runamuk
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2002
- Messages
- 2,604
- Reaction score
- 0
anyone who owns pets and wants to continue to do so in this country. I belong to a law group that tracks legislation that affects all pet owners, breeders etc. This is a must read if you want to help stop bad law after bad law from being passed.
Many of these will be familiar to most of us, but seeing the whole
list together may be of interest.
If there's anything I've missed, please tell me!
Forward as you like.
Walt Hutchens
Timbreblue Whippets
===============================================================
AR TACTICS
Most of us are used to disagreements but we simply assume that those
who disagree with mostly play fair, most of the time. That's not the
way things are in the animal rights wars and it's important to be
ready for the following tactics.
DIVIDE AND CONQUER -- If a campaign fails, it will be replayed with
changes so that some of the former targets aren't affected or might
even favor the idea. For example licensing for all pet sellers might
be reduced to licensing of just breeders -- an idea that would often
be supported by animal rescuers. Should licensing for breeders fail
they may try just licensing for those who don't show or register dogs
with a few 'good' organizations like the AKC. That might be supported
by both show breeders and rescuers. If even that should fail, they
might try again with number limits that exclude all but the largest
volume breeders, for example only those breeders selling over six
litters or 25 animals per year, claiming the need to control 'puppy
mills.'
If a law is passed, then in two or three years they come back for the
next stage. If show breeders were exempted the first time, they're
probably the target this time. Of course, the breeders who are already
licensed won't oppose extending the law to others, in fact they may
even support it as 'leveling the playing field.'
LYING -- Let's face it, what the AR movement really wants -- to hurt
humans as much as possible through our animals -- could never be sold.
In fact you couldn't even give it away. So they lie about it. "We're
helping animals." "Animals need protection." "To keep animals from
having to be killed we have to end 'overpopulation.'"
Sometimes they lie by the use of incomplete facts that seem to support
their conclusion: "Our state killed 150,000 animals last year. We need
to control breeding of dogs and cats." They don't tell you that 2/3 of
the animals euthanized were cats with a high percentage of those being
feral and nearly all of the rest free-roaming 'outside' cats, that
intentionally bred dogs are uncommon in shelters, or that probably
half or more of the dogs that are euthanized are either unfit to be
pets (sick, injured, or unsuitable temperament) or were turned in by
owners specifically for euthanasia. And they certainly don't tell you
that the number of pets euthanized is dropping all across the country
year by year, not because of laws but because more people are
voluntarily either confining or sterilizing pets when they have no
plan to breed.
Another common form of AR lie is use of information showing a problem
that was fixed years ago. One famous example is a video of a trainer
beating an elephant, used to attack Ringling Brothers circuses. First,
the video shows something that happened at another (non-Ringling)
circus, and second, the trainer was fired immediately after the video
was taken. But they don't tell you that.
There's an equally famous picture of barrels of dead puppies used to
promote breeder licensing and mandatory spay/neuter. What they don't
tell you is that the picture was taken twenty years ago.
Sometimes they lie by means of staged or timed events. A bill
introduced in the 2007 session of the Virginia General Assembly would
have greatly increased and broadened penalties for animal fighting.
Perhaps it was just a coincidence that within days of the filing of
the bill there was a major raid on a cock fight in southern Virginia
but the raid was the result of months of investigation in which animal
rights groups played a role and the news accounts contained statements
from AR leaders that such events were more common now in Virginia
because nearby states had made their laws more stringent.
And sometimes they just plain lie: A friend testified at a legislative
committee hearing that purebred cats are almost never found in animal
shelters. A shelter director in the audience leapt to his feet:
"That's not true -- we have two, right now." Right after the meeting,
my friend called his shelter. "Why no, we don't have any purebred cats
now -- we almost never see one." Photos and videos frequently are
staged, doctored, or selected to support their viewpoint.
"IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH US YOU ARE EVIL" -- If you object to a
no-tethering law, you'll be told "with ideas like yours you probably
keep your dogs on heavy chains in your backyard." Object to a felony
penalty for a vaguely defined kind of harm to animals and you will get
"Breeders like you don't care about animal cruelty."
An actual example, one among many such: The moderator unsubscribed
this individual from an anti-AR Yahoo Group after repeated postings
contrary to the list policy. His response was:
"What's the matter ...? Can't take the heat? Unsubbed me from your
little group of inbred redneck slack jawed yokels? You're all a bunch
of losers who probably pulled the wings off flies when you were kids."
TALKING TO THEM BECOMES SUPPORT -- Let's say an AR leader in your state
asks you to have lunch to talk about a new law. At the lunch you
explain why you are strongly and completely against the change, saying
"I could never support any such law." Guess what: When you hear about
that discussion from your contacts you will learn that the AR leader
is saying "We discussed this with Tom Smith" in a way that suggests
you supported the law.
THE CHARM OFFENSIVE -- If you become any sort of leader in the anti-AR
movement they will mount a serious effort to have one or more of their
people make friends with you. "You know, we really want the same
things." The more you talk to them, the more charming they'll become
and if you aren't alert things may progress to ...
CO-OPTION -- They will try to bring you to supporting their side or at
least neutralize your opposition. Those in leadership positions need
to be constantly alert for people they depend on being co-opted. Club
leadership and legislative liaison people may be weakened and may even
become double agents.
INFILTRATION -- All larger pet-related clubs have AR members on the
board of directors, there are hard core AR AKC delegates.
In one case a local club was discussing opposition to a new anti-pet
ordinance. A board member wearing an HSUS tee shirt pointed out that
the board had several important issues to discuss and moved that the
issue be put off several months. The motion carried and the club was
neutralized for the period when opposition could have had an effect.
MONEY -- Between major organizations (HSUS, the ASPCA, and PETA) and
private supporters the AR movement spends over $200,000,000 per year
on ending our rights. On our side the number is probably not much over
$200,000 a year.
PERSISTENCE -- They never give up. An AR bill that fails this year will
be back next year or the year after. If it fails the second time it
will be back the next year. This is tiresome and annoying to lawmakers
because it quickly becomes obvious to the experienced ones that the
repeated discussions are a waste of time. Even though you do no more
than attempt to defend your rights, you may be equally blamed. You may
find critical lawmakers taking a 'pox on both your houses' view of
things and some less informed or experienced ones may even support
passage of a bill just so they won't have to look at it repeatedly.
The AR movement's persistence isn't a sign of moral weakness on our
side, it is the natural result of doing most of the real work with
paid employees while we depend on volunteers who must earn a living
before they start work to defend our rights.
STAR POWER -- Being 'for the animals' seems to be every Hollywood
publicist's dream for his top clients. Pamela Anderson, Paul
McCartney, Bob Barker, Doris Day, Alicia Silverstone, Fabio and dozens
more. Unfortunately, 'for the animals' translates to supporting
campaigns by PETA and HSUS.
HEAVY HITTERS -- Retiring game show host Bob Barker is on board for an
occasional million dollar endowment to create a new chair of animal
rights law at a respected university. Spinal surgeon and billionaire
inventor Gary Karlin Michelson is another -- he's determined to solve
the ongoing animal control problems in Los Angeles with his own money
and laws requiring mandatory spay neuter and microchipping, and then
move on to doing it for the whole state. There are many more who pony
up for an occasional large contribution to a supportive lawmaker or
provide a weekend resort for a conference at only nominal cost.
MEDIA POWER -- Dog Fancy magazine ran an article calling Albuquerque NM
one of the best places in the U.S. to live with a dog right after they
passed the very restrictive 'HEART' ordinance; when dozens of people
protested, they stonewalled. Time Magazine interviewed people with
diverse views of PAWS but wrote a puff piece for it. Most towns now
have only one newspaper; it is routine that it will promote AR
lawmaking proposals and decline to run anything to the contrary.
TARGETING THE YOUNG -- Steady efforts to introduce 'humane education'
programs into elementary schools that are no more than anti-hunting,
anti-meat, anti-animal testing, anti-fur/leather propaganda are only
the tip of the iceberg. 'PeTA kids,' is described as "an international
animal rights organization that explores animal welfare issues and
suggests practical ways young people can make a difference." The HSUS
version is 'KIND.'
ATTACKING WHERE WE'RE WEAK -- Why was an amendment to ban the use of
farrowing pens that keep sows from lying on and squashing piglets
attempted first in Florida? And second in Arizona? Because Florida had
just two pig farms and Arizona only one. Hardly anyone in either state
cared enough to dig into the issue and both amendments passed. Now
they're suing a pig farm in California and you can be sure they'll
tell the court that "This practice has already been banned as cruel in
two states." Hunters are under 7% of the population, dog breeders far
less than one percent. Both hunting and the breeding of dogs are under
constantly intensifying attack.
COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS -- What better way for government to address
an animal issue than by appointing a group to come up with a proposal
for a law? Here's a typical nine-member commission: one shelter
euthanasia worker; one licensed veterinarian; one representative from
a nonprofit animal advocacy group (read: HSUS); one member of the
public; one shelter manager; one person from the association of
counties; one from the state municipal league; one member of a rescue
organization; and one person who breeds pets.
Except for the HSUS representative, these individuals will be donating
their time; the focus will be on selecting laws to copy, rather than
on time-consuming analysis that might show that no law has worked.
Only the HSUS member will be experienced in this setting. Individual
biases will typically add up about 6:3 in favor of restrictions on
animal ownership and breeding. Such groups always end up endorsing an
animal rights-supported approach.
THE LEGAL SYSTEM ITSELF -- There are already 30-some law schools with
an endowed chair of animal law and Bob Barker is dropping another
million dollars for another such program every few months. The only
animal law textbook was written by an animal rightist. Ten years out,
many young lawyers will have been trained by these programs and a few
years after that, many judges will be graduates.
HARASSMENT -- If you want to hold a public meeting, you'd better warn
the security folks that they will be getting calls saying that your
side plans violence. Use a computer to lead the way? Better have it
well protected or you might have more trouble than most folks with
computer 'virus' attacks. And 'almost threats' by email are standard
-- "Say, John, where do you live? A few of my friends might want to
drop by."
And here is a list of the most common
Common AR Instigated Dog Legislation
Mandatory Spay/Neuter
Mandated Insurance Limit Requirements
Breeder Licensing (destroys hobby breeders who produce some of the
best and well-socialized purebreds as well as developing breeds and
working animals)
Kennel Licensing w/Privatized Inspections (good luck passing them)
Differential Licensing ($150 for an intact dog!!!!)
Potential Dangerous Dog Laws (High Risk Animal Designation)
Breed Specific Legislation/Registration
(higher licensing fees, mandatory insurance minimums, breed-banning,
mandatory muzzling, length and style of collars and leashes)
Reverse BSL (Instead of banning breeds, you ban certain groups of
people from owning breeds; you ban "breeds" of people such as felons
regardless of type of crime, elderly, people under 21, etc.)
Pet Limit Laws
Guardianship Designation
Husbandry Limiting Laws (FL tried to make it where only a vet could
worm dogs!)
Anti-Slaughter Laws
Anti-Hunting Laws
Anti-Fighting Laws (actually used to legislate hunting, coursing, by
animal on animal being considered fighting)
Mandatory Microchipping
Pet Licensing Public Data Bases (The whole world can read all about
your pets and know where you live!)
Legislating Unreasonable Medical Care Responsibility (In Alachua
County, FL, if the dog can be saved, you must save it no matter the
cost--however, does not apply to shelters!)
Mandatory Temperament Testing
Purely Positive Training Methods
[Criminalizing Training Devices (training collars) or methods that
include corrections
Containment Restrictions:
Anti-Tethering/Anti-Penning/Anti-Crating Legislation
(height and type of fences, size of property, kennels, crates)
Mandated Care Requirements
(dog must be walked 30 minutes each day and have water and food in
front of it 24/7)
Greater Police Powers and Discretion by Animal Control Agencies to
Enter Your Property and Seize without warrants
Private Citizen/Agency Seizures (Good Samaritan Pet Laws)
(allowing a private citizen or agency to remove an animal from your
property that they consider at risk)
Size Limits (Fairfield, Iowa discriminates against dogs over 100 lbs.
plus many others)
Anti-Cropping/Docking/Dewclawing Legislation (but it's o.k. to do more
invasive or major surgery like spays and neuters?!!!!)
Out-lawing "Deformed" Breeds (English Bulldogs, Basset Hounds, etc.)
Banning Exotics (wolf-hybrids, Bengal Cats, snakes)
Legislation Based on Faulty/Spurious Research Studies -- correlation
studies rather than causative (Did you know all people who drink water
die? We need to stop drinking water!) Correlation is not Causation!
Selective/Limited Use--Did you know in some Scandinavian Countries, it
is illegal to have a dog pull you that is not a northern breed?
AND THE NEWEST TWO that make it illegal for Martha Stewart to own a dog:
Limited Ownership of Dogs by Convicted Felons (Illinois doesn't want a
felon convicted of ANY type of crime to have possession of, be around,
live with an intact puppy of 3 months or older, or to ever possess a
"vicious dog" breed.
Defining dogs as Weapons and making it illegal to use a dog as a
"weapon" (so long home protection and schutzhund trials and certain
breeds of dogs traditionally used for such purposes)
Many of these will be familiar to most of us, but seeing the whole
list together may be of interest.
If there's anything I've missed, please tell me!
Forward as you like.
Walt Hutchens
Timbreblue Whippets
===============================================================
AR TACTICS
Most of us are used to disagreements but we simply assume that those
who disagree with mostly play fair, most of the time. That's not the
way things are in the animal rights wars and it's important to be
ready for the following tactics.
DIVIDE AND CONQUER -- If a campaign fails, it will be replayed with
changes so that some of the former targets aren't affected or might
even favor the idea. For example licensing for all pet sellers might
be reduced to licensing of just breeders -- an idea that would often
be supported by animal rescuers. Should licensing for breeders fail
they may try just licensing for those who don't show or register dogs
with a few 'good' organizations like the AKC. That might be supported
by both show breeders and rescuers. If even that should fail, they
might try again with number limits that exclude all but the largest
volume breeders, for example only those breeders selling over six
litters or 25 animals per year, claiming the need to control 'puppy
mills.'
If a law is passed, then in two or three years they come back for the
next stage. If show breeders were exempted the first time, they're
probably the target this time. Of course, the breeders who are already
licensed won't oppose extending the law to others, in fact they may
even support it as 'leveling the playing field.'
LYING -- Let's face it, what the AR movement really wants -- to hurt
humans as much as possible through our animals -- could never be sold.
In fact you couldn't even give it away. So they lie about it. "We're
helping animals." "Animals need protection." "To keep animals from
having to be killed we have to end 'overpopulation.'"
Sometimes they lie by the use of incomplete facts that seem to support
their conclusion: "Our state killed 150,000 animals last year. We need
to control breeding of dogs and cats." They don't tell you that 2/3 of
the animals euthanized were cats with a high percentage of those being
feral and nearly all of the rest free-roaming 'outside' cats, that
intentionally bred dogs are uncommon in shelters, or that probably
half or more of the dogs that are euthanized are either unfit to be
pets (sick, injured, or unsuitable temperament) or were turned in by
owners specifically for euthanasia. And they certainly don't tell you
that the number of pets euthanized is dropping all across the country
year by year, not because of laws but because more people are
voluntarily either confining or sterilizing pets when they have no
plan to breed.
Another common form of AR lie is use of information showing a problem
that was fixed years ago. One famous example is a video of a trainer
beating an elephant, used to attack Ringling Brothers circuses. First,
the video shows something that happened at another (non-Ringling)
circus, and second, the trainer was fired immediately after the video
was taken. But they don't tell you that.
There's an equally famous picture of barrels of dead puppies used to
promote breeder licensing and mandatory spay/neuter. What they don't
tell you is that the picture was taken twenty years ago.
Sometimes they lie by means of staged or timed events. A bill
introduced in the 2007 session of the Virginia General Assembly would
have greatly increased and broadened penalties for animal fighting.
Perhaps it was just a coincidence that within days of the filing of
the bill there was a major raid on a cock fight in southern Virginia
but the raid was the result of months of investigation in which animal
rights groups played a role and the news accounts contained statements
from AR leaders that such events were more common now in Virginia
because nearby states had made their laws more stringent.
And sometimes they just plain lie: A friend testified at a legislative
committee hearing that purebred cats are almost never found in animal
shelters. A shelter director in the audience leapt to his feet:
"That's not true -- we have two, right now." Right after the meeting,
my friend called his shelter. "Why no, we don't have any purebred cats
now -- we almost never see one." Photos and videos frequently are
staged, doctored, or selected to support their viewpoint.
"IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH US YOU ARE EVIL" -- If you object to a
no-tethering law, you'll be told "with ideas like yours you probably
keep your dogs on heavy chains in your backyard." Object to a felony
penalty for a vaguely defined kind of harm to animals and you will get
"Breeders like you don't care about animal cruelty."
An actual example, one among many such: The moderator unsubscribed
this individual from an anti-AR Yahoo Group after repeated postings
contrary to the list policy. His response was:
"What's the matter ...? Can't take the heat? Unsubbed me from your
little group of inbred redneck slack jawed yokels? You're all a bunch
of losers who probably pulled the wings off flies when you were kids."
TALKING TO THEM BECOMES SUPPORT -- Let's say an AR leader in your state
asks you to have lunch to talk about a new law. At the lunch you
explain why you are strongly and completely against the change, saying
"I could never support any such law." Guess what: When you hear about
that discussion from your contacts you will learn that the AR leader
is saying "We discussed this with Tom Smith" in a way that suggests
you supported the law.
THE CHARM OFFENSIVE -- If you become any sort of leader in the anti-AR
movement they will mount a serious effort to have one or more of their
people make friends with you. "You know, we really want the same
things." The more you talk to them, the more charming they'll become
and if you aren't alert things may progress to ...
CO-OPTION -- They will try to bring you to supporting their side or at
least neutralize your opposition. Those in leadership positions need
to be constantly alert for people they depend on being co-opted. Club
leadership and legislative liaison people may be weakened and may even
become double agents.
INFILTRATION -- All larger pet-related clubs have AR members on the
board of directors, there are hard core AR AKC delegates.
In one case a local club was discussing opposition to a new anti-pet
ordinance. A board member wearing an HSUS tee shirt pointed out that
the board had several important issues to discuss and moved that the
issue be put off several months. The motion carried and the club was
neutralized for the period when opposition could have had an effect.
MONEY -- Between major organizations (HSUS, the ASPCA, and PETA) and
private supporters the AR movement spends over $200,000,000 per year
on ending our rights. On our side the number is probably not much over
$200,000 a year.
PERSISTENCE -- They never give up. An AR bill that fails this year will
be back next year or the year after. If it fails the second time it
will be back the next year. This is tiresome and annoying to lawmakers
because it quickly becomes obvious to the experienced ones that the
repeated discussions are a waste of time. Even though you do no more
than attempt to defend your rights, you may be equally blamed. You may
find critical lawmakers taking a 'pox on both your houses' view of
things and some less informed or experienced ones may even support
passage of a bill just so they won't have to look at it repeatedly.
The AR movement's persistence isn't a sign of moral weakness on our
side, it is the natural result of doing most of the real work with
paid employees while we depend on volunteers who must earn a living
before they start work to defend our rights.
STAR POWER -- Being 'for the animals' seems to be every Hollywood
publicist's dream for his top clients. Pamela Anderson, Paul
McCartney, Bob Barker, Doris Day, Alicia Silverstone, Fabio and dozens
more. Unfortunately, 'for the animals' translates to supporting
campaigns by PETA and HSUS.
HEAVY HITTERS -- Retiring game show host Bob Barker is on board for an
occasional million dollar endowment to create a new chair of animal
rights law at a respected university. Spinal surgeon and billionaire
inventor Gary Karlin Michelson is another -- he's determined to solve
the ongoing animal control problems in Los Angeles with his own money
and laws requiring mandatory spay neuter and microchipping, and then
move on to doing it for the whole state. There are many more who pony
up for an occasional large contribution to a supportive lawmaker or
provide a weekend resort for a conference at only nominal cost.
MEDIA POWER -- Dog Fancy magazine ran an article calling Albuquerque NM
one of the best places in the U.S. to live with a dog right after they
passed the very restrictive 'HEART' ordinance; when dozens of people
protested, they stonewalled. Time Magazine interviewed people with
diverse views of PAWS but wrote a puff piece for it. Most towns now
have only one newspaper; it is routine that it will promote AR
lawmaking proposals and decline to run anything to the contrary.
TARGETING THE YOUNG -- Steady efforts to introduce 'humane education'
programs into elementary schools that are no more than anti-hunting,
anti-meat, anti-animal testing, anti-fur/leather propaganda are only
the tip of the iceberg. 'PeTA kids,' is described as "an international
animal rights organization that explores animal welfare issues and
suggests practical ways young people can make a difference." The HSUS
version is 'KIND.'
ATTACKING WHERE WE'RE WEAK -- Why was an amendment to ban the use of
farrowing pens that keep sows from lying on and squashing piglets
attempted first in Florida? And second in Arizona? Because Florida had
just two pig farms and Arizona only one. Hardly anyone in either state
cared enough to dig into the issue and both amendments passed. Now
they're suing a pig farm in California and you can be sure they'll
tell the court that "This practice has already been banned as cruel in
two states." Hunters are under 7% of the population, dog breeders far
less than one percent. Both hunting and the breeding of dogs are under
constantly intensifying attack.
COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS -- What better way for government to address
an animal issue than by appointing a group to come up with a proposal
for a law? Here's a typical nine-member commission: one shelter
euthanasia worker; one licensed veterinarian; one representative from
a nonprofit animal advocacy group (read: HSUS); one member of the
public; one shelter manager; one person from the association of
counties; one from the state municipal league; one member of a rescue
organization; and one person who breeds pets.
Except for the HSUS representative, these individuals will be donating
their time; the focus will be on selecting laws to copy, rather than
on time-consuming analysis that might show that no law has worked.
Only the HSUS member will be experienced in this setting. Individual
biases will typically add up about 6:3 in favor of restrictions on
animal ownership and breeding. Such groups always end up endorsing an
animal rights-supported approach.
THE LEGAL SYSTEM ITSELF -- There are already 30-some law schools with
an endowed chair of animal law and Bob Barker is dropping another
million dollars for another such program every few months. The only
animal law textbook was written by an animal rightist. Ten years out,
many young lawyers will have been trained by these programs and a few
years after that, many judges will be graduates.
HARASSMENT -- If you want to hold a public meeting, you'd better warn
the security folks that they will be getting calls saying that your
side plans violence. Use a computer to lead the way? Better have it
well protected or you might have more trouble than most folks with
computer 'virus' attacks. And 'almost threats' by email are standard
-- "Say, John, where do you live? A few of my friends might want to
drop by."
And here is a list of the most common
Common AR Instigated Dog Legislation
Mandatory Spay/Neuter
Mandated Insurance Limit Requirements
Breeder Licensing (destroys hobby breeders who produce some of the
best and well-socialized purebreds as well as developing breeds and
working animals)
Kennel Licensing w/Privatized Inspections (good luck passing them)
Differential Licensing ($150 for an intact dog!!!!)
Potential Dangerous Dog Laws (High Risk Animal Designation)
Breed Specific Legislation/Registration
(higher licensing fees, mandatory insurance minimums, breed-banning,
mandatory muzzling, length and style of collars and leashes)
Reverse BSL (Instead of banning breeds, you ban certain groups of
people from owning breeds; you ban "breeds" of people such as felons
regardless of type of crime, elderly, people under 21, etc.)
Pet Limit Laws
Guardianship Designation
Husbandry Limiting Laws (FL tried to make it where only a vet could
worm dogs!)
Anti-Slaughter Laws
Anti-Hunting Laws
Anti-Fighting Laws (actually used to legislate hunting, coursing, by
animal on animal being considered fighting)
Mandatory Microchipping
Pet Licensing Public Data Bases (The whole world can read all about
your pets and know where you live!)
Legislating Unreasonable Medical Care Responsibility (In Alachua
County, FL, if the dog can be saved, you must save it no matter the
cost--however, does not apply to shelters!)
Mandatory Temperament Testing
Purely Positive Training Methods
[Criminalizing Training Devices (training collars) or methods that
include corrections
Containment Restrictions:
Anti-Tethering/Anti-Penning/Anti-Crating Legislation
(height and type of fences, size of property, kennels, crates)
Mandated Care Requirements
(dog must be walked 30 minutes each day and have water and food in
front of it 24/7)
Greater Police Powers and Discretion by Animal Control Agencies to
Enter Your Property and Seize without warrants
Private Citizen/Agency Seizures (Good Samaritan Pet Laws)
(allowing a private citizen or agency to remove an animal from your
property that they consider at risk)
Size Limits (Fairfield, Iowa discriminates against dogs over 100 lbs.
plus many others)
Anti-Cropping/Docking/Dewclawing Legislation (but it's o.k. to do more
invasive or major surgery like spays and neuters?!!!!)
Out-lawing "Deformed" Breeds (English Bulldogs, Basset Hounds, etc.)
Banning Exotics (wolf-hybrids, Bengal Cats, snakes)
Legislation Based on Faulty/Spurious Research Studies -- correlation
studies rather than causative (Did you know all people who drink water
die? We need to stop drinking water!) Correlation is not Causation!
Selective/Limited Use--Did you know in some Scandinavian Countries, it
is illegal to have a dog pull you that is not a northern breed?
AND THE NEWEST TWO that make it illegal for Martha Stewart to own a dog:
Limited Ownership of Dogs by Convicted Felons (Illinois doesn't want a
felon convicted of ANY type of crime to have possession of, be around,
live with an intact puppy of 3 months or older, or to ever possess a
"vicious dog" breed.
Defining dogs as Weapons and making it illegal to use a dog as a
"weapon" (so long home protection and schutzhund trials and certain
breeds of dogs traditionally used for such purposes)