NationalDogPress.com Headline News ©

A “Nonprofit” National C.L.U.B. and Animal Protection Organization to Protect Pet Owners.

Welcome to our National Organization known as Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom.

We the People, of this National “Nonprofit” Organization, want to express our appreciation to you for taking an “active”interest in preserving “your” rights to freely own your “pets”and “animals” without intrusion by the government, individuals, or “animal rights activist” groups or other organizations, who’s sole mission are to “eliminate” and “destroy” our freedom, liberty, and American way of life, with our pets and animals on our own private property as extended members of our families.

Laws are only words written on paper, words that change on society’s whim, and are interpreted differently daily by politicians, lawyers, judges, and policemen. We cannot by total reliance on law; escape our “duty” to judge right and wrong, and take “action” to stop the tyranny at “Freedom’s Gate.” For a person’s religion is not worth it’s salt, if the animals and pets are not the better for it.

Dean A. Ayers, (Prior) Special Agent, AFOSI, U.S.A.F., United States of America.

“The truth is rarely pure and never simple.”

Please visit daily our National Organization’s Official Article Publishers at the links below, with over 50 total articles on Dog Law, Pet Owners, Animal Welfare, Dogs, Pets, and Animal Articles affecting every pet Owner
in the USA and Canada.

Just CLICK on the 3 links below for separate articles numbering in excess of 50 articles to date in total.

Visit our many nationally published pet and animal articles
and postings at the following links. Then be sure to come
back and read the rest of this web site’s pages and articles as well.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/members/16235/Dean%20A.%20Ayers/

and

http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/583274/dean_a_ayers.html

and

http://www.AnimalsClubFreedom.typepad.com/

Posted by Dean A. Ayers at 5:42 PM
Labels: AnimalsClubFreedom.org | AnimalsClubFreedom.us | DogPress.org | DogLaw-AnimalsClubFreedom, NationalDogPress

A “Nonprofit” National C.L.U.B. and Animal Protection Organization to Protect Pet Owners.

Welcome to our National Organization known as Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom.

We the People, of this National “Nonprofit” Organization, want to express our appreciation to you for taking an “active”interest in preserving “your” rights to freely own your “pets”and “animals” without intrusion by the government, individuals, or “animal rights activist” groups or other organizations, who’s sole mission are to “eliminate” and “destroy” our freedom, liberty, and American way of life, with our pets and animals on our own private property as extended members of our families.

Laws are only words written on paper, words that change on society’s whim, and are interpreted differently daily by politicians, lawyers, judges, and policemen. We cannot by total reliance on law; escape our “duty” to judge right and wrong, and take “action” to stop the tyranny at “Freedom’s Gate.” For a person’s religion is not worth it’s salt, if the animals and pets are not the better for it.

Dean A. Ayers, (Prior) Special Agent, AFOSI, U.S.A.F., United States of America.

“The truth is rarely pure and never simple.”

Please visit daily our National Organization’s Official Article Publishers at the links below, with over 50 total articles on Dog Law, Pet Owners, Animal Welfare, Dogs, Pets, and Animal Articles affecting every pet Owner
in the USA and Canada.

Just CLICK on the 3 links below for separate articles numbering in excess of 50 articles to date in total.

Visit our many nationally published pet and animal articles
and postings at the following links. Then be sure to come
back and read the rest of this web site’s pages and articles as well.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/members/16235/Dean%20A.%20Ayers/

and

http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/583274/dean_a_ayers.html

and

http://www.AnimalsClubFreedom.typepad.com/
Posted by Dean A. Ayers at 5:42 PM
Labels: AnimalsClubFreedom.org | AnimalsClubFreedom.us | DogPress.org | DogLaw-AnimalsClubFreedom, NationalDogPress

www.MillsCounty.Org - Fighting Tyranny in “Bad” Animal Laws

Mills County, Iowa Animal Care and Control Law has an alleged “real goal”, to destroy the rights of dog owners to make important decisions about their dogs, and to convey complete oversight power to government.

This tyranny animal law instituted in Mills County, Iowa is an important step toward changing dog ownership into guardianship, which means that dogs would become wards of the state (called Mills County, Iowa).

The state (Mills County, Iowa) would thus assume the legal role of protector of the “rights” of dogs, as is the case with human children in current laws nation wide.

There for NationalDogPress and Animals CL.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Nonprofit) have created our new organization called : www.MillsCounty.org

This organization is dedicated to combating the “unconstitutional” tyranny animal laws, created by Mills County, Iowa and to provide Dog Law and Dog Legislation articles that provide “evidence” that Mills County, Iowa Animal Care and Control Law is “unconstitutional”.

We the People, continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners in Mills County, Iowa and around the nation as well.

###

Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit)

“The truth is rarely pure and never simple.”

PLEASE DONATE to Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit) BY CLICKING ON THE PAYPAL LINK BELOW:

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=6721925

Fair Use Notice: Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the ‘fair use’ exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Legal Disclaimer: The information, articles, or links (posted, embedded or otherwise) to the above postings are provided to give readers more information on general dog-related or associated subjects and are not intended as legal advice. All individuals are urged to contact licensed attorneys in their states regarding specific legal issues.

Copyright © 2006-2009, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit) Iowa 2009, NationalDogPress News, All Rights Reserved

Posted by Dean A. Ayers, Director, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom on 10/19/2009 at 01:16 AM in “Due Process” Before Animal Control Takes Your Dog, A Chicken Lesson for Dog Owners, Animal Control, Animal Control Officers, Animal Shelter RIver Filling With Dogs, Bad Smelling Pets, Books, C.L.U.B. QUOTE, Current Affairs, Dog and Human Euthanasia Unethical, Dog Catchers, Dog Insurance Requirements, Dog Law, Dog License Tyranny, Dog Ordinance Tyranny, Dog Rescue Action Needed, Dogs, Pets, and Animals, Due Process in Animal Laws, Euthanasia, Film, Flaming Liberal Swords, Food and Drink, Freedom and Happiness, Games, GlenwoodIowa.org, Health Care, HEALTH CARE ALERT, Humane Health Care?, Humane Society Scam, INSANITY in Society, Islam and Terrorism, Life’s Troubles, Mills County, Iowa, MillsCounty.Org, Music, NAIS Animal ID, NationalDogPress Newsletter, Nebraska Humane Society - NOT!, Nincompoops, No Dogs in Canada and the USA , Our Nation Won’t Survive, Pet Euthanasia is Unethical, Pet Food, PETA DEATH CAMPS, Private Property Intrusion, Religion, RFID Chips, Sarah Palin , Sarah Palin HELP!, Science, Sexual Harassment Must Go!, Socialist America, Sports, Swine Flu Fraud?, Television, Thank You!, Toxins on Dogs and Our Pets, Travel, Web/Tech, Weblogs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

MillsCounty.Org - Fighting Tyranny in “Bad” Animal Laws

Mills County, Iowa Animal Care and Control Law has an alleged “real goal”, to destroy the rights of dog owners to make important decisions about their dogs, and to convey complete oversight power to government.

This tyranny animal law instituted in Mills County, Iowa is an important step toward changing dog ownership into guardianship, which means that dogs would become wards of the state (called Mills County, Iowa).

The state (Mills County, Iowa) would thus assume the legal role of protector of the “rights” of dogs, as is the case with human children in current laws nation wide.

There for NationalDogPress and Animals CL.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Nonprofit) have created our new organization called : MillsCounty.org

This organization is dedicated to combating the “unconstitutional” tyranny animal laws, created by Mills County, Iowa and to provide Dog Law and Dog Legislation articles that provide “evidence” that Mills County, Iowa Animal Care and Control Law is “unconstitutional”.

We the People, continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners in Mills County, Iowa and around the nation as well.

###

Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit)

“The truth is rarely pure and never simple.”

PLEASE DONATE to Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit) BY CLICKING ON THE PAYPAL LINK BELOW:

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=6721925

Fair Use Notice: Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the ‘fair use’ exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Legal Disclaimer: The information, articles, or links (posted, embedded or otherwise) to the above postings are provided to give readers more information on general dog-related or associated subjects and are not intended as legal advice. All individuals are urged to contact licensed attorneys in their states regarding specific legal issues.

Copyright © 2006-2009, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit) Iowa 2009, NationalDogPress News, All Rights Reserved

Posted by Dean A. Ayers, Director, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom on 10/19/2009 at 01:16 AM in “Due Process” Before Animal Control Takes Your Dog, A Chicken Lesson for Dog Owners, Animal Control, Animal Control Officers, Animal Shelter RIver Filling With Dogs, Bad Smelling Pets, Books, C.L.U.B. QUOTE, Current Affairs, Dog and Human Euthanasia Unethical, Dog Catchers, Dog Insurance Requirements, Dog Law, Dog License Tyranny, Dog Ordinance Tyranny, Dog Rescue Action Needed, Dogs, Pets, and Animals, Due Process in Animal Laws, Euthanasia, Film, Flaming Liberal Swords, Food and Drink, Freedom and Happiness, Games, GlenwoodIowa.org, Health Care, HEALTH CARE ALERT, Humane Health Care?, Humane Society Scam, INSANITY in Society, Islam and Terrorism, Life’s Troubles, Mills County, Iowa, MillsCounty.Org, Music, NAIS Animal ID, NationalDogPress Newsletter, Nebraska Humane Society - NOT!, Nincompoops, No Dogs in Canada and the USA , Our Nation Won’t Survive, Pet Euthanasia is Unethical, Pet Food, PETA DEATH CAMPS, Private Property Intrusion, Religion, RFID Chips, Sarah Palin , Sarah Palin HELP!, Science, Sexual Harassment Must Go!, Socialist America, Sports, Swine Flu Fraud?, Television, Thank You!, Toxins on Dogs and Our Pets, Travel, Web/Tech, Weblogs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Dog Licensing Is An Outrage

Your Pet Belongs to You, Not the Government

by Dean A. Ayers

The erosion of our freedom to own dogs, pets and animals, rings true of the current political climate in the USA Today. We the People who own dogs, cats, pets and animals are especially struck by the public’s statements concerning agreement or apathy towards all the various government licensing to include that of our pets and animals.

Definition of Licensing and the Misconceptions:

Most people seem to believe that a dog or pet license is a freedom, when in true fact, it is a taking.

A license is a temporary, revocable permit issued by government that allows the holder to have something or to do something that is otherwise illegal. For example, in the USA the licensing of firearms has virtually removed our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Any time a license is issued, a freedom is jeopardized. By the very act of licensing dogs, the act of owning or even possessing a dog has been made illegal.

Animals are traditional property, now legally having “Intrinsic Value:”

Animals are human-kind’s most ancient and traditional property. Before ever we settled down to a plot of land and threw seeds in the soil, we numbered animals as our most valuable possessions. Wealth has always been associated with the number of animals that a person owned, and kept.

Now animal ownership, use, and the ancient, honorable practice of animal husbandry are under global attack by dog laws, animal ID laws globally. It was initiated by the animal “rights” movement, and adapted by local, state, and federal governments throughout the world.

A Dog’s life has ‘intrinsic value,’ New York judge finds:

Finding that a dog “is somewhere between a person and personal property,” a New York trial court said a pet owner whose dog died following unauthorized surgery may seek damages beyond the purchase price of the animal. “[A dog] is not an inanimate thing that just receives affection; it also returns it,” the court wrote, citing Corso v. Crawford, 97 Misc. 2d 530 (N.Y., Queens County Civ. Ct. 1979).

Doing Away with Dog Ownership:

All the dog legislation, animal control laws, dog ownership licensing, animal breeder licensing and animal ID programs will effectively do away with all but the largest commercial breeders and providers. When the small traditional owner and holder have been the basis for our animals and economy world-wide, it soon will end with all animals owned being controlled through licensing of many types and behaviors, as well as the food we all eat for life will be controlled by the seed products being copyrighted thru large commercial concerns like Monsanto, and those of us who have traditionally grown our own food or owned animals personally for various reasons will be locked out or the owners will be locked up literally, also known as “Jail” or animal shelters, etc.

Read the rest of the article

http://animalsclubfreedom.typepad.com/animals-club–freedom-national-org-inc-non-profit/2009/07/the-licensing-of-tyranny-in-dog-ownership.html

Copyright © 2009 Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Org. Inc.

Posted by Dean A. Ayers, Director, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom on 08/09/2009 at 01:30 PM in Books, Current Affairs, Dog Insurance Requirements, Dog Law, Dog Ordinance Tyranny, Dog Rescue Action Needed, Dogs, Pets, and Animals, Film, Food and Drink, Games, GlenwoodIowa.org, Health Care, Humane Health Care?, Music, My Dogs…, Pet Food, Private Property Intrusion, Religion, RFID Chips, Sarah Palin or Satire , Science, Socialist America, Sports, Television, Travel, Web/Tech, Weblogs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Fluoride in Dog Food: Bone Meal and Cheap Fillers May Deliver Toxic Dose

NationalDogPress.com — 14 July 09

Fluoride in Dog Food: Bone Meal and Cheap Fillers May Deliver Toxic Dose

Is what you’re feeding your dog delivering toxic doses of fluoride and putting your pet at risk?

An independent lab study of 10 dog food brands commissioned by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) found that eight out of ten of them contained levels of fluoride up to two and a half times higher than the standard set by the EPA for drinking water, highlighting the need for more stringent guidelines for pet foods.

“Our findings point to the need for basic health protections that require companies to prove their products are safe before they are sold. Bringing public health laws in line with the newest scientific research is a critical step in protecting the health of all members of American households, whether they walk on two legs or four.” - Olga Naidenko, Ph.D, lead researcher of the study

The findings of the study, hot on the heels of the melamine in pet food scandal, claim that the levels of fluoride in the dog foods were higher than those associated with bone cancer in boys (Harvard, 2006), but because no limits have been set for dogs, the study raises more questions than it answers.

“Due to a failed regulatory system and suspect practices by some in the pet food industry, countless dogs may be ingesting excessive fluoride that could put them at risk.” - Naidenko

The sources of the fluoride were most likely from animal byproducts and bone meal, and EWG stated that the brands found to contain excess fluoride had contents which included chicken by-product meal, poultry by-product meal, chicken meal, beef and bone meal. These ingredients are so-called “filler” used to bulk up the food.

The levels of fluoride found in the dog foods ranged between 7 and 11.2 mg per kilogram (kg) with an average of 8.9 mg/kg in the 8 brands. Two of the dog food brands did not contain detectable levels of fluoride.

According to the report, a 10-pound puppy that eats a cup of dog food per day would consume 0.25 milligrams of fluoride per kg of body weight per day, which is five times higher than the safe level set by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

EWG recommends purchasing dog food which is free from bone meal and “byproducts” to be on the safe side, and doing some research to find the healthiest, cleanest food for your pet.

Fair Use Notice: Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the ‘fair use’ exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Legal Disclaimer: The information, articles, or links (posted, embedded or otherwise) to the above postings are provided to give readers more information on general dog-related or associated subjects and are not intended as legal advice. All individuals are urged to contact licensed attorneys in their states regarding specific legal issues.

Copyright © 2006-2009, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit) Iowa 2009, All Rights Reserved
Posted by Dean A. Ayers, Director, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom on 07/14/2009 at 12:48 AM in Pet Food

Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom Evidence for Proper ‘Tethering’ of Dogs Being OK!

It seems that the conventional wisdom among conscientious dog pet owners is that keeping dogs on chains is cruel and abusive. This attitude probably stems in a large sense from the tendency to humanize dogs. People are not chained; therefore, dogs should not be chained. We will make a case here that generally keeping dogs on chains, given that they get proper daily exercise off the chain, is not only reasonable but actually better for at least working dogs.

As appealing as the idea of equating humans and dogs is, we need to recognize the undisputable scientific fact that we are two different species with different needs, perspectives and patterns of behavior. Dogs are basically a product of instincts, developed from the days when the dog was a wild predator, and patterns of behavior, installed mostly in their youth by environment through repetition; not greatly different from humans except that humans have greater ability to change in later life. Dogs as adults are happiest if their life involves consistency, regularity and as little change as possible, not to mention the obvious requirement of fulfillment of their basic needs (food, exercise, companionship and sex). Therefore, to be kept on a chain along with consistency and satisfaction of their basic needs is as acceptable to a dog’s psychic as living freely in a small enclosure.

Furthermore, there are a number of advantages to both humans and dogs in a kennel with tethering as opposed to runs. These include the following:

(1) Dogs on tethers get more and better exercise. A 6-foot tether offers a dog about 113 square feet of living space; a 7-foot tether offers 154 square feet. Contrast this to a 5 x 20-foot run offering 100 square feet, or if two dogs are in it, only 50 square feet per dog. More importantly, dogs on a tether can move (run) continuously forever, albeit in a circle. Dogs in a run are limited to the length of the run, usually not long enough to even allow the dog to break into a lope. The end result of a tethered dog is a dog where the body is physically developed uniformly; muscles in both the front and rear get exercised. A dog in a run develops strong rear leg jumping muscles from jumping against the fence at the ends of the run, and his front end essentially withers away from lack of use.

(2) Dogs on tethers get more and better people socialization. People are more likely to move among and touch dogs in a tethered set-up simply because it is easy to do. They can easily move in and out of each dog’s area, smother some dogs with attention, and make just a peripheral contact with others. People are discouraged from entering runs with free dogs because gates have to be manipulated and special attention has to be paid to keep dogs from escaping, and this has to be done repeatedly with every dog or two. Thus, a kenneled dog’s extra human contact often just consists of a lot of finger tips sticking through chain link squares, compared to the tethered dogs getting a complete person.

(3) Kennel clean-up is easier when gates and escaping dogs aren’t present.

(4) Dogs socialize better with each other and their environment in general when there are not partitions (fences) between them.

(5) Dogs get better rest when they learn that no other dog can get into their space. In a run with a companion, or even without a companion but with a dog in an adjacent run, a dog instinctually never lets the thought of the other dog out of his brain. In a tethered set-up dogs seem to quickly recognize that no other dog can get into their circle and that there they are totally safe. Furthermore, dogs learn over a period of time to respect their companions’ areas. When dogs are released to the exercise area, they are quite careful about moving only between or on the fringe of the remaining dogs’ areas. Should a dog accidentally get loose, immediately everyone else roars their disapproval, so all dogs, sleeping or otherwise, are forewarned of a possible intruder which increases their feelings of security over time.

(6) Dogs on a tether develop dexterity and agility regarding moving around a line. This is very helpful for sled dogs, whose work involves just such abilities.

Although a tethering kennel set-up is good in itself, I strongly believe that it should be accompanied with a regular free running exercise routine. Compatible groups of dogs should be turned loose at least once a day to run free in a pen of enough size to allow the dogs to really stretch out at a full gallop without fear of crashing into a fence. I recommend at least 1 acre, and a release time of anywhere from 30 minutes to 3 hours. Of course, free exercise can be reduced or even eliminated on days when a dog is worked. It is interesting that tethered dogs released to exercise, really do exercise. Kenneled dogs so-released often tend to not do much running, but just lay-around like they are still in a run.

The tethered kennel set-up that I have described here has a lot in common with the life of a predator in the wild, presumably the basis for a dog’s basic instincts. First, there is the stalking, then the wild chase and kill, followed by food gorging. Finally, there is a long (20 hours) rest. Then the process is repeated. Liken this to the tethered set-up with a daily free exercise period.

Dean A. Ayers
Director, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization
“The truth is rarely pure and never simple.”

Dean A. Ayers is a prior United States Air Force Special Agent for the AFOSI. His duties included that of law enforcement specialist, criminal, fraud, and counter-intelligence. He was assigned to felony crimes in federal government, fraud, waste and abuse investigations of the military branches of service, and counter-intelligence in overseas locations. Dean was also a former Texas State Commissioned Alamo State Park Armed Ranger.

Dean is currently Director, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization and Dean is also a Lead Investigative Reporter for the NationalDogPress.com Headline News ©, and DogPress.org news press services.

Fair Use Notice: Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the ‘fair use’ exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Legal Disclaimer: The information, articles, or links (posted, embedded or otherwise) to the above postings are provided to give readers more information on general dog-related or associated subjects and are not intended as legal advice. All individuals are urged to contact licensed attorneys in their states regarding specific legal issues.

Copyright © 2006-2009, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated, All Rights Reserved

PLEASE DONATE to Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit) BY CLICKING ON THE PAYPAL LINK:

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=6721925

Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit)
“The truth is rarely pure and never simple.”

PLEASE DONATE to Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization Incorporated (Non-Profit) BY CLICKING ON THE PAYPAL LINK:

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=6721925

Dog ordinance ‘number limits’ are not logical or valid

Dog ‘number limit’ ordinances lead to a decrease in pet license taxes collected from non-reporting owners over the pet limits. The ‘number limit’ laws are counterproductive.

MILLS COUNTY, Iowa, 7 July 09 (NationalDogPress.com) –

Dogs and dog owners face more discrimination than ever before in American society. While local, city, county, state, and federal entities pay lip service to the dog as man’s best friend by passing tyranny dog limiting ordinances and laws, We the People as a whole community allow fear and politics to determine the parameters of dog ownership based upon emotions not logic and common sense in law making.

We the People, spend hundreds of millions of dollars on premium foods, veterinary care, toys, kennels, pet sitters, training classes, and more even while limiting the number and type of dogs an owner can house. We use dogs to aid in catching criminals, search for victims of crimes and natural disasters, help handicapped humans, and provide emotional support even while barring dogs from communities if they exceed a certain weight, certain breed to be banned, or limits to the number of dogs allowed in a home even if they are properly cared for and loved as family.

The disadvantages of dog number limits in homes are:

Dog owners in some communities face a limit on the number of pets they can own, but these limits, too, are counterproductive.

Laws that criminalize pet ownership based on numbers alone have been declared unconstitutional in some states because they do not address the need to control nuisances or provide for the health and safety of residents.

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, the state’s highest court, has declared such a law unconstitutional in that state, citing a precedent in Kadash v City of Williamsport:

“What is not an infringement upon public safety and is not a nuisance cannot be made one by legislative fiat and then prohibited….

“Even legitimate legislative goals cannot be pursued by means which stifle fundamental personal liberty when the goals can otherwise be more reasonably achieved.”

A dog or pet limit ordinance is difficult to enforce without increased presence of animal control or police agencies and often leads to a decrease in pet licensing to prevent cross-referencing of license records. If the law is enforced only upon complaint, it becomes just another law for people to circumvent and further erodes confidence in legislative bodies.

Numbers have no relationship to nuisances. A person with one dog that runs loose or barks all night is a greater nuisance than a person with a dozen dogs that are quiet, clean, and kept at home.

Limiting people to four dogs (or fewer) puts an unreasonable strain on people who raise show dogs, compete in performance trials, participate in canine rescue operations, foster dogs for service dog organizations, etc. and can lead to those responsible dog owners leaving the community.

A number limit causes dog deaths by forcing people to give up dogs they own, thus causing crowding in local shelters; denying people the opportunity to buy an additional dog from a shelter or a rescue; and adversely impacting rescue groups and foster homes that help find new homes for dogs whose owners cannot keep them.

Alternatives to number limits are:

Passage and enforcement of strict nuisance laws.
Use of an arbitrator to mediate neighborhood disputes about animals.
Use of alternative sentencing such as community service at the county animal shelter or attendance at a full obedience training course for those who violate nuisance ordinances.
Periodic programs or mailings about responsible dog ownership or city sponsorship of a Canine Good Citizen test to encourage residents to be responsible dog owners.

Animal laws are not always a result of state and federal battles. Squabbles between neighbors often erupt over animals, squabbles that often spill over into law enforcement or animal control filed complaints to local governments.

As an emotional result the local government greases the squeaky wheel complaints by citizens with even more stricter ordinances or other tacked on to the zoning code or the criminal codes to existing animal ordinances.

Dog limit ordinances are often passed out of frustration, with little consideration for the consequences or valid and factual basis to make any “positive or constructive” benefit to the community dog complaints, other than a government official “feel good” action giving We the People even more tyranny in our local animal control ordinances.

Copyright © 2006-2009, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization, All Rights Reserved

Dean A. Ayers
Director, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization
“The truth is rarely pure and never simple.”

Dean A. Ayers is a prior United States Air Force Special Agent for the AFOSI. His duties included that of law enforcement specialist, criminal, fraud, and counter-intelligence. He was assigned to felony crimes in federal government, fraud, waste and abuse investigations of the military branches of service, and counter-intelligence in overseas locations. Dean was also a former Texas State Commissioned Alamo State Park Armed Ranger.

Dean is currently Director, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization and Dean is also a Lead Investigative Reporter for the NationalDogPress.com Headline News ©, and DogPress.org news press services.

Fair Use Notice: Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the ‘fair use’ exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Legal Disclaimer: The information, articles, or links (posted, embedded or otherwise) to the above postings are provided to give readers more information on general dog-related or associated subjects and are not intended as legal advice. All individuals are urged to contact licensed attorneys in their states regarding specific legal issues.

Copyright © 2006-2009, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization, All Rights Reserved
Posted by CODE: RED - Final Notice at 12:47 AM
Labels: Dog Law - Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom, Dog Licensing, Dog Limit Ordinances, Dogs, Iowa, Mills County, NationalDogPress.com

Animal Control Beware; There is a Dog Seizure Due Process

How Does Due Process Apply to Dog Seizure/Euthanasia Cases?

Despite the fact that animals are still considered property in all legal jurisdictions today, due process, whether rooted in the federal or state constitutions, extends to life, liberty, or property. The more complicated issue, however, is how much process is due? The Supreme Court has promulgated a four prong test to determine this. In each situation, a court must weigh the following:

- the private interest affected by the official action

- the risk of an erroneous deprivation of that interest through the procedures used,

- the probable value of additional procedural safeguards, and

- the government interest involved.

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).

Due process requires the opportunity to be heard “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Rabon v. City of Seattle (Rabon II), 107 Wash.App. 734, 743 (2001) (citing Mathews, 424 U.S. at 333). Thus, when individuals can show they will suffer irreparable harm from a post-deprivation hearing, courts have recognized that a pre-deprivation hearing is necessary. In the case of orders to euthanize pets, many courts have considered the loss to the pet owner as irreparable.

Before the Hearing: Filing a Petition for a Preliminary Injunction

Dog owners should file a petition for an injunction to delay the killing of the dog until they have had the chance to be heard in court (For an actual example, see Petition for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction in the case of Wilson v. City of St. Louis (1990), which involved a Pit Bull named “Max” who was impounded and classified as “dangerous” because he allegedly killed the neighbor’s dog. The Circuit Court found that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction was not granted and enjoined the city from killing or otherwise harming Max. The court ordered the city to release Max and change his dangerous designation to potentially dangerous.

Overriding the Decision - Petition for a Writ of Mandamus

Due process includes more than just going through the motions of a hearing. In fact, even after hearings have been granted, decisions can be challenged as a prejudicial abuse of discretion that is not based on findings of fact or law. (This is what the owners of Boo, a bullmastiff who allegedly bit a child, argued in Williams v. Orange County Animal Control (1996)). In this case, owners should file a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, a judicial remedy issued by a superior court to compel a government officer to do or forbear from doing a specific act, to delay the euthanasia order until the appeal can be heard. This writ of mandamus applies in any situation in which the euthanasia should be stayed, including scenarios in which an original hearing was never given.

Minimum Standards of Due Process for the Hearing

It is now also clear that hearings must meet certain minimum standards. Informal reviews that animal control agencies frequently provide upon the dog owner’s request often do not fulfill these requirements, because the decision-maker may not be qualified to render the judgment or may not be impartial if he also made the original decision to euthanize the dog. For example, in Phillips v. San Luis Obispo County Dept., 228 Cal.Rptr. 101 Cal.App. (2 Dist.,1986), the owners of Missy, a black lab known to have a bad habit of biting children, contested the city’s decision to euthanize her. The amicus brief filed by Joyce Tischler of the Animal Legal Defense Fund pointed out the Municipal Codes at issue did not provide for the Animal Regulation Director’s orders to be reviewed by the Chief Sanitarian of the County Health Department or the supervising environmental health officer, the two individuals who presided over the first and second hearings.

Challenges to the Ordinance Itself

In fact, many city ordinances are flawed in that they fail to specify that owners are entitled to hearings before their pets are euthanized. These municipal codes can be challenged as unconstitutional and, even if the city already granted hearings that met minimum due process standards, the decision to euthanize the pet would still have to be overturned. Otherwise, whether dog owners generally would receive due process would be at the whim of the animal control agency, and the city could avoid having to correct its municipal codes simply by voluntarily giving all dog owners a hearing. The court of appeals in Missy’s case agreed, concluding that the ordinances here are unconstitutional for failure to provide for notice and a hearing either before or after the seizure of an uncontrollable biting or vicious dog.

Most recently, in a landmark case, the court of appeals in Mansour v. King County, 128 P.3d 1241 (Wash.App. Div. 1,2006) held that due process required even more than offering owners a hearing, ordering that “an agency seeking to enforce a removal order must prove both the violation and the remedy it has imposed by a preponderance of the evidence. This is the same standard of proof imposed on the government when it attempts to temporarily remove a child from the custody of his parents. By instituting a burden of proof on the city, the court was essentially finding that the dog must be presumed innocent until the city can prove otherwise. Previously, there had been no standard of proof, and reviewing courts would only look to see if Animal Control had acted arbitrarily or capriciously. Thus, even the most minimal evidence that a dog should be removed would suffice, and owners would bear the burden of proving their pets innocent. Moreover, the court found that due process attached not only for orders to euthanize an animal, but also for orders of removal outside the county (Peter Mansour had been ordered to remove his dog from the county or turn his dog over to the city to be euthanized after his dog was accused of killing a cat).

Finally, the court held that due process required Mansour to have the ability to subpoena records and witnesses in his defense, and that the Notice and Order of Violation had to specify exactly what code provisions had been violated. Merely issuing a brief and concise description of the conditions for finding the violation is insufficient. Mansour was entitled to know ahead of time exactly what the County needed to prove at the Board hearing. If in fact it could not prove that Maxine violated a code provision that supported the removal order, he [Mansour] was entitled to know that in time to move for a dismissal at the Board level.” Source Reference: Animal Legal and Historical Center.

There are some significant problems with dangerous dog laws and euthanasia execution solutions.

1. They do not reduce the number of dog bites. By focusing on the after-effects of a bite, these laws do not take any measures to prevent bites. In theory, the risk of punishment is a motivation to change behavior. But most dog owners do not believe their dogs to be dangerous. So the perception is that these laws are for other dogs, problem dogs, but not their dog. Then, when a bite occurs, that particular owner may face additional liability, but his friends and neighbors will not change their habits regarding their own dogs.

2. The laws do not take into account the severity of the incident. Most dangerous dog laws cover a huge range of behavior from “threatening displays” to actual bites. What this means is that you may be as liable for your goofy social dog rushing out the door and charging gleefully at a neighbor as another owner is for an undersocialized, aggressive dog who bites a child on the face. Are these equal? Under many dangerous dog laws, they are.

What it comes down to is this.

Dangerous dog laws are a feel-good attempt to show the community that they are taking action.

Article LINK:

http://IowaCongress.org/ar_outrage.html

Dean A. Ayers
Director, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization
“The truth is rarely pure and never simple.”

Dean A. Ayers is a prior United States Air Force Special Agent for the AFOSI. His duties included that of law enforcement specialist, criminal, fraud, and counter-intelligence. He was assigned to felony crimes in federal government, fraud, waste and abuse investigations of the military branches of service, and counter-intelligence in overseas locations. Dean was also a former Texas State Commissioned Alamo State Park Armed Ranger.

Dean is currently Director, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization and Dean is also a Lead Investigative Reporter for the NationalDogPress.com Headline News ©, and DogPress.org news press services.

Fair Use Notice: Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the ‘fair use’ exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Legal Disclaimer: The information, articles, or links (posted, embedded or otherwise) to the above postings are provided to give readers more information on general dog-related or associated subjects and are not intended as legal advice. All individuals are urged to contact licensed attorneys in their states regarding specific legal issues.

Copyright © 2006-2009, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization, All Rights Reserved