|
Reworked
CIVIL RIGHTS THREATENED BY DANGEROUS
DOG LAWS, AND BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION
We citizens of the United States of America are still engaged in a civil
rights struggle. This struggle knows no racial boundaries, it knows no
social status, it knows no financial status. It affects every person, from
the poorest, to the most affluent, from the city dweller, to the largest
land owner. It goes to our most ancient and traditional property, and to our
ownership, and use rights in animals. Dog/animal ownership is as varied, as
is the human tapestry that bonds our great nation.
Breed specific dog laws appear on the surface to be about dogs, but upon
closer examination we discover that BSL is all about we human owners of
dogs. It's about government invading the sanctity of our homes, and our
property without a warrant and removing animals that we consider to be a
part of our family. It is about government criminalizing the ownership of
dogs by breed. It is about the taking from we, the people, all of the
numerous breeds, and mixed breeds of dogs that are now named in breed
specific prohibitions, or restrictions in venues across the United States at
this very time. Prohibitions on the ownership of dogs can overlap to become
prohibitions on all animals. There are no stop-gaps built into breed
specific legislation to prevent an overlap.
Laws must give us the right to due process of law. BSL in Denver,
Kennewick, and many places across the United States remove animals for no
reason other than breed, from responsible owners, with no charges of
negligence, and no opportunity to have a case, or to have the case heard in
the Courts. BSL allows warrantless searches, and seizures of private
property for no reason other than the breed of dog involved. BSL violates
the Constitutional right to recompense for property taken by government for
public use, i.e. public safety. New Jersey is proposing to have special
licensing to own dog breeds. A license is a temporary revocable permit that
allows the licensee to have something, or to do something that would be
illegal to have, or to do without the license. It makes dog ownership
illegal. It turns over all ownership, and use rights to the licensing agency
which can at any time, inspect, confiscate, suspend, revoke, or halt
issuance of the license. Licensure is a taking by government without
compensation.
Those who own the target breeds are set apart, are vilified, and made to
look like criminals, so that the rest of society will not be troubled by the
government's taking of the dogs. The owners of these targeted breeds are
victims of hate crimes, initiated by government. Communities will actually
endorse the taking of dogs, not realizing that other breeds of dogs are
going to be added to the growing list of restricted, or prohibited dogs. The
targeted dogs are purportedly endowed with mythical powers that no other
breed of canine can match. The surrounding myth would make these dogs so
omnipotent that no mere mortal could possibly outsmart, control, train,
contain, or have a normal owner relationship with them. These are exactly
the self same tactics that have been historically used against any of the
victims of hate crimes.
Neither should we allow prohibitions on the responsible ownership of any dog
by breed. It violates the XIV Amendment, equal treatment, equal protection.
The taking of dogs by breed is only the beginning of the eventual removal of
all animals from our ownership, and use. Animals are among the most ancient
of our traditional property, when government decides to remove our ownership
rights, it will be piecemeal, not whole hog. Think for a moment what would
happen if your city, or county government stipulated that all dogs must be
forfeit. People would stand up, and put an immediate stop to that. It
would immediately be recognized as an assault on our civil rights, whereas
the taking of dogs by breed doesn't engender the same recognition.
When we site the adage, "Punish the Deed, not the Breed", we are actually
encouraging legislatures to hold animals responsible for their actions.
Dangerous dog laws remove the human factor, and concentrate solely upon the
dog, not taking into consideration that the dog is the responsibility of
it's owner. Lawmakers go to great lengths to describe, and to define animal
behaviors, and to then punish said behaviors. It is far more reasonable to
write laws that are directed at the dog owner, rather than the dog.
Our laws must be written for we human beings. Laws must be reasonable.
Animals must not be criminalized under laws that are intended to protect
human rights, and to control human behaviors. It is unreasonable to write
animal behavior into laws that no animal has the capacity to understand,
answer to, or to function under. It is unreasonable to mete out criminal
labels to animals, i.e. dangerous, or potentially dangerous. It is
unreasonable to proscribe punishments to animals under our laws. We must
bring this writing of animal behaviors into our laws to a halt, and demand
that humans be held accountable, not animals. We must stop thinking that it
is a better trade off than prohibitions on dog ownership. We are wrong.
Neither is a good choice.
No dog is capable of understanding, or answering to any law that has ever
been written. Dangerous dog laws that hold a dog to a set of written
regulations that it will never respond is a perfect set up to promote animal
rights, where an animal is given a legal position under the law to conform,
or to behave in a proscribed manner. Laws are not in the realm of the
understanding of even the most intelligent dog. To set forth behavioral
acceptability, and punishments for animals is to elevate them to a human
level under law. This is just exactly what the animal rights movement
wants. When we accept dangerous dog laws, we are hugging the serpent. Our
laws must only be written to proscribe human behavior. We must see
dangerous dog laws that hold animals to accountability under the law for
what they are. As the law elevates animals, it devalues human beings. The
animal rights movement expects us to fight breed specific legislation, and
to promote dangerous dog laws, and we have done just that, undermining our
own civil rights.
Realistically all domestic animal breeds were developed by human beings.
When we come to the realization that it is us that these laws are truly
aimed at, then we can shed the blinders, and get down to the real business
of protecting our civil rights. When we stand up for ourselves as citizens,
when we refuse to have our rights, and our property stripped from us, then
we will be invincible. We must demand due process of law. We must not give
over our civil rights, and our property, or our property rights. Dogs are
valuable property. We humans have tens, of thousands of years of tradition
in owning dogs. Dogs serve us in most every capacity from the gentle
companion to service dogs, to guide dogs, to police dogs, to search, and
rescue dogs, military dogs, drug sniffing dogs, hunting dogs, field dogs,
herding dogs, guard dogs, show dogs, obedience dogs, dancing dogs, agility
dogs, fly ball racers, the list is endless, and endlessly varied.
The United States of America, home of the brave, land of the free? This
country was founded upon the ideal of free people taking responsibility for
their actions, participating actively in the political process, being
citizen statesmen, and women, and being self governing. The following
statement exerpted from the Constitution expresses exactly what our framers
envisioned for we the people;
"All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their
just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect
and maintain individual rights." The Constitution guarantees that we would
be able to protect ourselves, and our property with the following words; "No
person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law." Every household in the United States of America should openly
display, and study the Constitution before we have acquiesced all of our
rights and liberties away.
A license is a temporary, revocable permit issued by a governmental agency
to have something, or to do something that is otherwise illegal. If you
live in a city, town, municipality, county, or state that requires dog
licensing, then the act of dog ownership has been made illegal without
permission of government.
Some licenses are reasonable. To drive upon public streets, roads, and
highways your drivers license is proof of proficiency. Drivers licenses are
regularly revoked, or suspended for failure to show competency. It's
reasonable to license for the practice medicine, or law. Licensing has
been carried to the extreme in the USA. We supposedly live in a free
enterprise system, yet every business must be licensed. We must have a
license to marry, to fish, to hunt, to own firearms, which is how our
Constitutional right to keep and bear arms was undermined to the point of
illegality.
When we agree to license our dogs we agree to give over our ownership right
to the licensing agency, which can at any time revoke our use rights. We
grant them absolute control over our animals. They can come onto our real
property, and remove our transitory property (dogs) without due process of
law. Ostensibly cities, counties, or states which require licensing could
refuse to issue further licenses, and revoke the privilege of dog ownership.
Mandatory dog licensing was the initial step in removing dogs from our
ownership.
The secondary step was the introduction of breed specific dog laws that
limit, or prohibit the ownership of dogs based solely upon their breed. To
the inexperienced, or uneducated citizen BSL appears to be a way to control
dogs. Far from that simplistic view, it is government exerting control over
the rights of human beings to have the full use and enjoyment of his/her
property as is granted under the US Constitution. Breed specific dog
ordinances set up the owners of the named breeds for exceptional treatment
under law. In the limited , or restricted permission to own a "dangerous
breed", another license was brought to bear upon the dog owner, plus the
added burden of having to post an exorbitant surety bond, or liability
insurance that was unavailable.
As citizens we are guaranteed equal treatment, and equal protection. As
owners of these breeds we are treated as though we have committed a crime,
again without due process of law. We are labeled as being less responsible,
less capable, of having less rights than our fellow dog owners whose breeds
have temporarily escaped the restrictions, or prohibitions. Are we not tax
payers? Are we not property owners? Do we not participate in our political
processes? Are we secondary citizens? If we do not stand up for ourselves
we will all become slaves to an out of control government.
All law is based upon supporting, and upholding the rights granted to us
under the Constitution. Laws must be able to stand up to the Constitutional
challenge. Local, state, and federal agencies have circumvented law by
initiating "regulations, ordinances, codes," etc., which we citizens blindly
agree to abide by, thus making these regulations, codes, and ordinances
enforceable. Once we comply, we must ever comply. Compliance is agreement.
If you have ever paid for and received a license to own a dog in your local,
and you refuse to re-license at the end of the period that the license was
issued you can be cited, and taken to Court. The Court can sentence you for
not continuing to abide by the agreement that you entered into with the
licensing agency.
Obviously the third and final step in removing our property rights in
animals is the complete ban on ownership. A retirement community in Florida
has already made the proposal. It was soundly trounced. The USA is not yet
ready for an all out ban. But the chipping away process is in full speed
ahead. Breed specific ownership ordinances have been with us for over
thirty years. It takes time for radical ideas to begin to sound reasonable.
They must be bolstered with heavy doses of propaganda. They must be propped
up with legal precedent. Most importantly they must be acquiesced to by the
people.
Far more people are killed by any number of other things than by dogs.
Venomous snake bites kill an average of fifteen to twenty Americans per
year. Bees kill one hundred, to three hundred persons a year on average. In
1989 fire-ant stings killed thirty two people in Texas. Lightening strikes
one in every six hundred thousand persons killing one hundred, to three
hundred persons annually.According to the U.S. Department of Labor there
were five thousand, five hundred, and seventy-five work related fatalities
in 2003. There were thirty eight thousand (38,000) fatal automobile crashes
in 2003 across the U.S. Sadly, an average of fifteen hundred (1,500)
children are killed each year in the United States by a parent, or guardian.
The leading cause of death among pregnant women in the U.S. is murder at the
hand of the father of her unborn child.
Given these figures, the restrictions on ownership of dogs by breed, makes
no sense. California's SB 861 analysis quotes figures that there have been
forty-seven human deaths in California that were attributable to dogs from
the years 1965 through 2001. That averages to one death a year out of a
population of some thirty-five million, eighty-four thousand, four hundred
and fifty-three people (35,084,453). Subtract one from the figure 35,484,453
and you will see how many people did not die from dog bites in California
each year... San Francisco averages three hundred and sixty two reported
dog bites per year, approximately one bite per day from a population of
seven hundred fifty-one thousand,six hundred and eighty-two (751,682)
people. In any given year in San Francisco 751,320 people are not bitten by
dogs. Public Safety, cannot, and must not be used as an excuse to remove our
civil rights. Sound, responsible dog owner legislation that is strictly
enforced, is a reasonable alternative that reinforces our civil rights.
Every year approximately four million people across the United States are
bitten by dogs. That number makes up less than 1% of our population. Out
of that figure, the vast majority of dog bite victims are unattended
children who are bitten by their family dog at home. The rest are
unattended children who are off of their family property that are bitten by
a dog that is at large. The number of fatalities resulting from dog attacks
across the United States average from twelve, to twenty four in any given
year. Dogs are certainly not the threat to public health, and safety that
the news media would lead us all to believe. Shocking, and horrifying as
these dog related fatalities are, there are many, and far more serious
threats to human life here in the United States.
There are a whole lot of dogs, in the United States, tens of millions. Of
the 400,000,000 of us human beings ,about sixty-five percent, give or take,
own dogs. If the vast majority of dog owners were not responsible, there
would be at least as many deaths attributable to dogs, as there are to
automobile crashes. Dog related fatalities are very few in comparison to any
other cause. Out of a population of some 400,000,000 to lose 12, to 24
people in a year to dog attacks is a strong case for, and speaks volumes to
the overall safety record of dog owners
Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
http://www.povn.com/rdows
323922 N. Hwy. 2
Diamond Lake, WA 99156 |