veterinarians – just 25% of small animal veterinarians – a survey which was highly contested by the UK’s Council of Docked Breeds for being driven by animal rights extremists at the RSPCA http://www.cdb.org/vets/bsava.htm According to the UK Council of Docked Breeds, this sample was too narrow to accurately represent the views of the majority of veterinarians in the UK.

 Citation #11 refers to another poll (highly contested by the NZ Council of Docked Breeds) conducted by the vegan/animal rights activists at the New Zealand SPCA NZ SPCA (Expose Animal Cruelty – Open Your Fridge) which allegedly showed public support for a ban on tail docking in the 2005 document, “Submission to Government Administration Committee”, another effort in to push through a tail docking ban in that country http://rnzspca.org.nz/images/stories/submissions/submission-taildocking_bill.pdf The sample size of the NZ SPCA survey is not mentioned, nor are any other survey details, (age, how/when/where conducted, survey demographics, etc.)

The AVMA then writes, “In contrast, many breeders with a prior commitment to this practice12 remain in favor of tail docking (84 to 87%13,)”, which refers to:

 Citation #12 refers to a 2003 article by Australian anti-docking supporters Bennett and Perini in the Australian Veterinary Journal entitled, “Tail docking in dogs: can attitude change be achieved?” Neither Patricia Bennett or E. Perini are veterinarians, but psychologists.

 Citation #13 refers to a survey by UK Council of Docked Breeds that is no longer available on the web.
This AVMA publication, Welfare Implications of Dogs: Tail Docking (Oct. 2008), was written and “prepared as a service by the American Veterinary Medical Association’s Animal Welfare Division”.

AVMA Position Is Foundation For Anti-Cropping & Anti-Docking Legislation

The AVMA revision of policy has now set in motion a tremendous surge of anti-cropping, anti- docking legislation, driven largely by the HSUS lobbying machine.

These HSUS backed-bills have has been quickly introduced into several state legislatures, including the AVMA’s home state of Illinois. Samples of anti-cropping/anti-docking legislation proposed include:

ILLINOIS

Illinois bill introduced to State Legislation making cropping & docking a crime, defining it as not just animal abuse, but torture.

NEW YORK

New York state bill making it a crime to show any dog that has been docked, thereby greatly reducing, if not eliminating, the hundreds of dog shows held annually throughout New York State.

CALIFORNIA

California state bill making it a crime to dock cattle, a strategy which will no doubt seek to expand language to include other species – such as dogs – and thereby accomplishing the anti-docking objective of animal rights extremist through the backdoor.

PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvania state bill codifying the criminalization of possession of a cropped or docked dog as prima facie evidence of a crime unless in possession of a “certificate”. Debarking, declawing and surgical births are also included.

AVMA Invites Government Interference In Practice Of Veterinary Medicine

In revising its position on ear cropping and tail docking, the AVMA has also set the stage for government interference in the private practice of veterinary medicine.

The resulting spate of legislation based on AVMA policy which in turn criminalizes the procedures, will no doubt have a chilling effect on the performance of ear cropping and tail docking– which seems the intent of the AVMA policy.

But the direct result of this will also be that veterinarians will find themselves constrained in their practice by what any state legislature deems to be a practice that constitutes “abuse, torture or animal cruelty”.

If such government interference is allowed to take hold, which veterinary procedures will next be outlawed, banned or restricted based on political correctness or the opinions of a small but vocal group of animal activists?

Will the practice of veterinary medicine then be subject to the whims of uninformed local or state legislators, all based on questionable AVMA policy?

Such policy is folly, and can only lead to great harm to animals, pet owners and to the veterinarians themselves.

AVMA Position – Criminalizing Veterinary Medicine & Practitioners

In revising its position on cropping and docking, the AVMA surely has considered the impact that the resulting anti-cropping & docking legislation will have upon the larger, mainstream, professional veterinary community.

As has been the case in the UK, and other countries where anti-docking measures have passed, anti-docking proponents have injected severe penalties into legislation which severely punish the veterinary professionals who perform these procedures.

Professional veterinary associations abroad have even charged veterinarians with professional misconduct, imposing fines, loss of licensure and pressing for criminal prosecutions.

In light of these realities, the American Rottweiler Club is seeking a direct answer from the AVMA on behalf of its members and the veterinarians that care for our breed:

QUESTION A:
Does the AVMA support the criminalization of these lawful veterinary procedures, and does the AVMA support the soon-to-follow criminalization of the professional community they represent?

QUESTION B :
Does the AVMA support sanctioning veterinarians with crimes of professional misconduct, including fines and loss of licenses for performing such procedures?

QUESTION C:
Does the AVMA support the criminal prosecution of veterinarians who perform cropping & docking procedures, including the penalties of fines and jail time?

AVMA Position – Interferes With Private Relationships With Veterinary Healthcare Providers

As responsible and caring dog owners, we depend on our veterinarians to work with us to make wise decisions concerning health of our dogs.

However, the revised AVMA policy – regardless of the status of any legislation – will now significantly interfere with the private and protected relationship between an animal owner and his or her veterinary healthcare provider.

As noted by the Utah VMA, it is not for the AVMA to decide which surgeries pet owners want or do not want for their pets – as these are decisions that are best made privately by pet owners and their veterinarians.

AVMA Position – Criminalizes Dog Ownership

As evidenced by the surge in anti-cropping/anti-docking bills before numerous state legislatures, the AVMA position change on ear cropping and tail docking has already had the impact of swiftly criminalizing the ownership of cropped or docked dogs.

These laws create an entire criminal class out of law-abiding pet owners who are your clients, as consumers of veterinary medical services.

We have detailed the legal impact of revised AVMA policy on dog owners below.

AVMA Position – Eliminating Presumption Of Innocence

Legislation based on revised AVMA policy eliminates the presumption of innocence making all dog owners of “cropped or docked dogs” automatically guilty – possession of a cropped or docked dog is prima facie evidence of a violation of law.

Under the rules of our judiciary, it is unimaginable to think that a state government would create a reverse onus – thus shifting the burden of proof from the state to the accused – but to do so based on a lack of data-driven scientific evidence is unthinkable.

We respectfully remind the Committee Members that our judicial system operates upon the presumption that all citizens in the United States are innocent until proven guilty, not the reverse.

AVMA Position – Proxy For Warrantless Search & Seizure

It should be noted that legislation based on revised AVMA policy contains the proxy for warrantless searches and seizures, which seriously compromises the constitutional protections to which all citizens are entitled – under the guise of animal protection.

Civil liberties groups and criminal defense attorneys should be alerted to the fact that such legislation is a smokescreen to lower the threshold of evidence needed to support the issuance of search warrants.

AVMA Position – Lowers Thresholds of Evidence For Probable Cause

Furthermore, the issuance of any warrants, arrests or other violations of law would be based on a visual ID that the alleged dogs have cropped ears or docked tails.

Would it then not be a case of “probable cause” for law enforcement personnel to demand that pet owners produce a “certificate” that shows said dog’s minor surgical procedure – crop/dock – was performed by a “licensed, trained veterinarian? These are already being proposed in some states, Pennsylvania being but one example.

A) the evidentiary basis for “probable cause” is the visual ID of a Rottweiler or Welsh Corgi with a docked tail

B) this “probable cause” is nothing more than proxy for warrantless searches by local animal control or police

C) such proxies would be the basis for bypassing Due Process:

SENARIO A: Warrantless Search of Premises

The mere possession of cropped or docked dogs would now constitute a criminal act, thus allowing law enforcement officers access to a premises without a warrant.

EXAMPLE: A police officer drives by a home and sees dogs with cropped ears staked in the yard. The officer identifies the dogs as “cropped”, the presence of which is “illegal”. The dog owner is presumed guilty of a criminal act. The police officer now may access the premises and bypasses the need for a search warrant.

SCENARIO B: Warrantless Searches – Traffic Stops

Driving with a cropped or docked dog – or “showdogs” – in a car constitutes a criminal act unless said owner can produce a “certificate” of legal cropping or docking

EXAMPLE: A police officer on highway patrol or traffic duty sees a car with a dog inside. The officer has no probable cause for a traffic stop (speeding, seat belt or other violations).The officer (subjectively) identifies the dogs as a “docked dogs”, the presence of which is “illegal”.

The dog owner is presumed guilty of a criminal act. The police officer now has “cause” for a traffic stop.

AVMA Position: Basis For Violations Of Equal Protection
Legislation based on the AVMA revised policy also sets the stage for violations of Equal Protection.

Owners of “targeted breeds – i.e. cropped or docked breeds, such as the Rottweiler or American Pit Bull Terrier – will be subject to a different and higher legal standard than other dog-owning citizens, which is then subjectively and/or arbitrarily applied.

The Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against arbitrary government action by requiring similar treatment of those who are similarly situated.

Such legislation clearly violates Equal Protection by singling out owners of multiple “cropped or docked breeds”, and granting exemptions to those “similarly situated.”

As in the case of breed specific legislation, anti-docking proponents have not proven, nor cannot prove, a rational or legal basis upon which to base these provisions, given the fact that no data-based, scientific evidence exists to support such laws.

This scenario also begs the question,

“Are owners of dogs with natural ears or tails entitled to any greater Constitutional protections than owners of cropped or docked dogs”?

It is the position of the American Rottweiler Club that all dog owners are entitled to Equal Protection under the law.

AVMA Position: Fosters Selective Enforcement
However, there is an even greater risk in legislation based on AVMA policy as it relates to Unequal Protection.

There is a pervasive myth, perpetuated throughout the media, that the majority of Rottweiler owners or even owners of “pit bull type dogs” are “gang members, criminals, and drug dealers”.

This notion is completely unsubstantiated and without merit. However, this viewpoint is interpreted by most to mean that Rottweilers or “pit bull dogs” are owned by those in certain segments of society.

It then becomes a question of which dog owners will be selectively targeted for enforcement and prosecution by local authorities, and to what extent will law enforcement engage in “profiling”.

Clearly, legislation based on AVMA revised policy leaves the door open to abuse of powers by local law enforcement officials and creates a number of questions.

For instance:

 Will minority or poor dog owners be targeted for enforcement over non-minority or middle class dog owners?

 Will owners of hunting dogs or American Pit Bull Terriers be targeted for enforcement?

 Will anti-cropping/anti-docking legislation be used to dispense with evidence thresholds necessary to establish probable cause as in the case of breed-specific legislation, and thereby create a proxy to bypass Due Process?

AVMA – Is Global Harmonization Harmful To “Good” Science?

It’s clear that on a global basis, the anti-cropping/anti-docking movement led by extremist groups has been successful in the banning and criminalization of these procedures

And insofar as AVMA positions and publications are concerned, the AVMA has relied heavily on these anti-cropping/anti-docking sources abroad as the basis upon which to predicate the change in position.

The addition of Dr. Emily Patterson-Kane in 2007 to the AVMA’s Animal Welfare Division seems to have directly influenced the content of the papers published by the AVMA on the subject of cropping and tail docking.

Hired in 2007, Dr. Patterson-Kane, a New Zealand native, holds a PhD in animal psychology from Victoria University in Wellington. Her research interests include human judgments of animal welfare.
Dr. Patterson-Kane sees her mission as one that brings change to the AVMA.

“I guess I understand that I have my position on animal welfare issues, and the AVMA has theirs. I came on board to be part of a shift within the AVMA that reflects and promotes a shift in the veterinary p

- Dr. Emily PattersonKane, Dolittler: An interview with AVMA animal welfare insider Emily Patterson-Kane, PhD

Dr. Patterson-Kane works as a member of the three-person team on AVMA’s Animal Welfare Division, directed by Dr Gail Golab, the very same division which is directly responsible for the preparation of the AVMA’s publications, Welfare Implications of Dogs: Tail Docking, and AVMA FAQ’s: Tail Docking, which contain arguably misleading information and citations.

Of note – there is not a single U.S. based study or paper amongst the AVMA citations, most of which rely heavily upon those by animal rights activists veterinarians in the UK, Australia and New Zealand.

We also note that Dr. W. Ron DeHaven, CEO, and Dr. Gail Golab, Animal Welfare Division, were among “more than 400 veterinarians, government officials, humane group representatives, and industry representatives who met to discuss animal welfare standards” at the second global animal welfare conference of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) held in Cairo, Egypt, as reported in the December 15, 2008 JAVMA News.

Is the AVMA sacrificing sound science in the drive for global harmonization?

The drive for the globalization of animal welfare is evident. The American Rottweiler Club fully supports initiatives to improve animal welfare, but rejects the importation of animal rights philosophy under the guise of animal welfare.

AVMA HOD Resolution 4 – Same Intent, Different Language

Recognizing the inherent flaws of the current AVMA cropping and docking policy, the Utah Veterinary Medical Association offered the following formal resolution to re-revise the language of the AVMA position of Ear Cropping and Tail Docking, as reported in the June 15, 2009 edition of JAVMA News:

Revise Policy on Ear Cropping and Tail Docking of Dogs
“RESOLVED, that the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) revise the AVMA policy on Ear Cropping and Tail Docking of Dogs as indicated below (deletions are struckthrough and additions are underlined):”

Ear Cropping and Tail Docking of Dogs
The AVMA opposes ear cropping and tail docking of dogs when done solely for cosmetic purposes. Although cosmetic ear cropping and tail docking of dogs has little or no therapeutic basis, it is a procedure that is condoned by the American Kennel Club and by many members of society. It is imperative that the procedures be performed by trained, licensed, and caring veterinarians using current standard of care. The AVMA encourages the elimination of ear cropping and tail docking from in breed standards. Members of the AVMA will conform to all state mandates concerning the procedures.

Resolution 4 gives the HOD a chance to weigh in on the recently revised AVMA policy. In November 2008, the Executive Board amended the policy to state that the AVMA opposes these procedures when done solely for cosmetic purposes. In addition, the amended policy encourages the elimination of ear cropping and tail docking from breed standards.

The Utah VMA proposes amending the policy to, among other things, retract AVMA opposition to the procedures.
The Utah VMA writes in the resolution background that the Executive Board action was made without input from the HOD. The board was within its purview to do so, but the revised policy took a “much more hard line slant” than earlier iterations on the matter, which included warnings about the risks of cosmetic ear crops and tail docks, the Utah VMA wrote.

Society has mixed feelings about the procedures, which are minor surgeries, relatively safe, and cause little discomfort to the animals, the Utah VMA continued. Moreover, public demand for ear crops and tail docks is high, and many AVMA members continue performing the procedures.

“The issue for the AVMA is not to decide what surgery pet owners want or do not want for their pets, but rather to be sure all surgical procedures performed by licensed veterinarians are with proper protocol and proper postoperative care,” the association wrote.

Veterinarians are not compelled to perform the procedures, the Utah VMA added, and the resolution indicates only that these procedures should be performed by licensed professionals who are willing and able to do them.

AVMA HOD Resolution 4 – Same Intent, Different Language – cont’d.

The American Rottweiler Club is in agreement with the Utah VMA on the following points:

 That cropping or docking procedures are minor surgeries, relatively safe, and cause little discomfort to the animals

 Many AVMA members continue performing the procedures

 The issue for the AVMA is not to decide what surgery pet owners want or do not want for their pets

 Veterinarians are not compelled to perform the procedures

However, in actuality AVMA HOD Resolution 4 is nothing more than doublespeak or “smoke and mirrors” – a diversion designed to appease critics – it contains nearly identical language and carries the same intent of the AVMA policy – the elimination and criminalization of ear cropping and tail docking.

1. UTAH VMA “Although cosmetic ear cropping and tail docking of dogs has little or no therapeutic basis”.

ISSUE: HOD Resolution 4 leaves intact the de facto definition that such procedures are merely “cosmetic” and hold little or no therapeutic value.

2. UTAH VMA “it is a procedure that is condoned by the American Kennel Club and by many members of society”.

ISSUE HOD Resolution 4 marginalizes the procedures through use of the word “condoned”.

3. UTAH VMA “It is imperative that the procedures be performed by trained, licensed, and caring veterinarians using current standard of care”.

ISSUE HOD Resolution 4, left open to interpretation by an uninformed public or policymakers – will exclude skilled and knowledgeable laypeople and leave puppies at risk due to lack of understanding.

4. UTAH VMA “The AVMA encourages the elimination of ear cropping and tail docking from in breed standards.”

ISSUE HOD Resolution 4 STILL supports the AVMA position of the elimination of all ear cropping and tail docking.

5. UTAH VMA ”Members of the AVMA will conform to all state mandates concerning the procedures”.

ISSUE HOD Resolution 4 still provides the basis for and supports the criminalization and prosecution of veterinarians who perform these procedures.

Legal, Moral & Ethical Considerations For The AVMA
The impact of the AVMA’s revised position on ear cropping and tail docking is fraught with issues, and leaves open the real questions about the responsibility the AVMA must bear for the intended or unintended consequences which will result.

There are also numerous legal, moral and ethical considerations which seem to have been ignored.

With all due respect, and considering the absolute fact that no data-driven science exists to support the AVMA’s revised position on cropping and docking, we ask the AVMA and the Animal Welfare Committee to answer the following questions:

A. Is it ethical for a science-based organization such as the AVMA to base policy on a lack of data-driven science? What does this bode for the future of the organization, its membership and pet owners?

B. Does the AVMA have a moral obligation to uphold the tenets of science, or will the AVMA bow to popular opinion or politically correct philosophy to drive other policy decisions as well?

C. What are the potential legal ramifications of AVMA policy based on the opinions of animal rights extremists rather than data-driven science?

The Future Of Our Breed
What is the future of the Rottweiler and the future of all cropped or docked breeds?

In revising policy to define ALL crop/dock procedures as “cosmetic” and in doing so, clearly using citations that a) lack any empirical research and b) are drawn from sources that support the animal rights agenda, the AVMA has signaled support to see these procedures defined as animal cruelty or even torture – and ownership of cropped or docked dogs defined as a criminal offense.

As one of its primary functions, the American Rottweiler Club is charged with safeguarding the Rottweiler breed and the breed standard, and upholding high standards of animal welfare and care for our dogs.

We cannot allow the future of the Rottweiler, or our breed standard, to be rewritten by the AVMA, in the context of policies clearly lacking empirical support, yet call for the elimination of tail docking in our breed. Nor can we allow special interest organizations to dictate legislation, with the help of the AVMA under the guise of this biased policy.

Should the AVMA continue to follow the lead of animal rights activists calling for anti-cropping/anti-docking legislation in UK, Australia and New Zealand, and the EU, then the very future of our breed – and all cropped or docked breeds – is at stake.

Equally concerning is the AVMA globalization strategy, which seeks to align policy and position with policies in the UK, Australia, New Zealand and the EU.

Following the successful passage of anti-cropping, anti-docking legislation and policy, animal rights campaigners in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and the EU have now moved on to attacking breeding practices as cruel and inhumane.

We must wonder, then, if supporting such positions is in fact laying the foundation for the future of the AVMA, one in which the purposeful breeding of dogs would be considered cruel and/or inhumane.

If this is to be the case, the future ownership of pets, and indeed all animals, is at stake.

The Future Of The AVMA
In the past, the American Veterinary Medical Association has been an institution which has facilitated the profession of veterinary medicine, and has acted as the repository of thought, research and analysis based in science.

To quote AVMA CEO, Dr. W. Ron DeHaven,

“Among the most important responsibilities that veterinarians have in development and implementation of animal welfare standards is to ensure those standards are science-based and that consideration has been given to interactions among the various components of animal care systems.”

We couldn’t agree more with Dr. DeHaven – animal welfare standards MUST be science-based.

However, we must share our concern that if, by sending science-based standards to the wayside in favor of political correctness, AVMA policies are to be incrementally rewritten to support and advance the animal rights agenda, then the trust and esteem which was well-placed in the AVMA by our organization and others would be seriously undermined.

We feel strongly that the future of the AVMA must include an inalienable duty to ensure that policies and positions are based on a standard of fair and unbiased science.

Anything less undermines the confidence of all stakeholders and constituents in the objectivity of your organization.

Formal Request For Revision Of Tail Docking Policy
The American Rottweiler Club formally requests that the American Veterinary Medical Association immediately revise its current policy on tail docking.

This formal request for revision meets and exceeds the “AVMA Guidelines For Response”, and is accompanied by the full scope of research and analysis of the literature concerning this issue, which clearly shows all such published papers lack the “data-based evidence” that the AVMA “requires” for policy revisions.

Furthermore, having conducted an intensive research study, we find that the AVMA has relied solely on the use of anecdotal opinions of contemporary animal rights extremists as well as the outdated, historical references illegitimately used to convey the inference that the AVMA relied on “science” to support its position – science which does not exist.

The American Rottweiler Club rejects the categorization of tail docking as “cosmetic” surgery, as well as future criminalization of the procedure or the ownership of docked dogs.

We therefore respectfully request that the AVMA reconsider and review its most recent revision to its Tail Docking Policy, based on the information presented herein, including but not limited to:

 the lack of empirical data to support the position

 the use of anecdotal opinion

 the sources cited by the AVMA in support of this new revision are overwhelmingly from animal rights campaigners in other countries who have led the anti-crop/dock movement abroad, resulting in the criminalization of the procedures and criminalization of ownership of cropped or docked dogs

The American Rottweiler Club urges the American Veterinary Medical Association, and the esteemed members of the Animal Welfare Committee, and the Executive Board, to act appropriately and responsibly, using data-driven science to develop or revise positions which so greatly influence the members of the public, the press, and policymakers.

FREE DOWNLOAD OF ENTIRE ARC SPECIAL REPORT – CLICK THE ADD TO CART BUTTON BELOW

FREE DOWNLOAD OF ENTIRE ARC SPECIAL REPORT – CLICK THE ADD TO CART BUTTON BELOW

June 17, 2009

Gail Golab, D.V.M.
Chair, Animal Welfare Division
Animal Welfare Committee
American Veterinary Medical Association
1931 N. Meacham Rd., Suite 100
Schaumburg, IL 60173

RE: AVMA Revised Ear Cropping and Tail Docking Policy – OPPOSED

Dear Dr. Golab & Esteemed Members of the AVMA Animal Welfare Committee:

The American Rottweiler Club, Inc. (ARC), a nationwide, not-for-profit organization, is the American Kennel Club parent club for the Rottweiler breed in the United States, representing thousands of dog owners concerned with the lawful and humane tail docking procedures across the country.

It is with the greatest respect for the AVMA, and with the greatest concern, that we formally submit our letter of opposition to the recently revised policy position concerning ear cropping and tail docking, including the very guidelines for response which have been set for dissenting groups by the AVMA Animal Welfare Committee.

The AVMA’s newly-revised policy represents a significant departure and illustrates a clear shift in the organization from a position of animal welfare to a position of animal rights.

By defining ALL cropping and docking procedures – heretofore standard veterinary medical practice – to be lacking any therapeutic value – and to be merely “cosmetic”, the AVMA now “encourages the elimination of ear cropping and tail docking” as part of a “strategic goal for animal welfare”.

It is our sincere hope that, based on the detailed information provided within this letter and attached ARC Special Report, An In Depth Investigation and Analysis of the Veterinary Medical Literature Concerning Ear Cropping and Tail Docking, the AVMA will reconsider its position, as well as the serious, long-term implications not only for ownership of our breed, but all dogs, as well as the future of all animals.

We are committed to an open and respectful dialogue with the AVMA with regard to this issue.

As a very active breed club in the United States, and an important stakeholder representing thousands of dog owners and ultimately consumers of veterinary medical services, we affirm our commitment to working with the AVMA.

The membership of the American Rottweiler Club, and the Board of Directors, wish to thank the AVMA and the Animal Welfare Committee for its thoughtful consideration of this most important matter, as we both share an unbending commitment to the welfare of all dogs.

The American Rottweiler Club looks forward to your response

Very truly yours,

Jeff Shaver
President
American Rottweiler Club, Inc.
e) jshaver522@yahoo.com
w) www.AmRottClub.org

cc: American Rottweiler Club Board, Peter Piusz, Delegate

FREE DOWNLOAD OF ENTIRE ARC SPECIAL REPORT – CLICK THE ADD TO CART BUTTON BELOW

Hon. Senator Jolm Carona
Capitol Station
P.O. Box 12068
Austin, Texas 78711

RE: In Support of HB 1046 as Amended to SB 408

As president of the American Rottweiler Club and on behalf of its Texas members, we are in support of Texas HB 1046 that grants an appeal to animal owners if their animals are awarded to a humane organization or ordered euthanized.

We do not support cruelty to animals and that cannot be tolerated. However, we believe that Texas animal owners should be treated fairly and given the opportunity to appeal if they want to and can put up the bond for the care of the animals.

There have been cases of humane organizations being over zealous in prompting the seizure of people’s animals. but they are well thought of by most people so they usually win these cases.

An appeal will give the owner a much fairer position and sets up a system of checks and balances. Giving too much power to one group sets up the possibility for abuse of that power. That is why an appeal is needed.

Appeals are allowed when the animals are ordered sold at auction, so all animal owners should get the same treatment and be afforded an appeal if they want one.

We thank you for your service and urge you to keep HB 1046 as an amendment to Texas SB 408.

Sincerely,

Gwen Chaney
President

Councilman Brendan Clancy
2ndDistrict
City Hall Council Chambers
6070 Central Avenue
Portage, IN 46368
219-406-4732
ClancyPortage2@hotmail.com

Dear Honorable Councilman Clancy,

The American Rottweiler Club (ARC) is the American Kennel Club Parent Club of the Rottweiler in the United States with over 1000 members, many of whom live in Indiana.

As the Parent Club, ARC promotes conformation, obedience, rally, agility, herding, carting, therapy, search and rescue, tracking, as well as maintenance of excellent health care.

We support and encourage efforts to improve public perception of the Rottweiler through proper training, socialization, and participation in programs such as therapy dog work, school education, and other activities that demonstrate positive Rottweiler traits, as well as through publicizing good deeds performed by Rottweilers.

Rottweilers searched the remains of the Twin Towers in New York City and the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

Rottweilers are doing classes in responsible dog ownership in elementary schools.  Rottweilers live as productive members of families.  All the while responsible owners work diligently to protect and preserve the right to own this wonderful companion breed by working to promote laws that are non-breed specific.

The American Rottweiler Club Board and Membership are opposed to the proposed City of Portage breed specific legislation condemning Rottweilers, Pit Bulls, German Shepherd Dogs, Akitas, and Doberman Pinschers, as well as any breed of dog as vicious. The propensity of a violent disposition is a direct result of the training and socialization by the owner.

There are strategies that can be used in an effort to prevent dog bites which include enforcement of generic, non-breed-specific dangerous dog laws; prohibition of dog fighting; and school-based and adult education programs that teach pet selection, pet care,  and responsible ownership.

Please contact me and the American Rottweiler Club Board with any questions that you might have concerning the Rottweiler.  We will be happy to respond in any way to help you.

Sincerely,
Gwen Chaney
President
American Rottweiler Club, Inc.

email:  GAChaney2@aol.com
www.amrottclub.org

Mr. Neal Williams
Village of Rantoul Mayor
333 South Tanner
Rantoul, IL 61866

Dear Village of Rantoul Mayor Williams,

The American Rottweiler Club (ARC) is the American Kennel Club Parent Club of the Rottweiler in the United States with 1000 members, many of whom live in Illinois.  As the Parent Club, ARC promotes conformation, obedience, rally, agility, herding, carting, therapy, search and rescue, tracking, etc.

We support and encourage efforts to improve public perception of the Rottweiler through proper training, socialization, and participation in programs such as therapy dog work, school education, and other activities that demonstrate positive Rottweiler traits, as well as through publicizing good deeds performed by Rottweilers.

Rottweilers searched the remains of the Twin Towers in New York City and the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.  Rottweilers are doing classes in responsible dog ownership in elementary schools.  Rottweilers live as members of families.

All the while responsible owners work diligently to protect and preserve the right to own this wonderful companion breed by working to promote laws that are non-breed specific.

The American Rottweiler Club Board and Membership is opposed to the proposed breed specific ban as well as responsible owner limitations per home.

Strategies that can be used in an effort to prevent dog bites include enforcement of generic, non-breed-specific dangerous dog laws, with an emphasis on chronically irresponsible owners; enforcement of animal control ordinances such as leash laws; prohibition of dog fighting; and school-based and adult education programs that teach pet selection, pet care and responsible ownership.

Please contact me and the American Rottweiler Club Board with any questions that you might have concerning the Rottweiler.  We will be happy to respond in any way to help you.

Sincerely,
Gwen Chaney
President
American Rottweiler Club, Inc.

email:  GAChaney2@aol.com
www.amrottclub.org

The Honorable Lisa Gladden
Vice-Chair, Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee
Maryland Senate
2 East Miller Senate Bldg.
110 College Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991

RE:  Maryland SB 318 – Opposed

Dear Senator Gladden and Respected Members of the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee:

The American Rottweiler Club, Inc. (ARC), the parent club of the American Kennel Club (AKC) for the Rottweiler breed in the United States, representing thousands of dog owners, is writing to express our grave concern over Maryland SB 318, A Bill That Criminalizes The Ownership and Limits The Possession of Breeding Dogs.

Since its inception, the American Rottweiler Club has been deeply engaged in advancing animal welfare and the humane care and treatment of dogs.

ARC members and supporters devote significant time, effort and resources in educating the public on responsible dog ownership, dog bite prevention and safety around dogs, especially where children and the elderly are concerned, and supporting to scores of animal rescue and sheltering organizations across the United States through direct donations and grants and volunteer support.

The American Rottweiler Club is adamantly opposed to the cruel and inhumane treatment of dogs, the exploitation of innocent animals, and illegal, sub-standard breeding operations.

We therefore respectfully submit our official and unequivocal opposition to Maryland SB 318 and to any other bill which makes criminals out of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens and home and hobby breeders, or anyone owning intact dogs.

SB 318 is not only irresponsible, and sets a dangerous precedent for the type and scope of legislation, and exceeds the legal and constitutional scope of state legislatures.

In addition:

 SB 318 criminalizes dog ownership
 SB 318 fails to improve upon existing animal cruelty statues
 SB 318 places arbitrary limits on animal ownership
 SB 318 deprives dog-owing citizens of Due Process & Equal Protection
 SB 318 creates a proxy for warrantless searches and seizures
 SB 318 threatens animal agriculture & food production

SB 318 – Criminalizing Dog Ownership

It is abundantly clear that the intent of this bill is to criminalize dog ownership – starting with the very title of the bill – and adding the language of this bill under the criminal code, as follows on Line 4:

FOR the purpose of prohibiting a person from owning, possessing, controlling, Or otherwise having custody of more than a certain number of breeding dogs at anytime;

We take exception to the very language of SB 318, which alludes to “possession of intact dogs” as if intact dogs were in nature a dangerous, illegal substance, such as crack cocaine – and needing to be heavily regulated as illegal drugs.

We question whether the State of Maryland truly intends to set a precedent of criminalizing the ownership of dogs, and the ownership of breeding dogs, as statute can and will be interpreted to criminalize the ownership and breeding of any animal.

SB 318 – Criminalizing Dog Breeding

SB 318 seems to take aim at anyone engaged in the breeding of dogs, and makes criminals out of vast majority of breeders who are responsible, law-abiding and caring individuals or establishments, deeply dedicated to the welfare of dogs.

This misguided bill seems to stem from a misrepresentation that owners of breeding stock, intact dogs, or multiple dogs are presented as de facto “puppy mills” – which is certainly not the case.

We respectfully point out that the term, “puppy mill” is highly inflammatory and deliberately misleading.

Most home and hobby breeders – as well as the vast majority of commercial kennels – operate under a set of standards set forth not just by the state, but by the very organizations to which we belong, concerning the care, treatment, feeding, and training of healthy dogs.

We would like to make very clear  that any substandard and inhumane conditions at kennels – whether they be commercial operations or privately-owned home or hobby kennels – are still substandard and inhumane, and therefore subject to the strict enforcement of Maryland’s anti-cruelty statutes.

Sadly, it is the lack of enforcement, and the lack of state or municipal funding for enforcement, combined with a lacking of understanding of basic animal husbandry, that often is to blame for allowing such conditions to exist.

We therefore recommend to the Committee that strong enforcement of the State’s animal cruelty laws are the correct remedy to such filthy and cruel establishments, but that criminalizing the ownership and breeding of dogs – or criminalizing the ownership or breeding of any animals for that matter – is not only a misguided approach, but may in fact constitute a serious violation of the 14th Amendment.

Constitutionality Of Imposing Limits On Animal Ownership

It is the contention of the American Rottweiler Club that the State would exceeds its authority by attempting to regulate the ownership or possession of property – a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Maryland SB 318 states,

10–624.C) A PERSON MAY NOT OWN, POSSESS, CONTROL, OR OTHERWISE HAVE CHARGE OR CUSTODY OF MORE THAN 50 BREEDING DOGS OVER THE AGE OF 4 MONTHS AT ANY TIME.

The Committee of course is fully aware that the 14th Amendment makes clear that:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

We therefore ask if it is the intent of this Committee to see that the rights of tax-paying, law-abiding and dog-owning citizens in Maryland be abridged, and is it the intent o f SB 318 to deprive such citizens not only of Due Process but Equal Protection as well?

Unintended Consequences Of SB 318’s  Limits On Animal Ownership

In placing arbitrary and highly subjective limits on animal ownership in the State of Maryland, we respectfully ask you to consider the host of unintended consequences brought forth by SB 318.

Would the Esteemed Members of the Committee be then able to legally discern the difference between “breeding dogs” and the ownership, possession, control, charge or custody if such language applied to “breeding horses”, “breeding pigs”, “breeding goldfish” or any other animal, whether said animals were livestock or pets?

We would also ask that the Esteemed Members of the House Judiciary Committee strongly consider what impact any future amendments, even a slight amendment, which would substitute “animals” for the word “dogs”.

This potential future amendment of SB 318 would then read as follows:

10–624.C) A PERSON MAY NOT OWN, POSSESS, CONTROL, OR OTHERWISE HAVE CHARGE OR CUSTODY OF MORE THAN 50 BREEDING ANIMALS OVER THE AGE OF 4 MONTHS AT ANY TIME.

Such an amendment may have a serious, if not devastating impact not only on the State’s agricultural industry but on the overall economic health of every county and district in Maryland.

What would happen to the farming community, the poultry or egg industries in Maryland should SB 318 limit the number of “breeding animals”? No more than 10 breeding hens over the age of 4 months?

What then of the impact upon Maryland’s famous seafood industries, fishing, crabbing and tourism?

What would happen to the restaurant industry in Maryland if no one could possess or own more that “50 breeding animals” OR “more than 10 breeding animals over the age of 4 months’?

It is quite clear that passage of SB 318 would lead to a series of unintended consequences and the risk of multiple legal actions against the State of Maryland from every industry sector in the state.

Imposing Commercial Facility Standards On Home & Hobby Breeders

SB 318 mandates the implementation of rigid engineering requirements for enclosures for anyone owning 10 or more intact dogs over 4 months of age without regard to the fiscal impact that such standards would have on targeted breeders or the enforceability of such requirements.

10–624.C) (D) (1) A PERSON WHO OWNS, POSSESSES, CONTROLS, OR
OTHERWISE HAS CHARGE OR CUSTODY OF MORE THAN 10 BREEDING DOGS
OVER THE AGE OF 4 MONTHS SHALL PROVIDE FOR EACH DOG:

(I) AN ENCLOSURE WITH:
1. AN INTERIOR HEIGHT OF AT LEAST 6 INCHES HIGHER THAN THE HEAD OF THE TALLEST DOG IN THE ENCLOSURE WHEN THE DOG IS IN A NORMAL STANDING POSITION; AND

SB 318’s Arbitrary Enclosure Requirements Are Booby Trapped Backdoors To Anti-Dog, Anti-Breeding Legislation

The enclosure requirements specified in SB 318, may seem innocuous, however they are anything but. There are numerous issues for the Committee to consider:

1. These arbitrary enclosure requirements are not in any way based in science concerning the humane treatment of dogs.
2. These arbitrary enclosure requirements are a back door to anti-tethering laws, the intent of which is to criminalize the safe and humane restrain and containment of dogs.
3. These arbitrary enclosure requirements are a back to placing limits on the ownership, keeping breeding of hunting dogs, sled dogs and ownership and keeping of American Pit Bull Terriers.
4. These arbitrary enclose requirements leave open the issue of enforcement – what personnel will be responsible for the enforcement of this clause?
5. The arbitrary enclosure requirements are a backdoor to warrantless searches and seizures, as detailed below.

SB 318: Criminalizes Humane Restraint & Containment

A primary flaw of SB 318 is criminalization of the humane and responsible restraint of dogs by imposing “enclosure” requirements.

If addressing animal cruelty is the intent of the bill’s sponsors, the American Rottweiler Club places itself at the disposal of the Committee to help facilitate the deeper understanding of animal husbandry, be it dogs or any other animal.

For thousands of years, the leashing or tethering of dogs has been a time-honored and humane means of safely containing or restraining dogs.

SB 318 eliminates by stature the very method of safe and humane restraint or containment, thereby significantly reducing, if not eliminating entirely, the ownership, breeding and keeping of multiple, intact dogs, and in particular, sled dogs, hunting dogs and American Pit Bull Terriers.

SB 318: Outlawing Hunting Dogs Via Criminalization Of Humane Restraint & Containment Of Hunting Dogs

Thousands of hunting dogs and dog owners in Maryland will fall under SB 318 and its provisions will lead to the extermination of innocent dogs and heartbreak for Maryland’s dog-owning citizens.

It is important to point out to the Committee the types of hobby breeders and dog enthusiasts impacted by this clause, which includes:

 Hunting Dog Owners/Field Trial Enthusiasts – Hunters and those participating in Field Trials own large numbers of intact dogs, such as Hounds or Sporting Dogs, such as German Shorthaired Pointers.  These dogs are traditionally by “staked out” – that is to say tethered, a traditional and humane means of restraint or containment.

Maryland Sportsmen’s associations should be alerted to the impact of SB 318 upon hunting and field trial activities throughout the state.

SB 318: Outlawing Sled Dog Via Criminalization Of Humane Restraint & Containment Of Sled Dogs

Sled dogs are kept in teams, or packs, and the imposition of said arbitrary enclosure requirements thus criminalize the keeping of sled dogs.

 Sled Dog Enthusiasts/Mushers – These dogs are traditionally by “staked out” – that is to say sled dogs, such as Alaskan Malamutes, Siberian Huskies and other Northern breeds are tethered, a traditional and humane means of restraint or containment.

Numerous sled dog and mushing organizations should be altered to the threat that SB 318 presents.

SB 318: Outlawing American Pit Bull Terriers Via Criminalization Of  Humane Restraint & Containment

Literally thousands of dogs, dog owners, breeders and fanciers of the American Pitbull Terrier will be impacted by SB 318.

 American Pit Bull Terrier Owners/Breeders – These dogs are traditionally by “staked out” – that is to say tethered, a traditional and humane means of restraint or containment.

The American Pit Bull Terrier is the second most popular breed recorded by the country’s second largest registry, the United Kennel Club, and the most popular breed registered by the American Dog Breeders Association, the country’s third largest registry.

In addition, numerous specialty registries will be impacted by SB 318, such as the All American Dog Registry and other single breed registry.

We question if is the desire to eliminate American Pit Bull Terriers from the State of Maryland through backdoor legislation such as SB 318?

SB 318: Criminalizing Humane Restraint & Containment Of Farm Animals

Whether it is the intention or not of the Committee to limit the ownership, breeding, passion of farm animals, it is clear that with just a minor change, SB 318 quickly becomes a bill that threatens all animal agriculture in the State of Maryland.

Similar bills have been introduced in recent days in state legislatures across the country, backed by, if not authored by, the Humane Society of the United States, an organization with a stated goal of eliminating all animal agriculture.

Anti-containment laws are the foundation upon which HSUS has built is state legislative strategy, from chickens in California to hogs in Iowa.

Sleepy state legislators may be unaware of the anti-animal agriculture activity happening in other states, however to quote the CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, Wayne Pacelle, who summarized his philosophy over ten years ago in Animal People News:

“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding … One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.” - Wayne Pacelle, CEO, Humane Society of the United States

It is of course the presumption that all animals raised for food production in Maryland and in the United States be treated humanely.

However, it is quite clear that HSUS-backed legislation such as SB 318 is a backdoor attack upon ALL breeding of animals, food, livestock or pets.

Elimination Of Hobby Breeders Via Unreasonable Exercise Requirements

We would respectfully ask if it is indeed the intention of the sponsors of SB 318 to eliminate home & hobby breeders from the State Of Maryland?

It is abundantly clear that the intent of this bill is to eliminate the vast majority of h criminalize dog ownership – starting with the very title of the bill – and adding the language of this bill under the criminal code, as follows on Line 4:

10–624.C) (D) (1) A PERSON WHO OWNS, POSSESSES, CONTROLS, OR
OTHERWISE HAS CHARGE OR CUSTODY OF MORE THAN 10 BREEDING DOGS
OVER THE AGE OF 4 MONTHS SHALL PROVIDE FOR EACH DOG:

(I) AN ENCLOSURE WITH:

1. AN INTERIOR HEIGHT OF AT LEAST 6 INCHES HIGHER THAN THE HEAD OF THE TALLEST DOG IN THE ENCLOSURE WHEN THE DOG IS IN A NORMAL STANDING POSITION; AND

SB 318: Eliminating Breeding  Animals Though Criminal Statute

The care, health and well being and the welfare of ALL animals is covered with a wide umbrella under the State’s existing animal cruelty statutes.

Yet the sponsors of SB 318 seek to again set arbitrary limits upon home and hobby breeders that are nearly impossible to meet – and perhaps that is most telling about the intent on not just this provision but the entire bill.

(II) UNLESS THE DOG IS CERTIFIED BY A DOCTOR OF
VETERINARY MEDICINE TO BE MEDICALLY PRECLUDED FROM EXERCISE, A
MINIMUM OF TWO EXERCISE PERIODS EACH DAY FOR A TOTAL OF AT LEAST 2
HOURS OF EXERCISE EACH DAY.

(2) THE EXERCISE REQUIRED UNDER PARAGRAPH (1)(II) OF THIS
SUBSECTION:

(I) SHALL INCLUDE REMOVING THE DOG FROM ITS
PRIMARY ENCLOSURE AND ALLOWING THE DOG TO WALK FOR THE ENTIRE EXERCISE PERIOD; AND

(II) UNLESS PRESCRIBED BY A DOCTOR OF VETERINARY
MEDICINE, MAY NOT INCLUDE USE OF A TREADMILL, CAT MILL, JENNY MILL,SLAT MILL, OR SIMILAR DEVICE.

EXAMPLE: A hobby breeder owns 10 breeding dogs, and is therefore subject to SB 318, is now required to spend 20 hours a day exercising dogs, unless medically precluded by certification from a veterinarian.

It is unreasonable to expect that a home or hobby breeder does not a) already provide adequate exercise for the health of their dogs, and b) to prescribe such arbitrary exercise regimen via criminal statute and c) to require certification for exemption from a veterinarian.

.

SB 318: Eliminating Breeding of FARM Animals Though Criminal Statute

We respectfully request the Committee again consider the possible amendment OR substitution of the word “animal” in place of the word “dog”.

Poultry farmers, hog farmers, cattle producers, egg producers – indeed any and all farmers or animal agriculture concerns should be alerted to the threat to animal agriculture and food production in the State of Maryland via criminal statute.

(II) UNLESS THE DOG “ANIMAL”  IS CERTIFIED BY A DOCTOR OF VETERINARY MEDICINE TO BE MEDICALLY PRECLUDED FROM EXERCISE, A MINIMUM OF TWO EXERCISE PERIODS EACH DAY FOR A TOTAL OF AT LEAST 2
HOURS OF EXERCISE EACH DAY.

(2) THE EXERCISE REQUIRED UNDER PARAGRAPH (1)(II) OF THIS
SUBSECTION:

(I) SHALL INCLUDE REMOVING THE DOG “ANIMAL”  FROM ITS PRIMARY ENCLOSURE AND ALLOWING THE DOG TO WALK FOR THE ENTIRE EXERCISE PERIOD; AND

(II) UNLESS PRESCRIBED BY A DOCTOR OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, MAY NOT INCLUDE USE OF A TREADMILL, CAT MILL, JENNY MILL,SLAT MILL, OR SIMILAR DEVICE.

SB 318: Criminalization Of Standard Exercise Equipment

It is important to point out that SB 318 criminalizes the use of standard exercise equipment typically used to assist in the health and training of performance and hunting dogs.

(II) UNLESS PRESCRIBED BY A DOCTOR OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, MAY NOT INCLUDE USE OF A TREADMILL, CAT MILL, JENNY MILL,SLAT MILL, OR SIMILAR DEVICE.

We’d like to ask the Committee Members if the same standards applied to humans, would they like to see the criminalization of the use or ownership of treadmills or any other exercise device unless the need for such a device (treadmill, etc. ) has been certified by a doctor as medically necessary?

Indeed, the manufacturers of all exercise devices made for or used by pet owners, home or hobby breeders should be alerted to potential infringements of lawful intra- and interstate commerce.

SB 318: Enforcement Issues

We ask the Esteemed Members of the Committee to consider what personnel at the local or state level will be responsible for identifying “intact breeding dogs”?

SB 318, left to the subjective interpretation of breed identification of local animal control or police, or humane societies will criminalize ordinary dogs and make criminals of dog owners and send innocent dogs to their deaths.

It is the position of the ARC that that the liability incurred under SB 318 is an unintended consequence of significant magnitude.

Increased Surrenders, Overburdened Shelters & Out-Of-Control Budgets

Shelters in cities where breed specific laws have been enacted have seen a sharp spike in owner surrenders, which in turn increases sheltering costs and euthanasia of formerly-owned dogs.

This is directly due to the fact that many dog owners become fearful of new, anti-dog, anti-breeding laws, and find it difficult, expensive to comply or cannot afford to move out of town or out of state with their dogs.

The impact of anti-dog, anti-breeding laws is the swelling of already overburdened shelter populations, budgets that quickly spiral out of control, and the unnecessary euthanasia of healthy dogs.  Instead of functioning life-saving stations, local shelters will become death camps for innocent dogs.

SB 318:  Eliminating Presumption Of Innocence

SB 318 eliminates the presumption of innocence making all dog owners of multiple “intact dogs” guilty and without recourse.

Under the rules of our judiciary, it is unimaginable to think that a state government would create a reverse onus – thus shifting the burden of proof from the state to the accused.

This bill is counter to the very principles upon which our democracy stands.

Our response is to respectfully remind the Committee Members that our judicial system operates upon the presumption that all citizens in the United States are innocent until proven guilty, not the reverse.

Furthermore, there is no hearing or an appeals process by which may defend themselves against charges.

SB 318: Proxy For Warrantless Search & Seizure

It should be noted that SB 318 contains the proxy for warrantless searches and seizures, seriously compromises the constitutional protections to which all citizens are entitled under the guise of animal protection.

Civil liberties groups and criminal defense attorneys should be alerted to the fact that SB 318 is a smokescreen to lower the threshold of evidence needed to support the issuance of search warrants.

We respectfully ask the Committee Members just what would constitutes “probable cause” under SB 318 – just a law enforcement officer’s word that pets may be intact, OR have not had the prescribed 2 hours of exercise on a given day?

Surely the State’s existing animal cruelty statutes more than adequately cover any acts of cruelty, such as the deprivation of food and water, or in cases of negligence.

SB 318:  Lowering Thresholds of Evidence For Probable Cause

Furthermore, the issuance of any warrant under SB 318 would be based on a visual ID that the alleged dogs have testicles OR would it then be a case of “probable cause” to demand inspection of the abdomen of a female dog to check for evidence of a scar from spay surgery?

A) the basis for “probable cause” is nothing more than the subjective and arbitrary opinion of alleged “intact breeding dog” by local animal control or police with no legal or rational basis

B) is done so in the context of reverse onus clause, thereby eliminating the presumption of innocence.

In contemplating the enforcement of SB 318, there are any number of situations that would be the basis for bypassing  Due Process:

SENARIO A:   Warrantless Search of Premise

The mere possession of multiple “pitbulls”, “sled dogs” or even hunting dogs – which are all traditionally staked  – would now constitute a criminal act under SB 318, thus allowing law enforcement officers access to the premises without a warrant.

EX: A police officer drives by a home and sees a multiple dogs staked in the yard.  The officer (subjectively) identifies the dogs as a “intact”, the presence of which is “illegal”.  The dog owner is presumed guilty of a criminal act.  The police officer now may access the premises and bypasses the need for a search warrant.

SCENARIO B:   Warrantless Searches – Traffic Stops

Driving with a “intact pit bulls, hunting dogs, sled dogs”  or “showdogs” in a car constitutes a criminal act in that possession of a “more than 10 breeding dogs over the age of 4 months” is an illegal act.

EX: A police officer on highway patrol or traffic duty sees a car with a dog inside. The officer has no probable cause for a traffic stop (speeding, seat belt or other violations).The officer (subjectively) identifies the dogs as a “intact breeding dogs”, the presence of which is “illegal”.

The dog owner is presumed guilty of a criminal act.  The police officer now has “cause” for a traffic stop.

SB 318: Violations Of Equal Protection

SB 318 also sets the stage for issues with Equal Protection, in that owners of “intact dogs” or “targeted breeds – ie. American Pit Bull Terriers” or owners of hunting dogs or sled dogs, are subject to a different and higher legal standard than other dog-owning citizens, which is then subjectively and/or arbitrarily applied.

The Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against arbitrary government action by requiring similar treatment of those who are similarly situated.

HB 485 clearly violates Equal Protection by singling out owners of multiple “intact dogs”, and granting exemptions to those “similarly situated”, such as in:

10–624 (B) THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO:
(1) A PUBLICLY OPERATED ANIMAL CONTROL FACILITY OR
ANIMAL SHELTER;
(2) A PRIVATE, CHARITABLE, NONPROFIT HUMANE SOCIETY OR

ANIMAL ADOPTION ORGANIZATION;
(3) A VETERINARY FACILITY;
(4) A RETAIL PET STORE;
(5) A RESEARCH INSTITUTION; OR
(6) A BOARDING FACILITY.

The provisions of SB 318 are completely without merit, as the State Of Maryland has not proven nor cannot prove, a rational or legal basis upon which to base these provisions.

SB 318 also begs the questions, “Are owners of a spayed or neutered dogs entitled to any greater Constitutional protections than owners of intact or breeding dogs”? AND,

“Are dogs in shelters, retail stores, veterinary or boarding facilities entitled to any fewer protections than privately-owned, intact dogs”?

Selective Enforcement & Racial Bias

We urge the Senate Judiciary and Government Operations Committee to reconsider and reject this bill, since it is already quite clear that should SB 318 become law, it could only be enforced selectively and subjectively.

However, there is an even greater risk in SB 318 as it relates to Unequal Protection, which is where race or ethnicity comes into the equation, and the potential for the abuse of our justice system is great.

There is a pervasive myth, perpetuated throughout the media, that the majority of dog owners of alleged “pit bull dogs” are “gang members, criminals, and drug dealers”. This notion is completely unsubstantiated and without merit.

However, this outwardly racist viewpoint is interpreted by most to mean that “pit bull dogs” are owned by those in the minority community.

It becomes a question of which dog owners will be selectively targeted for enforcement and prosecution by local authorities and to what extent will law enforcement engage in racial profiling.

SB 318 leaves to the door open to abuse of powers by local law enforcement officials and creates a number of questions.  For instance:

• Will minority or poor dog owners be targeted for enforcement over non-minority or middle class dog owners?
• Will owners of hunting dogs or American Pit Bull Terriers be targeted for enforcement?
• Will SB 318 be used to dispense with evidence thresholds necessary to establish probable cause and create a proxy to bypass Due Process?

Civil Rights & Constitutional Issues

SB 318 presents a multitude of civil rights issues and constitution challenges, including but not limited to unequal protection, violation of due process, removal of the presumption of innocence, selective enforcement, interference with lawful activities.

SB 318 also sets the stage for unequal protection in that owners of subjectively targeted breeds or intact or dogs of breeding stock are thus arbitrarily and subjectively held to a different and higher legal standard than other dog-owning citizens, for which the State Of Maryland has not proven nor cannot prove a rational or legal basis.

And since dogs are considered private and valuable property, violations of the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments are of concern, as outlined in the attached report by the Centers for Disease Control and the AVMA.

Expensive Legal Challenges

SB 318, with its many issues and potential infringements of civil rights and constitutional protections, would place the State Of Maryland, and the counties and municipalities in the state in a position of defending against what could be a multitude of lawsuits brought on behalf of dog-owning citizens.

The American Rottweiler Club respectfully points out that SB 318 is fraught with issues not only with regard to public safety, but issues that make SB 318 a potential minefield of expense, legal issues, unintended consequences and a waste of valuable taxpayer dollars.

Legal challenges to the constitutionality of such legislation is now underway in other states, including Pennsylvania, where a large group of plaintiffs, including dog owners, breeders and enthusiasts has filed suit against lawmakers there.

Closing Thoughts

In closing, the American Rottweiler Club rejects the criminalization of responsible dog ownership, the flawed concept of outlawing or eliminating though heavy-handed regulation the lawful breeding, ownership, and custody of dogs – or ANY animals.

We formally oppose the erosion by proxy laws of the civil rights and liberties guaranteed to all citizens of the United States under the guise of animal protection.

The American Rottweiler Club, having conducted a thorough analysis of this bill, concludes that Maryland SB 318 would:

• Criminalize dog ownership
• Fail to protect the welfare of ALL dogs
• Interfere with legal activities
• Create a proxy for warrant search & seizure under the guise of animal protection
• Deprive citizens of Equal Protection & Due Process
• Threaten animal agriculture and food production
• Violate 4th, 5th & 14th Amendments
• Incur liability for local, county and state governments
• Waste valuable tax-payer dollars

SB 318:  In Summary

The American Rottweiler Club urges the State Of Maryland and the Esteemed Members of the House Judiciary Committee to act appropriately and responsibly to protect the welfare of animals through the effective enforcement of existing animal cruelty and animal control laws.

We respectfully ask if the Committee not allow deep-pocketed special interest groups who back SB 318 and similar bills to prevail over the safe and humane treatment animals while seriously eroding the constitutional protections of everyday citizens.

We urge the Committee Members to reject SB 318 in its entirety, and not allow this dangerous and misguided piece of legislation, no matter how well- intentioned, to bring about the destruction of innocent dogs, eliminate the responsible and ethical ownership of dogs, discriminate against owners of intact dogs, and deprive people of their civil rights.

We thank you for your attention to this very important matter and remain committed to providing the State of Maryland with expert advice in matters of animal husbandry and the humane care and treatment of dogs.  We would be honored to be called upon to serve.

Very truly yours,

Gwen Chaney
President
American Rottweiler Club, Inc.
w) www.AmRottClub.org

cc: American Rottweiler Club Board, Peter Piusz, Delegate

]]> http://paws4laws.com/official-arc-response/american-rottweiler-club-formal-respond-to-md-sb-318/feed/ 0 http://paws4laws.com/official-arc-response/american-rottweiler-club-formal-response-to-md-hb495/ http://paws4laws.com/official-arc-response/american-rottweiler-club-formal-response-to-md-hb495/#comments Thu, 21 May 2009 14:45:54 +0000 admin23 http://legislation.americanrottweilerclub.org/?p=57 American Rottweiler Club, Inc.
February 12, 2009

The Honorable Joseph Vallario, Jr.
Chair, House Judiciary Committee
Maryland House of Delegates
House Office Building, Room 101
6 Bladen St., Annapolis, MD 21401

RE:  Maryland HB 495 – Opposed

Dear Delegate Vallario and Respected Members of the Maryland House Judiciary Committee:

The American Rottweiler Club, Inc. (ARC), the parent club of the American Kennel Club (AKC) for the Rottweiler breed in the United States, representing thousands of dog owners, is writing to express our grave concern over Maryland HB 495, A Bill That Criminalizes The Ownership and Limits The Possession of Breeding Dogs.

Since its inception, the American Rottweiler Club has been deeply engaged in advancing animal welfare and the humane care and treatment of dogs.

ARC members and supporters devote significant time, effort and resources in educating the public on responsible dog ownership, dog bite prevention and safety around dogs, especially where children and the elderly are concerned, and supporting to scores of animal rescue and sheltering organizations across the United States through direct donations and grants and volunteer support.

The American Rottweiler Club is adamantly opposed to the cruel and inhumane treatment of dogs, the exploitation of innocent animals, and illegal, sub-standard breeding operations.

We therefore respectfully submit our official and unequivocal opposition to Maryland HB 495 and to any other bill which makes criminals out of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens and home and hobby breeders, or anyone owning intact dogs.

HB 495 is not only irresponsible, and sets a dangerous precedent for the type and scope of legislation, and exceeds the legal and constitutional scope of state legislatures.

In addition:

 HB 495 criminalizes dog ownership
 HB 495 fails to improve upon existing animal cruelty statues
 HB 495 places arbitrary limits on animal ownership
 HB 495 deprives dog-owing citizens of Due Process & Equal Protection
 HB 495 creates a proxy for warrantless searches and seizures
 HB 495 threatens animal agriculture & food production

HB 495 – Criminalizing Dog Ownership

It is abundantly clear that the intent of this bill is to criminalize dog ownership – starting with the very title of the bill – and adding the language of this bill under the criminal code, as follows on Line 4:

“For the purpose of prohibiting a person from owning, possessing, controlling,
Or otherwise having custody of more than a certain number of breeding dogs
at anytime;”

We take exception to the very language of HB 495, which alludes to “possession of intact dogs” as if intact dogs were in nature a dangerous, illegal substance, such as crack cocaine – and needing to be heavily regulated as illegal drugs.

We question whether the State of Maryland truly intends to set a precedent of criminalizing the ownership of dogs, and the ownership of breeding dogs, as statute can and will be interpreted to criminalize the ownership and breeding of any animal.

HB 495 – Criminalizing Dog Breeding

HB 495 seems to take aim at anyone engaged in the breeding of dogs, and makes criminals out of vast majority of breeders who are responsible, law-abiding and caring individuals or establishments, deeply dedicated to the welfare of dogs.

This misguided bill seems to stem from a misrepresentation that owners of breeding stock, intact dogs, or multiple dogs are presented as de facto “puppy mills” – which is certainly not the case.

We respectfully point out that the term, “puppy mill” is highly inflammatory and deliberately misleading.

Most home and hobby breeders – as well as the vast majority of commercial kennels – operate under a set of standards set forth not just by the state, but by the very organizations to which we belong, concerning the care, treatment, feeding, and training of healthy dogs.

We would like to make very clear  that any substandard and inhumane conditions at kennels – whether they be commercial operations or privately-owned home or hobby kennels – are still substandard and inhumane, and therefore subject to the strict enforcement of Maryland’s anti-cruelty statutes.

Sadly, it is the lack of enforcement, and the lack of state or municipal funding for enforcement, combined with a lacking of understanding of basic animal husbandry, that often is to blame for allowing such conditions to exist.

We therefore recommend to the Committee that strong enforcement of the State’s animal cruelty laws are the correct remedy to such filthy and cruel establishments, but that criminalizing the ownership and breeding of dogs – or criminalizing the ownership or breeding of any animals for that matter – is not only a misguided approach, but may in fact constitute a serious violation of the 14th Amendment.

Constitutionality Of Imposing Limits On Animal Ownership

It is the contention of the American Rottweiler Club that the State would exceeds its authority by attempting to regulate the ownership or possession of property – a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Maryland HB 495 states,

10–624.C) A PERSON MAY NOT OWN, POSSESS, CONTROL, OR OTHERWISE HAVE CHARGE OR CUSTODY OF MORE THAN 50 BREEDING DOGS OVER THE AGE OF 4 MONTHS AT ANY TIME.

The Committee of course is fully aware that the 14th Amendment makes clear that:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

We therefore ask if it is the intent of this Committee to see that the rights of tax-paying, law-abiding and dog-owning citizens in Maryland be abridged, and is it the intent o f HB 495 to deprive such citizens not only of Due Process but Equal Protection as well?

Unintended Consequences Of HB 495’s  Limits On Animal Ownership

In placing arbitrary and highly subjective limits on animal ownership in the State of Maryland, we respectfully ask you to consider the host of unintended consequences brought forth by HB 495.

Would the Esteemed Members of the Committee be then able to legally discern the difference between “breeding dogs” and the ownership, possession, control, charge or custody if such language applied to “breeding horses”, “breeding pigs”, “breeding goldfish” or any other animal, whether said animals were livestock or pets?

We would also ask that the Esteemed Members of the House Judiciary Committee strongly consider what impact any future amendments, even a slight amendment, which would substitute “animals” for the word “dogs”.

This potential future amendment of HB 495 would then read as follows:

10–624.C) A PERSON MAY NOT OWN, POSSESS, CONTROL, OR OTHERWISE HAVE CHARGE OR CUSTODY OF MORE THAN 50 BREEDING ANIMALS OVER THE AGE OF 4 MONTHS AT ANY TIME.

Such an amendment may have a serious, if not devastating impact not only on the State’s agricultural industry but on the overall economic health of every county and district in Maryland.
What would happen to the farming community, the poultry or egg industries in Maryland should HB 495 limit the number of “breeding animals”? No more than 10 breeding hens over the age of 4 months?

What then of the impact upon Maryland’s famous seafood industries, fishing, crabbing and tourism?  What would happen to the restaurant industry in Maryland if no one could possess or own more that “50 breeding animals” OR “more than 10 breeding animals over the age of 4 months’?

It is quite clear that passage of HB 495 would lead to a series of unintended consequences and the risk of multiple legal actions against the State of Maryland from every industry sector in the state.

Imposing Commercial Facility Standards On Home & Hobby Breeders

HB 495 mandates the implementation of rigid engineering requirements for enclosures for anyone owning 10 or more intact dogs over 4 months of age without regard to the fiscal impact that such standards would have on targeted breeders or the enforceability of such requirements.

10–624.C) (D) (1) A PERSON WHO OWNS, POSSESSES, CONTROLS, OR
OTHERWISE HAS CHARGE OR CUSTODY OF MORE THAN 10 BREEDING DOGS
OVER THE AGE OF 4 MONTHS SHALL PROVIDE FOR EACH DOG:

(I) AN ENCLOSURE WITH:
1. AN INTERIOR HEIGHT OF AT LEAST 6 INCHES HIGHER THAN THE HEAD OF THE TALLEST DOG IN THE ENCLOSURE WHEN THE DOG IS IN A NORMAL STANDING POSITION; AND

HB 495’s Arbitrary Enclosure Requirements Are Booby Trapped Backdoors To Anti-Dog, Anti Breeding Legislation

The enclosure requirements specified in HB 495, may seem innocuous, however they are anything but. There are numerous issues for the Committee to consider:

1. These arbitrary enclosure requirements are not in any way based in science concerning the humane treatment of dogs.
2. These arbitrary enclosure requirements are a back door to anti-tethering laws, the intent of which is to criminalize the safe and humane restrain and containment of dog
3. These arbitrary enclosure requirements are a back to placing limits on the ownership, keeping breeding of hunting dogs, sled dogs and ownership and keeping of American Pit Bull Terriers.
4. These arbitrary enclose requirements leave open the issue of enforcement – what personnel will be responsible for the enforcement of this clause?
5. The arbitrary enclosure requirements are a backdoor to warrantless searches and seizures, as detailed below.

HB 495: Criminalizes Humane Restraint & Containment

A primary flaw of HB 495 is criminalization of the humane and responsible restraint of dogs by imposing “enclosure” requirements.

If addressing animal cruelty is the intent of the bill’s sponsors, the American Rottweiler Club places itself at the disposal of the Committee to help facilitate the deeper understanding of animal husbandry, be it dogs or any other animal.

For thousands of years, the leashing or tethering of dogs has been a time-honored and humane means of safely containing or restraining dogs.

HB 495 eliminates by stature the very method of safe and humane restraint or containment, thereby significantly reducing, if not eliminating entirely, the ownership, breeding and keeping of multiple, intact dogs, and in particular, sled dogs, hunting dogs and American Pit Bull Terriers.

HB 495: Outlawing Hunting Dogs Via Criminalization Of Humane Restraint & Containment Of Hunting Dogs

Thousands of hunting dogs and dog owners in Maryland will fall under HB 495 and its provisions will lead to the extermination of innocent dogs and heartbreak for Maryland’s dog-owning citizens.

It is important to point out to the Committee the types of hobby breeders and dog enthusiasts impacted by this clause, which includes:

 Hunting Dog Owners/Field Trial Enthusiasts – Hunters and those participating in Field Trials own large numbers of intact dogs, such as Hounds or Sporting Dogs, such as German Shorthaired Pointers.  These dogs are traditionally by “staked out” – that is to say tethered, a traditional and humane means of restraint or containment.

Maryland Sportsmen’s associations should be alerted to the impact of HB 495 upon hunting and field trial activities throughout the state.

HB 495: Outlawing Sled Dog Via Criminalization Of Humane Restraint & Containment Of Sled Dogs

Sled dogs are kept in teams, or packs, and the imposition of said arbitrary enclosure requirements thus criminalize the keeping of sled dogs.

 Sled Dog Enthusiasts/Mushers – These dogs are traditionally by “staked out” – that is to say sled dogs, such as Alaskan Malamutes, Siberian Huskies and other Northern breeds are tethered, a traditional and humane means of restraint or containment.

Numerous sled dog and mushing organizations should be altered to the threat that HB 495 presents.

HB 495: Outlawing American Pit Bull Terriers Via Criminalization Of  Humane Restraint & Containment

Literally thousands of dogs, dog owners, breeders and fanciers of the American Pitbull Terrier will be impacted by HB 495.

 American Pit Bull Terrier Owners/Breeders – These dogs are traditionally by “staked out” – that is to say tethered, a traditional and humane means of restraint or containment.

The American Pit Bull Terrier is the second most popular breed recorded by the country’s second largest registry, the United Kennel Club, and the most popular breed registered by the American Dog Breeders Association, the country’s third largest registry.

In addition, numerous specialty registries will be impacted by HB 495, such as the All American Dog Registry and other single breed registry.

We question if is the desire to eliminate American Pit Bull Terriers from the State of Maryland through backdoor legislation such as HB 495?

HB 495: Criminalizing Humane Restraint & Containment Of Farm Animals

Whether it is the intention or not of the Committee to limit the ownership, breeding, passion of farm animals, it is clear that with just a minor change, HB 495 quickly becomes a bill that threatens all animal agriculture in the State of Maryland.

Similar bills have been introduced in recent days in state legislatures across the country, backed by, if not authored by, the Humane Society of the United States, an organization with a stated goal of eliminating all animal agriculture.

Anti-containment laws are the foundation upon which HSUS has built is state legislative strategy, from chickens in California to hogs in Iowa.

Sleepy state legislators may be unaware of the anti-animal agriculture activity happening in other states, however to quote the CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, Wayne Pacelle, who summarized his philosophy over ten years ago in Animal People News:

“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding … One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”  - Wayne Pacelle, CEO, Humane Society of the United States

It is of course the presumption that all animals raised for food production in Maryland and in the United States be treated humanely,

However, it is quite clear that HSUS-backed legislation such as HB 495 is a backdoor attack upon ALL breeding of animals, food, livestock or pets.

Elimination Of Hobby Breeders Via Unreasonable Exercise Requirements

We would respectfully ask if it is indeed the intention of the sponsors of HB 495 to eliminate home & hobby breeders from the State Of Maryland?

It is abundantly clear that the intent of this bill is to eliminate the vast majority of h criminalize dog ownership – starting with the very title of the bill – and adding the language of this bill under the criminal code, as follows on Line 4:

10–624.C) (D) (1) A PERSON WHO OWNS, POSSESSES, CONTROLS, OR
OTHERWISE HAS CHARGE OR CUSTODY OF MORE THAN 10 BREEDING DOGS
OVER THE AGE OF 4 MONTHS SHALL PROVIDE FOR EACH DOG:

(I) AN ENCLOSURE WITH:
1. AN INTERIOR HEIGHT OF AT LEAST 6 INCHES HIGHER THAN THE HEAD OF THE TALLEST DOG IN THE ENCLOSURE WHEN THE DOG IS IN A NORMAL STANDING POSITION; AND

HB 495: Eliminating Breeding  Animals Though Criminal Statute

The care, health and well being and the welfare of ALL animals is covered with a wide umbrella under the State’s existing animal cruelty statutes.

Yet the sponsors of HB 495 seek to again set arbitrary limits upon home and hobby breeders that are nearly impossible to meet – and perhaps that is most telling about the intent on not just this provision but the entire bill.

(II) UNLESS THE DOG IS CERTIFIED BY A DOCTOR OF
VETERINARY MEDICINE TO BE MEDICALLY PRECLUDED FROM EXERCISE, A
MINIMUM OF TWO EXERCISE PERIODS EACH DAY FOR A TOTAL OF AT LEAST 2
HOURS OF EXERCISE EACH DAY.

(2) THE EXERCISE REQUIRED UNDER PARAGRAPH (1)(II) OF THIS
SUBSECTION:

(I) SHALL INCLUDE REMOVING THE DOG FROM ITS
PRIMARY ENCLOSURE AND ALLOWING THE DOG TO WALK FOR THE ENTIRE EXERCISE PERIOD; AND

(II) UNLESS PRESCRIBED BY A DOCTOR OF VETERINARY
MEDICINE, MAY NOT INCLUDE USE OF A TREADMILL, CAT MILL, JENNY MILL,SLAT MILL, OR SIMILAR DEVICE.

EXAMPLE: A hobby breeder owns 10 breeding dogs, and is therefore subject to HB 495, is now required to spend 20 hours a day exercising dogs, unless medically precluded by certification from a veterinarian.

It is unreasonable to expect that a home or hobby breeder does not a) already provide adequate exercise for the health of their dogs, and b) to prescribe such arbitrary exercise regimen via criminal statute and c) to require certification for exemption from a veterinarian.

HB 495: Eliminating Breeding of FARM Animals Though Criminal Statute

We respectfully request the Committee again consider the possible amendment OR substitution of the word “animal” in place of the word “dog”.

Poultry farmers, hog farmers, cattle producers, egg producers – indeed any and all farmers or animal agriculture concerns should be alerted to the threat to animal agriculture and food production in the State of Maryland via criminal statute.

(II) UNLESS THE DOG “ANIMAL”  IS CERTIFIED BY A DOCTOR OF
VETERINARY MEDICINE TO BE MEDICALLY PRECLUDED FROM EXERCISE, A
MINIMUM OF TWO EXERCISE PERIODS EACH DAY FOR A TOTAL OF AT LEAST 2
HOURS OF EXERCISE EACH DAY.
(2) THE EXERCISE REQUIRED UNDER PARAGRAPH (1)(II) OF THIS
SUBSECTION:

(I) SHALL INCLUDE REMOVING THE DOG “ANIMAL”  FROM ITS
PRIMARY ENCLOSURE AND ALLOWING THE DOG TO WALK FOR THE ENTIRE EXERCISE PERIOD; AND

(II) UNLESS PRESCRIBED BY A DOCTOR OF VETERINARY
MEDICINE, MAY NOT INCLUDE USE OF A TREADMILL, CAT MILL, JENNY MILL,SLAT MILL, OR SIMILAR DEVICE.

HB 495: Criminalization Of Standard Exercise Equipment

It is important to point out that HB 495 criminalizes the use of standard exercise equipment typically used to assist in the health and training of performance and hunting dogs.

(II) UNLESS PRESCRIBED BY A DOCTOR OF VETERINARY
MEDICINE, MAY NOT INCLUDE USE OF A TREADMILL, CAT MILL, JENNY MILL,SLAT MILL, OR SIMILAR DEVICE.

We’d like to ask the Committee Members if the same standards applied to humans, would they like to see the criminalization of the use or ownership of treadmills or any other exercise device unless the need for such a device (treadmill, etc. ) has been certified by a doctor as medically necessary?

Indeed, the manufacturers of all exercise devices made for or used by pet owners, home or hobby breeders should be alerted to potential infringements of lawful intra- and interstate commerce.

HB 495: Enforcement Issues
We ask the Esteemed Members of the Committee to consider what personnel at the local or state level will be responsible for identifying “intact breeding dogs”?

HB 495, left to the subjective interpretation of breed identification of local animal control or police, or humane societies will criminalize ordinary dogs and make criminals of dog owners and send innocent dogs to their deaths.

It is the position of the ARC that that the liability incurred under HB 495 is an unintended consequence of significant magnitude.

Increased Surrenders, Overburdened Shelters & Out-Of-Control Budgets

Shelters in cities where breed specific laws have been enacted have seen a sharp spike in owner surrenders, which in turn increases sheltering costs and euthanasia of formerly-owned dogs.

This is directly due to the fact that many dog owners become fearful of new, anti-dog, anti-breeding laws, and find it difficult, expensive to comply or cannot afford to move out of town or out of state with their dogs.

The impact of anti-dog, anti-breeding laws is the swelling of already overburdened shelter populations, budgets that quickly spiral out of control, and the unnecessary euthanasia of healthy dogs.  Instead of functioning life-saving stations, local shelters will become death camps for innocent dogs.

HB 495:  Eliminating Presumption Of Innocence

HB 495 eliminates the presumption of innocence making all dog owners of multiple “intact dogs” guilty and without recourse.

Under the rules of our judiciary, it is unimaginable to think that a state government would create a reverse onus – thus shifting the burden of proof from the state to the accused.

This bill is counter to the very principles upon which our democracy stands.

Our response is to respectfully remind the Committee Members that our judicial system operates upon the presumption that all citizens in the United States are innocent until proven guilty, not the reverse.

Furthermore, there is no hearing or an appeals process by which may defend themselves against charges.

HB 495: Proxy For Warrantless Search & Seizure

It should be noted that HB 495 contains the proxy for warrantless searches and seizures, seriously compromises the constitutional protections to which all citizens are entitled under the guise of animal protection.

Civil liberties groups and criminal defense attorneys should be alerted to the fact that HB 495 is a smokescreen to lower the threshold of evidence needed to support the issuance of search warrants.

We respectfully ask the Committee Members just what would constitutes “probable cause” under HB 495 – just a law enforcement officer’s word that pets may be intact, OR have not had the prescribed 2 hours of exercise on a given day?

Surely the State’s existing animal cruelty statutes more than adequately cover any acts of cruelty, such as the deprivation of food and water, or in cases of negligence.

HB 495:  Lowering Thresholds of Evidence For Probable Cause

Furthermore, the issuance of any warrant under HB 495 would be based on a visual ID that the alleged dogs have testicles OR would it then be a case of “probable cause” to demand inspection of the abdomen of a female dog to check for evidence of a scar from spay surgery?

A) the basis for “probable cause” is nothing more than the subjective and arbitrary opinion of alleged “intact breeding dog” by local animal control or police with no legal or rational basis

B) is done so in the context of reverse onus clause, thereby eliminating the presumption of innocence.

In contemplating the enforcement of HB 495, there are any number of situations that would be the basis for bypassing Due Process:

SENARIO A:   Warrantless Search of Premise

The mere possession of multiple “pitbulls”, “sled dogs” or even hunting dogs – which are all traditionally staked  – would now constitute a criminal act under HB 495, thus allowing law enforcement officers access to the premises without a warrant.

EX:  A police officer drives by a home and sees a multiple dogs staked in the yard.  The officer (subjectively) identifies the dogs as a “intact”, the presence of which is “illegal”.  The dog owner is presumed guilty of a criminal act.  The police officer now may access the premises and bypasses the need for a search warrant.

SCENARIO B:   Warrantless Searches – Traffic Stops

Driving with a “intact pit bulls, hunting dogs, sled dogs”  or “showdogs” in a car constitutes a criminal act in that possession of a “more than 10 breeding dogs over the age of 4 months” is an illegal act

EX:  A police officer on highway patrol or traffic duty sees a car with a dog inside. The officer has no probable cause for a traffic stop (speeding, seat belt or other violations).The officer (subjectively) identifies the dogs as a “intact breeding dogs”, the presence of which is “illegal”.

The dog owner is presumed guilty of a criminal act.  The police officer now has “cause” for a traffic stop.

HB 495: Violations Of Equal Protection

HB 495 also sets the stage for issues with Equal Protection, in that owners of “intact dogs” or “targeted breeds – ie. American Pit Bull Terriers” or owners of hunting dogs or sled dogs, are subject to a different and higher legal standard than other dog-owning citizens, which is then subjectively and/or arbitrarily applied.

The Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against arbitrary government action by requiring similar treatment of those who are similarly situated.

HB 485 clearly violates Equal Protection by singling out owners of multiple “intact dogs”, and granting exemptions to those “similarly situated”, such as in:

10–624 (B) THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO:
(1) A PUBLICLY OPERATED ANIMAL CONTROL FACILITY OR
ANIMAL SHELTER;
(2) A PRIVATE, CHARITABLE, NONPROFIT HUMANE SOCIETY OR
HB 495: Violations Of Equal Protection Cont’d.

ANIMAL ADOPTION ORGANIZATION;
(3) A VETERINARY FACILITY;
(4) A RETAIL PET STORE;
(5) A RESEARCH INSTITUTION; OR
(6) A BOARDING FACILITY.

The provisions of HB 495 are completely without merit, as the State Of Maryland has not proven nor cannot prove, a rational or legal basis upon which to base these provisions.

HB 495 also begs the questions, “Are owners of a spayed or neutered dogs entitled to any greater Constitutional protections than owners of intact or breeding dogs”? AND,

“Are dogs in shelters, retail stores, veterinary or boarding facilities entitled to any fewer protections than privately-owned, intact dogs”?

HB 496 Fosters Selective Enforcement & Racial Bias/ Racial Profiling

We urge the Senate Judiciary and Government Operations Committee to reconsider and reject this bill, since it is already quite clear that should HB 495 become law, it could only be enforced selectively and subjectively.

However, there is an even greater risk in HB 495 as it relates to Unequal Protection, which is where race or ethnicity comes into the equation, and the potential for the abuse of our justice system is great.

There is a pervasive myth, perpetuated throughout the media, that the majority of dog owners of alleged “pit bull dogs” are “gang members, criminals, and drug dealers”. This notion is completely unsubstantiated and without merit.

However, this outwardly racist viewpoint is interpreted by most to mean that “pit bull dogs” are owned by those in the minority community.

It becomes a question of which dog owners will be selectively targeted for enforcement and prosecution by local authorities and to what extent will law enforcement engage in racial profiling.

HB 495 leaves to the door open to abuse of powers by local law enforcement officials and creates a number of questions.  For instance:

• Will minority or poor dog owners be targeted for enforcement over non-minority or middle class dog owners?
• Will owners of hunting dogs or American Pit Bull Terriers be targeted for enforcement?
• Will HB 495 be used to dispense with evidence thresholds necessary to establish probable cause and create a proxy to bypass Due Process?

Civil Rights & Constitutional Issues

HB 495 presents a multitude of civil rights issues and constitution challenges, including but not limited to unequal protection, violation of due process, removal of the presumption of innocence, selective enforcement, interference with lawful activities and

HB 495 also sets the stage for unequal protection in that owners of subjectively targeted breeds or intact or dogs of breeding stock are thus arbitrarily and subjectively held to a different and higher legal standard than other dog-owning citizens, for which the State Of Maryland has not proven nor cannot prove a rational or legal basis.

And since dogs are considered private and valuable property, violations of the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments are of concern, as outlined in the attached report by the Centers for Disease Control and the AVMA.

Expensive Legal Challenges

HB 495, with its many issues and potential infringements of civil rights and constitutional protections, would place the State Of Maryland, and the counties and municipalities in the state in a position of defending against what could be a multitude of lawsuits brought on behalf of dog-owning citizens.

The American Rottweiler Club respectfully points out that HB 495 is fraught with issues not only with regard to public safety, but issues that make HB 495 a potential minefield of expense, legal issues, unintended consequences and a waste of valuable taxpayer dollars.

Legal challenges to the constitutionality of such legislation is now underway in other states, including Pennsylvania, where a large group of plaintiffs, including dog owners, breeders and enthusiasts has filed suit against lawmakers there.

Closing Thoughts

In closing, the American Rottweiler Club rejects the criminalization of responsible dog ownership, the flawed concept of outlawing or eliminating though heavy-handed regulation the lawful breeding, ownership, and custody of dogs – or ANY animals.

We formally oppose the erosion by proxy laws of the civil rights and liberties guaranteed to all citizens of the United States under the guise of animal protection.

The American Rottweiler Club, having conducted a thorough analysis of this bill, concludes that Maryland HB 495 would:

• Criminalize dog ownership
• Fail to protect the welfare of ALL dogs
• Interfere with legal activities
• Create a proxy for warrant search & seizure under the guise of animal protection
• Deprive citizens of Equal Protection & Due Process
• Threaten animal agriculture and food production
• Violate 4th, 5th & 14th Amendments
• Incur liability for local, county and state governments
• Waste valuable tax-payer dollars

HB 495:  In Summary

The American Rottweiler Club urges the State Of Maryland and the Esteemed Members of the House Judiciary Committee to act appropriately and responsibly to protect the welfare of animals through the effective enforcement of existing animal cruelty and animal control laws.

We respectfully ask if the Committee not allow deep-pocketed special interest groups who back HB 495 and similar bills to prevail over the safe and humane treatment animals while seriously eroding the constitutional protections of everyday citizens.

We urge the Committee Members to reject HB 495 in its entirety, and not allow this dangerous and misguided piece of legislation, no matter how well- intentioned, to bring about the destruction of innocent dogs, eliminate the responsible and ethical ownership of dogs, discriminate against owners of intact dogs, and deprive people of their civil rights.

We thank you for your attention to this very important matter and remain committed to providing the State of Maryland with expert advice in matters of animal husbandry and the humane care and treatment of dogs.  We would be honored to be called upon to serve.

Very truly yours,

Gwen Chaney
President
American Rottweiler Club, Inc.

w) www.AmRottClub.org

cc: American Rottweiler Club Board, Peter Piusz, Delegate