On the eve of the Supreme Court’s decision on dog-fighting videos as protected “free speech” or (all too simply put)something that the public needs protection from, Mike Markarian of the Humane Society Legal Fund brings news of case where the Louisville Kennel Club attempted to revoke years of anti-cruelty laws, and decriminalize abuse-who are these people, anyway?
A lawsuit questioning constitutionality was brought against a package of laws in Louisville Federal court: tethering ban, a mandate that kennels and dog owners provide basic care for their animals, full disclosure to customers who buy animals, and even the 2007 law putting the responsibility on dangerous dog owner’s rather than engaging in the stupidity of breed bans was a target. I am again flummoxed by the lengths to which the self-interested will go to dismantle laws that serve the public good.
The Louisville Kennel Club, hunting organizations, and other groups want no restrictions whatever on animal use. That would be great news for dog-fighters, and others with pathological inclinations. There were in all more than 20 laws called into question and the suit would also have unraveled the charter of animal care and control. Like I said, who are these people?
Louisville’s Kennel Club seems not to be about actual dogs at all—more a club that works to ensure that no new laws are passed affecting animal use, and to rescind laws already on the books. Their mission has been subsumed by their ideology, having no regard for the reality of living, breathing, suffering animals. No matter, they were handed a resounding defeat. The Louisville Federal Court upheld animal protection laws. Read Markarian’s blog
And one more thing…
Christie Keith has been involved with the Shelter Pet Project and Richard Avanzino, head of Maddie’s Fund, from the beginning, and wrote an excellent summary of who and what’s involved in the campaign as well as video of the new PSA. It’s always more interesting to get the news from people involved in it!
I remember when the first No Kill Conference came to Lisle, IL back in the late 90’s, I met Avanzino there and we spoke briefly about funding requirements for shelters. I asked if Maddie’s Fund was going to provide advertising money to get the word out. He said something like he wished he could put a lot of the money into advertising. Well, it’s ten years later, but it’s happening:)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=4d971608-44fe-4d44-bba8-7b96c7bcf13d)
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
8 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
It is a preposterous lie to say that the Louisville Kennel Club does not care about animal abuse and cruelty! The dog laws that were passed in Louisville were onerous and infringed on the rights of dog owners and breeders. And portions have now been proven unconstitutional. It is the unconstitutional portions that we all are fighting! HSUS puts a spin on everything to make dog breeders and owners of purebred dogs to appear to be the devil incarnate. Shame on HSUS for the lies and deceit they use to force THEIR ideologies and taking of rights from Americans! Since when have dog owners and breeders become second-class citizens? If you think you are helping animals by donating to HSUS, you are dead wrong! You are donating to a lobbyist organization that is power hungry with an end goal of eliminating animals from our lives completely, whether it is in the form of life-sustaining food, pets, service dogs, military dogs or any other pet. This sit on a HUGE amount of money that is fed to legislators instead of helping animals and helping shelters. I am totally fed up with these 'animal rights' people! Wake up!
Well, this report goes to show you how HSUS and their ilk like to spin tales! VBG Louisville Kennel Club is not located in St Louis…It is in Louisville, KY. The case was heard by the a KY Federal Court, not MO. But then this is the way that HSUS and minions like to get the facts out – misconstrued and wrong.
Animals are not humans, they are property. This was upheld in court. Thus all of the unConstitutional portions of the law were struck out. Animal owners have rights that should not be dictated by a group of power mongers that are the minority in the USA.
HSUS is not for the animals. HSUS is for Wayne Pacelle, who is for himself and power. They are the PeTA in suits. Wake up America! This is exactly the type of thing that HSUS is so good at – twisting the truth to appear that dog breeders (and animal owners and farmers) are all no good. We are not.
HSUS needs to keep their noses out of personal business. They need to stay out of Ohio. They need to be put out of business.
Hey! That picture is of St. Louis, MO not Louisville, KY! Get your pictures (and your facts) straight, would ya? Buncha kunckleheads….
Hey Barbara, you're right–the picture was wrong. But as to the facts of the case, go ahead and check out the animal ordinance yourself: Louisville here http://www.louisvilleky.gov/AnimalServices/animal... The judge commented "Notably, the court also resoundingly rejected the Kennel Club’s challenges to the enforcement authority of the director of Louisville Metro Animal Services, discarding the claims of “arbitrary” and “selective” enforcement. Responding to the allegation that the director intends to conduct warrantless searches in enforcing the ordinance, the court stated that the Kennel Club and other plaintiffs “are doing battle with a bogeyman of their own conjuring.”
I know that the HSUS understands the value of breeders…they have a booklet for consumers to use to help them recognize good breeders from puppy millers. And people concerned for animal welfare are not always going to agree on how to go about protecting them, but they do agree they need to be protected.
Just so we are clear, here are the parts of the animal controls laws LKC challenged. See the above link to the Animal Ordinance so you can read it. It's important we all know what we are for and against, and what is and is not "preposterous." All were upheld by the court:
* prohibition of cruelty to animals;
* provisions preventing animal nuisances;
* restrictions on tethering animals in a cruel or neglectful manner;
* provisions concerning impoundment and license revocation;
* restrictions on sales of dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs;
* provisions granting animal control the authority to seize animals of owners violating the ordinance;
* requirements for veterinarians to report public health information, such as vaccination records and animal bites, to the government; and
* definitions of “dangerous dog,” “potentially dangerous dog,” “proper enclosures” for unaltered dogs, “nuisance,” “attack,” “restraint,” and “cruelty.”
Is Dr. Gilles Meloche resigned Director Louisville, Ky Metro Animal Control still your "Humane" kindof guy? WHEW . . . are you going to post the rest of the story?
Continuing the Discussion