Registration ABCA and AKC

[jbridges]

I should clarify - not to join the registry, merely to join in fighting anti - dog legislation. On that issue we should have a common goal. We don't disagree that conformation registries (AKC, UKC, etc) do a disservice to working breeds. They do, however, fight restrictive legislation. It isn't necessary to join them to join in on that fight.

 

You need no imagination, Sir. If the Moreauville LA ordinance is not removed, at least two breeds will be confiscated and killed arbitrarily in that town.

 

--johnny

[mum24dog]

Terrorism in Northern Ireland has been greatly reduced by the UK government of the time working with the terrorists and former IRA leaders are now in government in the province. The winners have been the people of NI. And there are many similar examples throughout history.

 

Surely it should be possible to work with the enemy towards a common goal in the matter of fighting BSL.

[Eileen Stein]

I don't see how our opposition to any particular misguided piece of legislation is strengthened by "joining forces" with AKC to oppose it. Let them oppose it, and let us oppose it. The more entities that are opposing it, the better. It would only reduce our impact to be subsumed under the AKC umbrella in our opposition.

[jbridges]

Nobody is advocating being 'subsumed' that I can see. I submit, however, that a common goal need not be diluted by name calling and adamant positioning, particularly in the face of a much greater threat. These posts bear an uncanny resemblance to the current situation in the Congress. I can see the results there.

 

As a point of purely personal curiosity who reading this post made themselves heard in Lee County, Florida, or Moreauville, Louisiana in the matter of the two laws which were just repealed?

 

--johnny

[Eileen Stein]

Not me. I didn't know about either legislation, but in my experience, letters and petitions from faraway places are not very effective in influencing local ordinances, so I wouldn't have tried to take any action if I did know about it. Something like California's AB1634, where we did make ourselves heard on the same side as AKC (at least when they weren't wobbling over to the other side), is a different matter.

 

What is it exactly that you ARE advocating? That we refrain from criticizing AKC, and that we don't take any "adamant positions" about their policies and practices? Because they are supposedly a "lesser threat" to border collies and dogs in general than a couple of laws passed at the local level in obscure jurisdictions, without much consideration, which were apparently promptly repealed? First, I don't agree that they are a lesser threat, and second, I don't see how muzzling ourselves about the damage AKC does would increase our effectiveness in opposing what you consider the "greater threat."

 

I can't understand your analogy to Congress. Senators and Representatives have to work together to accomplish anything because they are members of the same body. I cannot see why there is any advantage in working together with the AKC to accomplish any goal we may have. If they are opposed to BSL, they are not going to advocate any the less because the border collies registry and border collie owners are not "working together" with them to oppose it. We can be more effective by working separately.

 

If what you're advocating is something different, please help me to understand what it is.

[Pam Wolf]

the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

[KnottyClarence]

Working border collie people are a strong group ourselves. Our stated opinion on a piece of bad legislation, appropriately placed, has a valuable, powerful, and particularly well informed angle from which to come and defend against these bad local, and sometimes much larger, potentially unhelpful laws.

[KnottyClarence]

It's like Sally Rogers said on the old Dick Vandyke show, "If two people tell you you are sick, lay down". Opinions coming from different directions but with similar conclusions make those conclusions look more like the truth.

[Blackdawgs]

Well, then working Border Collie people--if BSL is proposed in your state, do you band together to oppose it or do you ignore it (because afterall, your dogs have long narrow faces)?

[Smalahundur]

the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

But what if my enemy is the enemy of my other enemy...

[Debbie Meier]

Newly released video from the US Sportsmen's Alliance, listen close, if it pertains to dogs there is not such thing as "doesn't affect me".

 

[Eileen Stein]

Well, then working Border Collie people--if BSL is proposed in your state, do you band together to oppose it or do you ignore it (because afterall, your dogs have long narrow faces)?

 

I oppose it whenever I think I can be effective, more often as an individual than as a band, but sometimes as a group if I think that will be more effective.

 

Here's one example. Maryland (where I live) has traditionally followed the so-called "one bite rule" in dog bite lawsuits, meaning that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, dogs are presumed to be non-biters, and therefore only if the plaintiff can prove that the owner had knowledge that the dog might bite could s/he be held liable for damages for a bite (on the theory that s/he negligently failed to control a dog known to be vicious). In April of 2012, the highest court in MD went berserk (IMO) in a dog bite case and held that pit bulls and pit bull mixes were "inherently dangerous" and therefore the one bite rule did not apply to them -- they were presumed dangerous and therefore the owner would be liable for a bite even without any other prior knowledge that the dog might bite, so long as s/he knew that the dog was a pit pull or pit bull mix. Worse, the court held that landlords who had the power to bar owners of pit bulls from tenancy but did not do so would be liable for damages for a dog bite because they permitted an inherently dangerous animal to be harbored on their premises. No other breeds of dogs were affected.

 

I got in touch with the Pit Bull group that was trying to get the MD legislature to overturn the ruling. Attended their first rally. They wanted people to bring pictures of nice pit bulls, so I emailed Luisa Serrano (Black Watch Debatable on the Boards) for a high-resolution picture of her happy pit bull Bounce, so I could bring it. Also lobbied in person and by letters the President of the Senate, Speaker of the House, Governor, and my own representatives in the Senate and House. One of them (forget which right now) asked me for further arguments agains the decision, and what would be the best way to address it legislatively, which I provided. A new law was finally passed to eliminate breed specificity -- owners of any breed or mix are presumed to have knowledge of the possibility that their dog might bite, and it's their responsibility to present sufficient evidence to overcome that presumption in order to escape liability for damages from the bite. Landlords are exempt from liability unless specific evidence is presented that they had reason to know that the dog (of whatever breed) was dangerous. (In the meantime, the Court, upon reconsideration of the case, had removed "pit bull mix" from the decision, but it still applied to pit bulls, which was unacceptable.)

 

HSUS was a presence in the legislative process, on the good side; AKC may have done something but I honestly can't recall them being involved.

[toney]

I live in Louisiana. The AKC did not stop the Moreauville legislation. Ground swelling opposition throughout the state that occurred once the legislation was made public, coupled with national bad press did. Doubtless the AKC will claim a victory but that doesn't make it true.

[Eileen Stein]

Newly released video from the US Sportsmen's Alliance, listen close, if it pertains to dogs there is not such thing as "doesn't affect me".

 

 

 

I just don't buy this. Would you oppose a law banning dogfighting because all us sportsmen gotta stand together -- "They came for the dogfighters, and I said nothing because I didn't have fighting dogs . . ." I'm going to oppose bills that I think will on balance do harm, and support those that I think will on balance do good, regardless of whose ox is being gored.

[Debbie Meier]

dog fighting is a interesting subject, I would oppose a bill that was marketed as a ban on dog fighting if within the language it placed hardship some place else that was undue, call it unintended consequence. In truth after dealing with some of these people wanting to literally outlaw dog breeding, and yes some do, we found that they slide things in for later.

 

This past year they tried passing a bill that would create a board and fund to increase spay/neutering pets in the state. There was language within that bill that gave all power to regulate all levels of dog breeding to that board under the guise of reducing the pet over population. Many were upset that we and others opposed the legislation, looked great on the surface, but you really do need to look at the details and how that one piece of legislation can effect other things.

[Debbie Meier]

Also, standing against a proposed bill that would supposedly ban dog fighting does not mean that someone is protecting or endorsing dog fighting, that argument is ridiculous. Dig deeper and it will be discovered that there is something buried within the language that if changed would sway opposition to support.

[Eileen Stein]

Of course you have to examine any bill to see its specifics. But that's my side of the discussion. I thought your side was that we all have to stand together and support each other's freedom to do what they want with their dogs because there's a bigger, scarier enemy out there. That's what I'm taking issue with when I raise the dogfighting example. I wouldn't oppose a law to ban dogfighting because PETA and HSUS support it, or because it's opposed by sportsmen who don't want their right to enjoy the sport of dogfighting to be infringed. I wouldn't oppose it regardless of who else supports it or opposes it, because I myself think that dogfighting should be banned.

[jbridges]

'What is it exactly that you ARE advocating?'

That it is in the best interest of working Boder Collie owners to actively oppose any restrictive dog legislation attempts. The overwhelming response in both the cases above led, according to local officials, to their removal. If enough people protest, they are heard, regardless where they may be.

 

Also that it matters not who else stands in opposition to this type of legislation.

 

--johnny