Post by RealPitBull on Apr 14, 2009 14:59:13 GMT -5
www.nathanwinograd.com/?page_id=166
There's more at the above link, but here's a good block of it. This is why working "with" HSUS and following their lead instead of forging our own path is seeming like a worse and worse idea. Also see my previous thread here, Pit Bulls - State of Emergency.
HSUS in Indianapolis and More…
April 14, 2009
***UPDATE***
I guess what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. So much for a “new” Pit Bull policy at HSUS.
The following letter was sent from the director of the Humane Society of Indianapolis to Wayne Pacelle of HSUS today:
From: John Aleshire
Subject: A critical Indianapolis issue
Dear Wayne and Colleagues:
…I bring to your attention a serious issue in Indianapolis that is being made much worse by the perceived support and encouragement from HSUS, most notably through Desiree Bender. The facts are these:
A rogue member of the Indianapolis City County Council, Mike Speedy, is preparing to introduce an “aggressive dog ordinance” later this month during a Council meeting. He is targeting pit bulls ONLY for such things as mandatory spay/neuter, special permits, proof of liability insurance, and a limit of 2 such dogs per owner.
Councilman Speedy has spoken openly and directly to the president of our board citing the support and the encouragement of Desiree Bender… This implies the full support of HSUS.
Councilman Speedy has spoken on a recent radio program that he is “working with HSUS” on this ordinance and gives the impression your organization is helping him. [To listen to this radio interview you should go under "Garrison" and click "4/13 Mike Speedy discusses dog legislation. At 3 minutes 50 seconds into the interview he says HSUS is working closely with him to craft this legislation]
To say that we find this incredulous would be the understatement of the year. I speak for a highly organized and focused animal welfare community in Indianapolis when I say we had this proposal and any type of BSL off the radar screen with local legislators. Even the Mayor’s office issued a statement opposing any sort of BSL. Now that HSUS seems to be involved in this, we have a much more difficult time making sure this does not pass. It will now take many more hours of work.
Additionally, if Councilor Speedy does have any backing from HSUS, you organization will be completely at odds with the entire animal welfare community in Indianapolis. In all of my dreams, I never thought I would face the prospect of fighting HSUS to protect dogs and dog owners in our community.
So I ask:
Does HSUS support any kind of legislation like this? If so, please tell me why on earth you would.
Does HSUS NOT support this type of legislation? If so, I respectfully insist on a statement to that regard to me within 24 hours before we issue our opposition statement to the City County Council.
Exactly why is Desiree Bender involved in matters in Indiana? Our issues are much different that the issues Little Rock faced. Would someone tell her to stay in Arkansas?
It our collective position here that this ordinance be stopped and NOT re-written. It is a knee-jerk reaction that has not involved any expertise from the animal welfare leadership.
…
♦
Here We Go Again
Well that sure didn’t take long, even for HSUS. The ink isn’t even dry on the “new” HSUS Pit Bull policy and HSUS is already working with anti-Pit Bull groups on breed discriminatory legislation in Indianapolis, which local rescue groups fear will lead to an increased killing in shelters.
HSUS staff has been involved in Indianapolis working on an ordinance labeling all “Pit Bull-type dogs” as “potentially dangerous dogs” requiring registration and a permit, mandatory sterilization, a million dollar insurance policy, signage posted at each door in the home saying that a “potentially dangerous dog” lives on the premises, and other restrictions. But because of initial opposition, there is talk of dropping some of the more inflammatory language about Pit Bulls by changing the name “potentially dangerous dogs” to “at risk dogs,” as if that would make a difference to whether they live or die, and dropping the insurance requirement. The bulk of the proposed law, however, remains on track.
When challenged, HSUS denied it is supporting it claiming they are just offering “input” on the legislation, but the ordinance’s author has been referring critics to HSUS in an effort to win their support. And HSUS has been citing a similar Little Rock, AR ordinance as a successful model. In fact, Little Rock officials have also been offering input into the Indianapolis law, and suggested that this could be considered a first step toward an outright ban.
In Little Rock, animal control officers have been going door-to-door confiscating Pit Bulls who aren’t registered and, according to KC Dog Blog, media reports show many smiling, tail wagging dogs (which are now “potentially dangerous dogs” under the law) being taken away, perhaps to their death. In response, HSUS commended enforcement officials in Little Rock for doing so, calling their efforts “meaningful.”
I have an idea, let’s have a meeting in Las Vegas and discuss this with HSUS and come up with a vague new policy. And we can do this again the next time HSUS tries to kill dogs, and the next time, and the next time, and the next time, and the next time, and the next time, and the next time, and the next time…
[While you read this, crank up the volume on your Abba CD: “the history books on the shelves, are always repeating themselves…”]
…and the next time, and the next time, and the next time, and the next time, and the next time, and the next time, and the next time, and the next time, and the next time.
There's more at the above link, but here's a good block of it. This is why working "with" HSUS and following their lead instead of forging our own path is seeming like a worse and worse idea. Also see my previous thread here, Pit Bulls - State of Emergency.
HSUS in Indianapolis and More…
April 14, 2009
***UPDATE***
I guess what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. So much for a “new” Pit Bull policy at HSUS.
The following letter was sent from the director of the Humane Society of Indianapolis to Wayne Pacelle of HSUS today:
From: John Aleshire
Subject: A critical Indianapolis issue
Dear Wayne and Colleagues:
…I bring to your attention a serious issue in Indianapolis that is being made much worse by the perceived support and encouragement from HSUS, most notably through Desiree Bender. The facts are these:
A rogue member of the Indianapolis City County Council, Mike Speedy, is preparing to introduce an “aggressive dog ordinance” later this month during a Council meeting. He is targeting pit bulls ONLY for such things as mandatory spay/neuter, special permits, proof of liability insurance, and a limit of 2 such dogs per owner.
Councilman Speedy has spoken openly and directly to the president of our board citing the support and the encouragement of Desiree Bender… This implies the full support of HSUS.
Councilman Speedy has spoken on a recent radio program that he is “working with HSUS” on this ordinance and gives the impression your organization is helping him. [To listen to this radio interview you should go under "Garrison" and click "4/13 Mike Speedy discusses dog legislation. At 3 minutes 50 seconds into the interview he says HSUS is working closely with him to craft this legislation]
To say that we find this incredulous would be the understatement of the year. I speak for a highly organized and focused animal welfare community in Indianapolis when I say we had this proposal and any type of BSL off the radar screen with local legislators. Even the Mayor’s office issued a statement opposing any sort of BSL. Now that HSUS seems to be involved in this, we have a much more difficult time making sure this does not pass. It will now take many more hours of work.
Additionally, if Councilor Speedy does have any backing from HSUS, you organization will be completely at odds with the entire animal welfare community in Indianapolis. In all of my dreams, I never thought I would face the prospect of fighting HSUS to protect dogs and dog owners in our community.
So I ask:
Does HSUS support any kind of legislation like this? If so, please tell me why on earth you would.
Does HSUS NOT support this type of legislation? If so, I respectfully insist on a statement to that regard to me within 24 hours before we issue our opposition statement to the City County Council.
Exactly why is Desiree Bender involved in matters in Indiana? Our issues are much different that the issues Little Rock faced. Would someone tell her to stay in Arkansas?
It our collective position here that this ordinance be stopped and NOT re-written. It is a knee-jerk reaction that has not involved any expertise from the animal welfare leadership.
…
♦
Here We Go Again
Well that sure didn’t take long, even for HSUS. The ink isn’t even dry on the “new” HSUS Pit Bull policy and HSUS is already working with anti-Pit Bull groups on breed discriminatory legislation in Indianapolis, which local rescue groups fear will lead to an increased killing in shelters.
HSUS staff has been involved in Indianapolis working on an ordinance labeling all “Pit Bull-type dogs” as “potentially dangerous dogs” requiring registration and a permit, mandatory sterilization, a million dollar insurance policy, signage posted at each door in the home saying that a “potentially dangerous dog” lives on the premises, and other restrictions. But because of initial opposition, there is talk of dropping some of the more inflammatory language about Pit Bulls by changing the name “potentially dangerous dogs” to “at risk dogs,” as if that would make a difference to whether they live or die, and dropping the insurance requirement. The bulk of the proposed law, however, remains on track.
When challenged, HSUS denied it is supporting it claiming they are just offering “input” on the legislation, but the ordinance’s author has been referring critics to HSUS in an effort to win their support. And HSUS has been citing a similar Little Rock, AR ordinance as a successful model. In fact, Little Rock officials have also been offering input into the Indianapolis law, and suggested that this could be considered a first step toward an outright ban.
In Little Rock, animal control officers have been going door-to-door confiscating Pit Bulls who aren’t registered and, according to KC Dog Blog, media reports show many smiling, tail wagging dogs (which are now “potentially dangerous dogs” under the law) being taken away, perhaps to their death. In response, HSUS commended enforcement officials in Little Rock for doing so, calling their efforts “meaningful.”
I have an idea, let’s have a meeting in Las Vegas and discuss this with HSUS and come up with a vague new policy. And we can do this again the next time HSUS tries to kill dogs, and the next time, and the next time, and the next time, and the next time, and the next time, and the next time, and the next time…
[While you read this, crank up the volume on your Abba CD: “the history books on the shelves, are always repeating themselves…”]
…and the next time, and the next time, and the next time, and the next time, and the next time, and the next time, and the next time, and the next time, and the next time.
ooooo....ms Ems...please say what's on your mind....comeon now girl, don't be shy
