Update: AB1634 is a 3 time loser bill

and was soundly defeated in Aug.2008

THERE IS evidence which shows that 50%+ of fatal dog attacks

involved "re-homed",shelter, or rescued dogs. Since this group of dogs

only make up about 18-20% of the total dogs estimated at 70 million dogs,

how does such a low percentage of "re-homed" dogs from Craigslist and

rescues+shelters, MANAGE to KILL 50% of those in FATAL ATTACKS?

A.N.S.W.E.R:

IT'S CALLED ANIMAL EXTREMIST RESCUERS.

They purposely RELEASE DOGS THAT FAIL TEMPERAMENT TESTING.

Then they adopt them OUT. They adopt out aggressive+ known biters.

see http://petdefense.wordpress.com [Dangerous dogs+animal extremists]

The RISE in fatal attacks by dogs is clearly associated with the RISE in

animal "re-homing", "rescue", andallowing RESCUE

people to TAKE DOGS FAILING TEMPERAMENT TESTING.

[*This is proven by the HSUS admitting it, see http://petdefense.wordpress.com]

Extremists like to say it's "intact" dogs--BUT what they don't want

THE PUBLIC to know is--- are majority ofTHE FATAL ATTACKS BY RE-HOMED

DOGS? It would not surprise me in the least if they were.

In New Jersey, an owner gave up a dobie to the shelter to have it put down.

This was purposely done by the owner. What did the shelter do? They

ADOPTED THE DOG OUT. The dog then KILLED the NEW OWNER.

This could have been completely avoided had the extreme animal

rights people NOT adopted the dog out. A huge recent settlement

was reached on the case, awarding the family danages. A criminal

prosecution had also been filed against the people adopting out

the dog.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which group is removing all dog ads so others cannot get

new homes for pets? http://sfbay.craigslist.org/forums/?forumID=2626

While claiming that people are charging "too much" for pets, these

people remove/flag ads where the fee "undercuts" 'their shelter price'

or claim everyone is a 'breeder' by removing a dog for $25 or $40!!!

Here is a sample of the proof, there are often more than 40 or 50+

pages of ads removed by these extremists:

On the left are some of the cities (abbreviated) and on the right is the

statement they record to each other, trying to justify the removal.  

sfoPuppies for < fatbuttmut > 09/06/08 08:28-5link
: . . PETA says pet ownership = slavery FLAG IT § < lOOllllOOOO > 09/06/08 09:28
: . . $100 waaaay undercuts our shelter price FLAG IT < lOOllllOOOO > 09/06/08 07:44

: . . this undercuts our shelter price FLAG IT § < lOOllllOOOO > 09/06/08 07:34
: . . AKC deals with breeding, shd be illegal FLAG EM § < lOOllllOOOO > 09/05/08 22:21
atlwants a yorkie female < mstickle > 09/05/08 22:17link
: . . no rule violation, but FLAG EM anyway. § < lOOllllOOOO > 09/05/08 22:19
: . . YORKIES R GROSS § < plaid_vomit > 09/05/08 23:05
: . . no fee listed good stalking work FLAG EM § < lOOllllOOOO > 09/05/08 22:16

: . . ATLANTA has 2 many pits already FLAG IT § < lOOllllOOOO > 09/05/08 17:19

: . . even with no fee we dont like damn pits FLAG EM § < lOOllllOOOO > 09/05/08 22:16

: . . no rule violation, but we want it fixed FLAG IT § < lOOllllOOOO > 09/05/08 19:33
: . . gov shd force all ppl to speuter all pets FLAG § < lOOllllOOOO > 09/05/08 19:30
: . . $250 each is too much in our judgement FLAG IT § < lOOllllOOOO > 09/05/08 19:23

. . no rule violation here but FLAG IT anyway § < lOOllllOOOO > 09/06/08 07:26-2
: . . just give the damn pit to our shelter FLAG IT § < lOOllllOOOO > 09/05/08 23:56
: . . $100 apiece undercuts our shelter FLAG IT § < lOOllllOOOO > 09/05/08 19:24
: . . gov shd force all ppl to spay all pets FLAG IT § < lOOllllOOOO > 09/05/08 23:57

THESE ARE THE TYPE OF PEOPLE WHICH ARE PUSHING MSN ACROSS

THE COUNTRY....ANIMAL EXTREMISTS...WHO WILL DO ANYTHING TO

STOP PET OWNERSHIP IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS

(Peta+extremist groups believe animals are "not property"  and should not be "OWNED")

LET'S CUT TO THE CHASE.

The Pet Industry is a $41-$43 billion dollar business which is climbing,

despite the economic downturn.To give one an example of how

large that is, last year Walmart did about $41 billion.The pet industry has been

growing every year as more people do not have children and instead have pets.

We work to change anti-petlaws and hopefully to stave them off from becoming law.

Although many people oppose the proposed CA AB1634(proposed again for 2008)

most of them point out several of the flaws in the proposed law. The bottom

line is that all of the reasons stated by many opponents are valid, but they are not

all necessarily reasons which would cause the law to be unconstitutional.

In California, Los Angeles and several other counties have passed local ordinances

which mandate altering of all dogs/cats at 4 months. There was a federal

lawsuit filed for the Los Angeles case, which was included within the objection to

SB861, allowing breed specific laws in response to a dog mauling case in SF.

The objection to the MSN of Los Angeles was dismissed because Judge Chesney

said it was 'rational' for that one local area alone (not the entire state.)

As of now (9/2008) the MSN is failing miserably in LOS ANGELES and they

are killing more, losing the ground that they had in the past 5 years.

In fact, they cannot even enforce it, which is what we have said for

3 years now. But would shelters or the governmentlisten? NO.

By failing to listen to common sense, and to all the objections of the public,

the SHELTER SYSTEM allowed animal extremists to DICTATE what law to pass.

and that's why the killing is higher than ever.

Extremists know that MSN does

not work, and they know it promotes MORE killing of animals.

After MSN doesn't work (and it will not work)--the extremists

will then try and move ON to stopping the dog breeders from breeding

any dogs. HSUS has already done this

in Louisville KY (in Federal Court now) and Los Angeles MSN is in California

State Court right now. No matter what anyone says, eliminating all dog

breeding violates several rights of the people---and this can be proven

if the evidence is shown in total.

Proposed law AB1634 (CA)by Lloyd Levine, (which was soundly defeated)

alleged that the state of California can "save money on shelters" by

altering 98% of all dogs/cats. The fact is that no one was buying into

this ruse except the AR-run shelters, and the rescues they brainwashed.

Who drafted or devised the law? Allegedly Judie Mancuso and Ed Boks of Los

Angeles, and Mancuso is a fairly recent,known animal rights extremist.

NO MATTER what anyone says, the proposed law is actually "not" about

shelter animals.

HOWEVER--the pitch of "saving poor shelter animals" is an emotional one that

many will fall for, especially if they don't understand the full ramifications of the

law.

That is just the excuse they are using to say the state can "save money" by

altering every single dog/cat that can't conform to their so-called "exemptions",

which just HAPPENS to leave out around 98% of all dogs and cats!!

*picture is copyrighted and not to be used without direct permission by attorney

The Lies or as We Know It: The Hidden Agenda of Animal Extremists

The Facts are that extremists NEVER want to tell the TRUTH and they need

to hide their real agenda of ending pet ownership when they try and pass

legislation to alter every dog/cat in the United States. (This is admitted by PeTa

which said in response to sponsoring legislation, that they are the 'kiss of death'

if they sponsor legislation---so instead theyperform wacked out, crazy stunts

to gain national attention to issues.)

If you figure that it was just "shelter animals" they were actually concerned about,

then why not do something that actually directly impacted the animals?

Like work to adopt animals off the premises? Increase your marketing of older

adoptables? Not tell people that all dogs over 30lb are dangerous? Gain new foster

families? Increase rescue groups who want to help?

Follow the marketing advice of those who have succeeded? Not expect to

kill every animal that comes in? Help teach new adopters instead of just letting

them take the dogs? Be open on both weekend days when people can visit?

Get the low cost spay going where it is available all the time, not just once a

year.

Or, they could have suggested to just mandate altering in the counties having

the highest kill shelters. (Certain counties are considered "high kill" shelter areas.)

Why would one need to target or eliminate 98% of dogs/cats, in order to

save shelter animals? (Especially when shelter animals euthanized probably

comprise only about 2% of the entire number of animals owned in the United

States.) Of course another huge problem with the proposed law is that it

only focuses on the purebred, registered, titled/or shown dogs.

If a dog or

even a cat is not a purebred, registered, shown/or titled animal, it has to go.

Only the ultra dogs/cats can have babies. There goes all the small white mixed

breed dogs that so many people buy.They keep trying to amend the law to make it

seem reasonable but the law's premise is completely without merit--no amount of

modification will make it either reasonable, workable, or constitutional

(in our opinion.)

The reasoning behind the proposed law to us is not only asinine, but it's just

downright ludicrous. And yet, we see people who bought right into the pitch,

brainwashed and all. Bob Barkerhas retired, thank God. Now we don't have to

hear him talk about spay/neuter on TV at least, but still have to hear him

parroting the animal rights agenda on news clips. What the hell does Bob

Barker know about the animal rights agenda? Nothing! Whichis why he

supports an agenda he knows little about.

Oprah isn't far behind after saying that she will only obtain a "shelter"

animal rather than buying a dog.

The day Oprah adopts a male pitbull mix or rottie mixed juvenile from

a shelter, and trains it, I will give up my own dogs. It will never happen

because Oprah doesn't know anything about canines or the shelters.

She is given topics to comment on. She had the so-called "rescue"

on her show which BUYS puppy milled dogs and then sells them, with

the purpose being that it was "great"--yet now she says she will only

adopt a dog from a shelter--and would NOT buy adog.

We all know that any small frou frou dog, any small white long hair dog,

any small popular breed (pug, westie, maltese, pom, list goes on) will

quickly find a home AND is not considered an endangered dog in a

shelter, unless it is sick, old, or has expensive medical problems.

So for Oprah to say she would get a shelter dog, unless she plans on

taking a pitbull or a large breed used for flock guarding, she won't be

doing anyone a favor by taking a small dog, or an extremely popular

breed dog which everyone is dying to get for almost nothing.

Anyone that knows about rescuing dogs--

would never advocate for the Bichon rescue that BUYS puppy milled

dogs and then SELLS them, calling it a "rescue." That is a joke.

http://www.petdefense.wordpress.com All issues re pet legislation and defending

Your Rights-- Links to petdefense are encouraged for dog owners!

Find out how to get your own 24/7 legal advice counsel BEFORE the AR or AC

causes trouble for you or your business! 

We are building a new site to introduce the 24/7 legal access to an

attorney in your area.........we are working with the oldest company in the

United States that has made the legal plan available for over 30 years, and

it is also available in Canada. It is the equivalent of an

HMO for legal services, with affordable cost. Watch for it!