Christie is quoted in it.

Despite the headline, there’s not much divided opinion on this among pet-owners in general. It’s debated in the animal-rights community some, but even there, it’s pretty accepted that if you want a vegan pet, you should get a rabbit.

Comment by Tina Clark — March 23, 2009

Tina … I am indeed talking about pure animal rights ideology. You don’t have to dig very deep into it or into the public statements of its leaders to find that in their “perfect world” there would be no domesticated animals of any kind, pets included.

I believe they have an absolute right to hold and advocate for that position openly and honestly. My problem is that they are disingenuous — they talk one game to pet lovers while pushing for an outcome most of us don’t agree with or want at all.

just a quick thanks for the Save Our Dogs site and all the hard work.

Appreciated more than I can say!

Yep. Same here in California.

I visited the California state capital in early 2007 with two police K9 officers
(one of whom was the vice president of WSPCA) and a senior official from Canine Companions for Independence who was also representing Assistance Dogs International, an umbrella organization over more than a dozen guide dog and service dog organizations in California. We visited every office of the members
of the first Assembly committee that was to vote on AB 1634. I naively thought all that would be required to kill this stupid bill was to have credible police K9 experts explain to the right people why this bill would be a disaster for police K9 programs, and have credible service/guide dog experts explain why this bill would be a disaster for blind and disabled citizens of California. I figured that those two things alone would cause this insane bill to go down in flames. These experts did a magnificent job relaying their dire messages. But boy, was I wrong. AB 1634 passed that committee by a comfortable margin.

It’s not that good arguments are ineffective. They can be effective for politicians who are truly undecided. It’s that ugly politics can outweigh them in some instances. We had a tough time getting through to California Assembly members when the (then) powerful Speaker of the Assembly was from Los Angeles, ground zero for extremists who have got many politicians there running scared and doing the extremists’ bidding.

I now spend less time trying to formulate perfect arguments against MSN for the legislators, and more time trying to figure out how convince dog owners to take the time to send a letter or make a phone call to their legislators. Our strength is our numbers, but we’ve got to get people to take action.

In California, while the opposition to AB 1634 was quite diverse, supporters of the bill were effective in falsely marginalizing the opposition as nothing but “greedy breeders.” It didn’t help that many on our side conveyed arguments that, while legitimate, came across as uncaring about the plight of shelter animals. Some of the feedback I heard when visiting legislators offices made it clear that our side had utterly failed to make the point that we oppose MSN (in part) because it will INCREASE shelter impounds and kill MORE dogs and cats. We had allowed supporters of MSN to position themselves as the spokespersons for animals who could not speak for themselves. BIG MISTAKE. So I’m really pleased to see leaders in the animal welfare / shelter community in Chicago working to stop MSN there.

Also helpful in fighting AB 1634 were visits to legislators’ offices, which can have more leverage than letters or phone calls. Often times one can get 10-30 minutes of undivided attention from the staff member who will write the recommendation for how their boss should vote on a bill. I found nearly all such staffers to be polite and attentive, and some of them seemed to truly “get it”.

I’m convinced that lobbyists also played an important role in killing AB 1634. NAIA, CDOC, AKC, PetPac, the farm bureau, and other groups had paid lobbyists working to kill this bill. Effective lobbyists build relationships with legislators and their staff over a period of years, so they specialize in a specific legislature.

The Save Our Dogs website (click on my name) that my husband and I created was originally just about AB 1634. We will be updating it for SB 250, etc. In any event, there is material on that site that is generic to other MSN laws and ordinances.

the issue is the goals of the people who both formulate and advocate most fiercely for these sorts of laws. The people who will use them, not to improve the welfare of animals and build a more humane framework for human interaction and husbandry of domestic animals, but to further the goal of the abolition of domestic animals.

Most of the people who support these laws do actually care about the human animal bond and animal welfare. BUT they have bought into several lies.

One, they are willing to believe, in the face of all evidence, that these laws can/will work as promised. That they have not in the past is blamed on a variety of factors. Poor support from local officials, they were not strict enough the fines not severe enough or special circumstances were at play or blame the next town over or yada yada yada.

MSN does not work, it allows a stagnant fossilized sheltering “collect and kill most save a few” mentality to survive without bringing any real change except that those who in power now have the reason and mandate to seize and kill more. Same as BSL.

Two, it further promotes the belief that MOST people are uncaring/irresponsible and need to be led by the nose and forced to conform to a narrow spectrum of pet care parameters or they should not have pets. They are not educated enough or too busy or have a “cultural bias” that makes them poor pet owners or too poor or have the wrong sort of house or eat the wrong diet or or or….

Education and outreach, combined with reasonable but non-coercive pet ordinances along with a concentrated effort to get financially affordable veterinary services where most needed is far more effective. Especially when combined with shelter reform to put a focus on everyone doing better with the goal of saving lives and keeping them out of harms way in the first place.

That however will not satisfy the leadership and core believers of those groups who believe that total liberation is the only way that humans can have a “humane” relationship with animals.

No one here doubts the sincerity of most animal welfare workers and advocates. But to deny that there are those who will wield these sorts of laws as a weapon in their well funded war on all animal “exploitation” is a grave mistake.

Although I’m with you all the way on mandatory spay/neuter, I really don’t believe that the goal of most people who advocate it is an end to pets. I know a lot people who believe strongly in MSN, and none of them wants to see a day with no companion animals.

HSUS is not as strong an influence as Paula Fasseus of PAWS. She’s relatively new to the industry but with money and the contacts it brings she gets to disdain/dismiss the rest of the sheltering and animal care community in lieu of how she sees things. As you were pointing out, outsiders become irrelevant and worse and HSUS would be in that category without PAWS. I know the AKC is against this as well as BSL, which I imagine is next on the City’s agenda. I’d rail against idiots, but need to save the energy for further organizing.

Thanks again for the playbook pointers. Good luck to Dr Khuly too in your MSN fight. The major problem with all this is that they lie—they say the bill is dead and all the opposition has to do is get it back in front of another legislator and off we go again.
Wears down the public interest.

Laura… THANK YOU!

I learned a lot from my crash course in the ugliness of politics. One lesson is, more important than good arguments against a bad bill is an avalanche of constituents conveying those arguments. State and national organizations that have members in the jurisdiction can and should get involved. But other than that, input from non-constituents is usually heavily discounted. It is more likely to be resented and backfire than to help.

So while I have faxed letters to Chicago Aldermen on behalf of national organizations I represent, and have attempted to rally Chicago residents on various email lists I inhabit, for the most part the opposition to the Chicago MSN ordinance needs to come from Chicagoans.

Apathy among dog and cat owners is the biggest problem we face. As best I can figure, over 95% of the owners of intact dogs who are made aware that they are being targeted by MSN still do not get involved. To help over come this, we have to make it as easy as possible for them to become engaged. For example, both NAIA and Alley Cat Allies have used the capwiz system to help Chicagoans send letters against the MSN ordinance
http://capwiz.com/alleycat/iss.....d=12886156
http://capwiz.com/naiatrust/is.....d=11684006
AKC has instructions and a sample letter about the Chicago MSN ordinance on their website
http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=3760

Chicago is incredibly fortunate to have the Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association and the Chicago Veterinary Medical Association actively engaged in the fight against the proposed Chicago MSN ordinance. These groups are not just opposed, they have written brilliant opposition letters.

If HSUS is getting to Chicago’s Mayor to try to swing things toward the ordinance, then perhaps the leaders of the Illinois and Chicago veterinary medical associations should see the Mayor as well. And the Mayor needs to hear from a lot of Chicagoans who oppose this ordinance.