The Memphis Vortex

God Hates The South

If you've been following the news much this spring then you probably know that God hates the South. I don't know what we've done to incur the wrath of the Almighty, but He's been showing some pretty unmistakable signs that He is not happy with those of us who live below the Mason-Dixon line. I say this because something like 170 tornadoes cut loose across the South on one day in April, killing over 300 people. Seven people died here in my county. As if that weren't enough, it's been followed by the worst flooding of the Mississippi River in at least 70 years, and in some places, ever. (Of course, the Mississippi does span more than just the South, so we will share our misery with some of our Midwestern friends.) And, to add insult to injury, the 13-year cicadas are coming out, like some kind of plague on the land.

So, you can see why I say that God doesn't seem to like us much right now.

Memphis Animal Shelter

In the midst of all these disasters, you may have missed some of the pet stories coming out of Memphis but there have been some whoppers. By far the biggest story is that of the Memphis Animal Shelter which is being reported daily by the YesBiscuit blog. If you're not familiar with the story then I encourage you to visit the YesBiscuit site right away and catch up. YesBiscuit is on a much-needed crusade to draw attention to some of the practices at the Memphis Animal Shelter, including their high euthanasia rate, way of treating the animals in their care, minimal work with rescues and efforts to get animals adopted, among other problems at the shelter. To say that the shelter director and city officials have been dismissive is putting it mildly. So please do check out YesBiscuit's blog and try to get involved.

Dog Relocation Program?

But there's other news from Memphis, some good and some not so good. Animal rescue groups have converged on the city to try to help owners and their animals affected by the flooding. Sounds great, right? And we're sure that most of these efforts are good-hearted and well-intentioned. We applaud all of the rescuers who are reaching out to help animal owners and their animals. Except, there are a few groups who may not have good intentions. There always seem to be one or two bad apples who can spoil the whole barrel.

ASPCA is on the ground in Memphis offering shelter for pets who have been displaced by flooding. According to news articles, they say that the owners will be able to pick them up when they're ready to go home again.

"People can bring their pets here regardless of their health or situation," said Joel Lopez, a former pacemaker sales representative from New York, who quit to work for the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

The shelter is operated with staff from the organizations and volunteers who use vacation days from jobs.

"This is the largest emergency-relief deployment in our history, dating back to 2007 when the program was launched," said Steve Pawlowski, communications manager for PetSmart Charities, which is using Memphis as a staging area for the flood disaster and for victims of the recent string of tornadoes.

The New York-based ASPCA is overseeing the operation.

The process for sheltering and rescuing the animals was born from the chaos of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 when people were forced to abandon pets, many of which drowned.

It inspired rescue groups and the federal government to develop a plan that addressed animal welfare.

"We realized organizations needed to come together to create a unified operation, said Kathryn Destreza, ASPCA Southeast regional director. "There were so many lessons from Katrina. There wasn't even a people plan in place to deal with victims. Remember the Superdome? You can't imagine the chaos dealing with pets."

A federal law, created in 2006, requires states seeking Federal Emergency Management Agency assistance to accommodate pets and service animals in plans for evacuating residents facing disasters.

Rescue organizations formed the National Animal Rescue and Sheltering Coalition to create a unified effort.

"We're all pet people so we believe the least we can do is help relieve people who are under so much stress to know that their babies are safe here with us," said Debrah Schnackenberg, American Humane Association senior vice president for emergency services.

"We spoil them and treat them like they're our own until the owners are ready to reclaim them."

That sounds great, right? But what about this news release from the ASPCA that says they have formed a "national relocation program" for shelter animals?

Press Release

ASPCA Launches National Relocation Program for Shelter Animals

“Animal Relocation Initiative” Begins with Transport of Dogs, Cats from Regions Affected by Floods, Tornados

May 10,2011

ASPCA Media Contact

NEW YORK—The ASPCA^® (The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals^®) today announced the launch of its national Animal Relocation Initiative for shelter animals, which began with 46 dogs from shelters in eastern Arkansas that traveled westward over the weekend to make room for animals displaced by recent flooding, and continued on Monday with over 70 additional dogs from tornado-affected areas in Georgia and South Carolina going to shelters in the northeast. This morning, 15 dogs and 10 cats from shelters in a flood-affected region of Mississippi were loaded onto a trailer headed for West Palm Beach, Fla., and additional relocation efforts for animals in other affected areas are in the works.

The dogs and cats will be made available for adoption following their arrivals at the various destination shelters. Dogs from the initial relocation efforts traveled from Eastern Arkansas to shelters in Kansas and Colorado, and those from Georgia and South Carolina were sent to shelters in New York and New Jersey. The animals are being transported in climate controlled vehicles.

“Our new Animal Relocation Initiative will establish a national network that facilitates the transfer of animals and build a professional collective engaged in the issue of relocation,” said Ed Sayres, president and CEO of the ASPCA. “We also intend to develop flexible, scalable relocation programs that assure animals are moving the shortest distance possible.”

The ASPCA’s Animal Relocation Initiative moves animals from areas of oversupply to areas where there are few, if any, similar pets available in shelters for adoption. In these first cases, the ASPCA’s Field Investigation and Response Team has been deployed to areas where a large-scale disaster recovery effort is in progress, and the Animal Relocation Initiative is supporting those efforts, working with a network of agencies willing to receive and house animals that already exist in the community’s sheltering system.

“Our new program is all about supply and demand,” said Sandy Monterose, the ASPCA’s senior director of community outreach. “We will be exporting animals—safely, efficiently and humanely—from crowded shelters to regions where space is available. In this case, moving current shelter animals out of the affected area increases the ability of local organizations to help animals that need to be rescued or sheltered until they can be reunited with their families.

So, that seems a little confusing. Not to mention a trifle opportunistic. They are taking dogs in the tornado and flood areas and sending them to places where there is a demand for them. But, how do they know that some of the animals in the shelters weren't lost in the tornadoes and flooding? How do they know there aren't families looking for those dogs? And, if those dogs are sent to states 1000 miles away, how will their families ever find them? They won't even know where to look for them. Plus, the animals will have been adopted by other people. This sort of sounds like what happened with the Katrina dogs that HSUS "rescued" in Louisiana. There were all kinds of accusations at that time that HSUS took the dogs, saying that they would reunite them with their owners later, and then they sent the dogs to other states, adopted them out to other people, and their original owners couldn't find them. A few owners did track down their dogs and they had to go to court to get their dogs back.

(Gee, reading these Katrina stories, you think it's possible that HSUS doesn't really have much hands-on experience with animal care? Hmmm? What do you think? But how could that possibly be true? Isn't it HSUS that is always proposing legislation about animal care and telling people how to take care of animals? How odd. Aren't they the recognized "experts" when it comes to animals? Well, maybe not.)

So, you see why I think it's a little odd for the ASPCA to be "relocating" these dogs that they are "rescuing." They are kind of rescuing and relocating them against their will, or at least under false pretenses. And they aren't the only group going into tornado and flood areas in the South and plucking dogs out of shelters and even out of people's yards and sending them north and elsewhere. It's kind of despicable, but there are a lot of shelters in the north and other places which are taking these dogs and then adopting/selling them, using the big selling point that they are "Tornado Dogs!" to get people to pay money for them. Again, their families don't have any idea what has happened to these dogs. And shelters are making money off them. It's a pretty rotten business. It stinks.

Actually this "relocation" business raises another troubling question. If dogs from southern disaster areas are being moved to shelters in other parts of the country, what happens to the dogs in those shelters? Are they being killed to make room for the more financially desirable "Tornado Dogs!"? Sure, those shelters may be less crowded, but they probably aren't completely empty. Who wants to buy a plain old local dog when a shelter can pimp a dog with a sad story that's been through a flood? I just wonder how many dogs are being killed as part of this "dog relocation program"?

Trunking?

Oh, yeah, there's one more story from Memphis that I wanted to mention. This one pops up every year or two and it always makes me roll my eyes. Ever hear of "trunking"? Well, don't feel bad. Most people haven't. That's probably because it comes from the tortured and alarmist brains of some animal rights people and doesn't really exist except in their fantasies. The story always comes from the same newspaper in Memphis and cites the same two women as sources. According to these people "trunking" is the new craze in dog fighting whereby dogs are thrown into the trunk of some ne'er-do-well's car and, while this person drives around playing loud music, the dogs fight in the trunk ... er, yeah. I'm not making this up. It's a sport or activity without any spectators which really makes no sense to me. And, no one has ever actually seen this event happen. Nor is there any evidence that this event has ever happened. But these ladies claim that this is the hot new trend in dog fighting. Yeah, sure. So, again, no witnesses, no evidence, no one has ever seen it happen. But the story gets reported periodically. I really think this is some kind of urban legend perpetuated by a couple of animal rights fanatics. Seriously, if you google the term "trunking" the only stories relating to dog fighting (and there are hardly any at all) go right back to these two women in Memphis. I really think they made it up and I feel kind of sorry for them if that's the way their minds work.

So, if you're in Memphis, being chased by a tornado, and the river is rising to meet you, watch out for someone in a car with loud music playing because he could have dogs fighting in the trunk. Okay? Just be careful out there. Memphis is really in trouble.

How To Find Information About Animal Laws In Tennessee

For those of you interested in knowing more about animal laws in Tennessee, check out the Michie site for Tennessee laws. Title 43 and Title 44 concern agriculture/horticulture and animals. Most of the laws applying to livestock and to pets are in these sections. That's where you can get the straight version of Tennessee laws. If you go to some other sites I'm afraid you will get an animal rights interpretation of animal law, and that includes the UT web site on animal law. They have a link to the Animal Legal Defense Fund, one of the most hard core animal rights groups in the country. ALDF is the group behind the push for an animal abuser registry here in Tennessee and elsewhere. The Animal Law Coalition site also tends to be AR-leaning in its interpretation of animal laws.

And, what is wrong with an animal abuser registry, you may be wondering? Well, for one thing, it's good way to ruin the lives of youthful offenders. Do you really want to put a young teenager on an animal abuse registry? Kids sometimes do stupid things that they regret for the rest of their lives. It's not a true indication of who they are when they are adults. Even if someone's name is removed from such a registry 10 years later, there is no way to remove all of the places where their name has been posted on the Internet as an animal abuser. Should someone really have to pay for some crimes for the rest of their lives? I don't think so, and neither do many other people.

Secondly, there is every indication that these offender registries don't actually work, judging by the lack of success with sex offender registries.

HSUS, ALDF, and AR supporters have been pushing the animal abuse registry bill in Tennessee for the last several years. So far it hasn't gotten very far. Let's keep it that way.

VOTE in Tennessee!

It's Time To Vote In Tennessee!

Make sure you check out the Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting

Alliance recommendations at the link below for legislators who oppose

or support the radical agenda of the Animal Rights movement to end

all use and interaction with animals: http://www.saova.org/2010/

Tennessee10.html

Susan Wolf has done an excellent job compiling this information with

nationwide recommendations. You'll find specific endorsements for

many Tennessee races.

It was an enormous project and Tennessee voters certainly appreciate

it. So please vote November 2nd! Urge all your friends and family

to vote if you want to preserve our historic relationship with

animals. If you just want to view animals from afar ... in the wild,

vote for the "animal rights" extremists' endorsements. They are

about abolition, not animal cruelty as claimed.

Early voting in Tennessee is going on now through October 28.

VOTE NOVEMBER 2ND! Our animals lives truly do depend upon your

participation in this electoral process.

Cross-posting encouraged

TENNESSEE: Vote "YES" On Proposed Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment!

From the National Rifle Association:

TENNESSEE: Vote "YES" On Proposed Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment!

The proposed Right to Hunt and Fish constitutional Amendment, on the November 2 Ballot, will amend the Tennessee State Constitution to forever recognize Tennessee's sporting heritage and the great contributions that hunters and fishermen make to conservation and wildlife. The National Rifle Association has spearheaded efforts to provide truly meaningful protections to sportsmen across the country. These meaningful protections embedded in the proposed Amendment are the result of the NRA's effort to enshrine in the Tennessee Constitution the people's long cherished right to hunt and fish. It is expected that nearly one-quarter of all states will have adopted similar amendments by year's end. Tennessee’s Right to Hunt and Fish provides permanent safeguards against attacks from the radical animal "rights" extremists whose ultimate goal is to end all hunting in America.

Hunting and fishing has a rich heritage that is woven into the very fabric of the Volunteer State. The proposed Amendment will allow your kids, grandkids, and future generations to have the opportunity to experience the outdoors in the spirit of Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett. The flourishing wildlife populations and sound conservation in Tennessee are the result of what hunters and fishermen do.

PETA opposes the Right to Hunt and Fish in Tennessee, which should be reason enough to vote Yes on November 2. They have been quoted as saying that the proposed amendment is a “solution in search of a problem” and that no one is trying to ban hunting or fishing. Soon after these statements, PETA sent a letter to UT-Chattanooga asking that the University ban its fishing team because fishing is a “blood sport.” The fact is that PETA and extremists like them are the problem and this Amendment is the solution. Making hunting and fishing a permanent part of Tennessee’s Constitution will help to fend off attacks from anti-hunting extremists who continually attempt to advance their emotional and political agenda.

For more information, please visit: http://www.nraila.org/righttohunttn/

Vote "Yes" on the Right to Hunt and Fish amendment and tell the anti-hunting radicals that the Volunteer State is off-limits to their anti-freedom agenda!

Pilot backs away from $52k in donations to HSUS

Knoxville based Pilot Travel Centers, LLC is essentially apologizing for for more than $52,000 in employee and customers contributions to the Humane Society of the United States.

On Thursday, the Humane Society acknowledged support from the travel centers.

"We're giving a shout out to Pilot Travel Centers for standing up against animal cruelty and supporting us!" HSUS said on its Facebook Page. The post garnered 2,411 people who said they liked that message, and 106 comments.

Then Pilot started taking flak for the support on its Facebook page, with many of the comments arguing the group does not fight the for the interests of Tennessee families who work and depend on agriculture.

Friday, Pilot issued a statement regarding the relationship of the company with the animal rights organization.

"We sincerely regret any actions that led to the misperception of our support of this organization. Pilot Travel Centers is a strong supporter of agriculture interests in our home state of Tennessee and across the country," the statement said.

Also in that statement, the company said they gave the HSUS the money for three specific areas:

1.Rural Veterinary Care
2.Disaster Relief
3.A foreclosure fund to house animals impacted by the housing crisis.
The statement went on to say, "Since 2007, less than $52,000 in voluntary donations from customers and employees was collected in stores as part of an employee-driven charity event. The money went to three specific areas: rural animal veterinary care services, disaster relief and a foreclosure fund to help rescue animals left behind in homes during the foreclosure crisis."

"In order to avoid any further misunderstandings, employees will immediately cease collections of donations to HSUS. Pilot corporate has never matched a single dollar of these donations and will not support any organization that has an agenda that works against agriculture interests."

Pilot didn't have any comment beyond the statement released.

The Humane Society released a statement in response to the online fracas:

We thank employees and customers of Pilot Travel Centers for three years of loyal support for animals in need. We regret they are no longer being given the opportunity in stores to support our work to help animals abandoned in the foreclosure crisis, to help end pet overpopulation and aid animals in distress.
Source: WBIR news Knoxville

Racketeering Lawsuit Fingers Humane Society of the United States

Multi-Million Dollar Animal Rights Group Accused Of Corruption; Lawsuit Available At HumaneWatch

Washington - In a landmark RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) lawsuit certain to have far-reaching implications for the animal rights movement, Feld Entertainment and the Ringling Brothers circus sued the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), its lawyers, and several other animal rights groups last week. The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) unearthed the lawsuit in federal court records today. CCF is making the lawsuit available online at its newest website, www.HumaneWatch.org

"America's farmers, ranchers, hunters, fishermen, research scientists, fashion designers, and restaurateurs have seen for decades how the animal rights movement can behave like a mobbed-up racket," said CCF Director of Research David Martosko. "But it's still shocking to see the evidence laid out on paper. In a treble-damage lawsuit like this, a jury could actually do the humane thing and finally put HSUS out of business completely."
Full Story at link ....

An Obituary for Words

by Cindy Cooke, Legislative Specialist

You can't really ban a word. In fact, an attempt to ban something often backfires, particularly in the United States, where we don't like people censoring our speech. So I'm not going to tell you not to say "puppy mill".
I'm going to give you some very good reasons for not using that phrase.

I speak to a lot of dog clubs and frequently hear dog breeders supporting so-called "anti-puppy-mill" laws. When I ask these people to define "puppy mill," invariably the definitions given include:
 People who "overbreed" their dogs;
 People who don't take care of their dogs;
 People who have too many dogs;
 People who breed dogs "just for money"; and
 People who don't take health issues into account when breeding their dogs.

Let's look at these definitions in turn. What is "overbreeding"? In the wild, most canids can only reproduce once a year. Most domestic dogs can have two litters a year. When I first became a dog breeder, it was almost a religious belief that no female dog should be bred more than once a year. We were told that it was important to "rest" the uterus between litters. Today, however, thanks to advances in veterinary medicine, we know that an uterus is actually damaged by the elevated progesterone levels that occur in each heat cycle, whether the dog is pregnant or not. Veterinary reproduction specialists recommend that dogs be bred on their second or third heat cycle, that we do more back-to-back breedings, and that we spay the dogs at around age six.

The "overbreeding" argument also treats reproduction as something that female dogs wouldn't do if they had a choice. Dogs aren't people - female dogs actually want to be bred when they're in heat and, with few exceptions, enjoy raising their puppies. It's not an unwelcome event for dogs.

People who don't take care of their dogs are already guilty of a crime in all 50 states. There is nowhere in the United States where it is legal to neglect or abuse dogs. Sadly, a small minority of all dog breeders - commercial, home and hobby - commit neglect and abuse. Some of these do so out of ignorance, some out of laziness, and some out of meanness. All are already breaking the law. It just needs to be enforced.

Full article ....

Johnson City and MSN

I recently attended an HSUS “Lobbying 101” event in Knoxville where the topic of mandatory spaying and neutering was brought up repeatedly. At this meeting, conducted by the HSUS state director, Leighann McCollum, it was assumed without question that MSN was a great idea – a panacea to cure virtually all animal problems in our society. While she did not actually tell the 30 or so people present that they should try to work for MSN in Knoxville, this message seemed to be understood by everyone present judging by their murmurs of approval for the subject.

Here in northeast Tennessee, Washington County/Johnson City Animal Control Center Director Debbie Dobbs has already gone before the city commission to get permission to draft an ordinance which would require mandatory spaying and neutering in the city. Her draft proposal, based on the Buncombe County NC ordinance, will require all dogs and cats six months or older to be spayed or neutered unless the owner purchases an unaltered animal permit. Limited exemptions are noted for service and police dogs, and animals in poor health. The final proposal has not been submitted to Commissioners at this time.

What’s particularly worrisome is the fact that, despite the current animal control ordinance in effect in Johnson City which requires registration of cats and dogs (Johnson City municipal code 10-102 1-12) and kennel licenses (Johnson City municipal code 10-102.9), there is no licensing or registration of pets. The City Recorder confirmed there is no licensing or registration in the city. While this in itself is not a bad thing since many places don’t have pet licensing, the fact that Director Dobbs is proposing more unenforceable laws while current laws are not being enforced seems ridiculous.

Dobbs provided some figures to the city commissioners which show that in 2008 the shelter was able to adopt out 41 percent of the animals that were picked up or owner-surrendered (3329 animals out of 8152). Eight percent were reclaimed (685 animals). Fifty-one percent of animals entering the shelter were euthanized (4136).

The shelter takes in animals for both the city and the county. They received more calls for animal pick-up from county residents than from city residents (1450 to 1029) but far more city people turned animals in than county people (3394 to 2378). The town of Jonesborough accounted for 131 animals in the shelter.

If correct, the intake figure for 2008 is very high for a population the size of Washington County/Johnson City. It would also be helpful to have a further breakdown of the animal shelter’s figures for animals taken in and picked up. In most places the number of stray or feral cats is at least equal to the number of owned cats. While nationally, owned cats are spayed and neutered at a rate of more than 85 percent, less than 5 percent of feral cats are spayed or neutered. This makes them disproportionately responsible for most of the litters of kittens that are picked up or taken to animal shelters. Feral cats and kittens usually comprise a high percentage of the animals which are euthanized in shelters. We would like to find out if this is the case in Johnson City. It does no good to call for mandatory spaying and neutering if the problem is unowned stray cats. MSN only punishes responsible owners who don’t let their animals roam or breed indiscriminately.

Two e-mails have been sent to the Washington County/Johnson City Animal Control Center asking for more details about the animals that they pick up and take in. There has been no reply although they did reply to an earlier e-mail asking for a copy of the current animal control ordinance.

It is important to know more about the dogs that are turned in to the shelter. Owner retention is a serious problem. Many people turn young, adolescent dogs in to shelters because they don’t know what to do when a young dog starts showing some behavior problems — house training problems, too much barking, jumping on people, for example. There are some good ways to get trainers in the community involved to help owners teach their dogs to behave better. Offering some training classes at the shelter could help owners keep their dogs.

There are many ways to help market some of the adoptable cats and dogs to make them more appealing to the public. Good marketing can raise adoption numbers and lower the number of animals that are euthanized.

Mandatory spaying and neutering is not the solution that Director Dobbs thinks it is. It will not work in Johnson City just as it hasn’t worked anywhere else it’s been tried. Even in Asheville, which she has put forth as a success story, the figures prove her wrong. Asheville has not succeeded with MSN. In most places where MSN has been tried it not only hasn’t worked but it has resulted in increased costs to the city/county government and MORE animals euthanized.

MSN is not the solution for Johnson City or Washington County.
Carlotta Cooper - TN Pet Law

MSN & Breeding Restrictions a Bad Idea

Despite the fact Mandatory Spay Neuter (MSN) is a failed concept, advocates in numerous states continue to stir public opinion and press for ordinance changes.

Why is MSN a bad idea? To begin with MSN targets the wrong people – people who are already responsible and wish to breed dogs/cats – even if so-called exemptions are included in the legislation. MSN is a blanket law built on the false premise that reducing the source of animals equals reducing shelter intake.

There are no stories of success anywhere that MSN has been enacted. In fact, many municipalities have seen their intake and euthanasia rates increase following passage of such laws. In the early ‘90’s the punitive laws passed in Fort Wayne, Indiana; San Mateo, California; and King County, Washington were hailed as national models; however, they remain a dismal failure to this day.

Nathan Winograd, author of Redemption, notes in one of his many essays that if coercive legislation was effective then Long Beach CA, where MSN was carried to the extreme of a total breeding ban for 30 years, would have empty shelters or at least be No Kill. Yet Long Beach still handles thousands of animals thru animal control services every year.

Most professionals acknowledge benefits to spay/neuter of dogs such as decreased roaming, decreased risk of mammary, testicular and ovarian cancer, and population control in non-breeding animals. However, it is imperative to note the disadvantages of spaying or neutering may include diabetes, osteosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma, prostatic adenocarcinoma, transitional cell carcinoma, urinary tract infections, urinary incontinence, autoimmune thyroiditis, hypothyroidism and hip dysplasia.

MSN ordinances do not consider the physiological differences between dogs and cats. The cats’ reproductive physiology requires that they either be bred or spayed to remain healthy. An ill-conceived mandatory spay/neuter regulation could force a small cat hobbyist out of existence causing irreplaceable loss of genetic diversity and conceivably the extinction of entire breeds.

Mandatory spay/neuter ordinances are intended to deter and penalize pet owners. No matter how severe the punishment, free-roaming cats with no owners will continue to reproduce on the streets adding to the feral cat population. MSN laws have no impact on the unchecked reproduction of unowned/free-roaming/feral cats - the greatest reason for shelter euthanasia.

Spay/neuter must remain a decision between the veterinarian and owner and not a government mandate.

MSN and breeder licensing laws also fail to address the problem of pet retention. It is undisputable that the number one reason for owner surrender is related to pet behavior or health problems, or the owner’s lack of time, knowledge or ability to care for the pet.

The emphasis must be placed on pet retention if animal control and shelter intake is to be lowered. Pets that have been relinquished had an owner who chose not to keep them.

Passing breeding restrictions costs the public money in the form of administrative fees, burdens animal control to enforce an unpopular law, and takes focus away from needed duties dealing with strays, abandoned animals, cruelty cases, public education, and shelter adoptions.

Breeding restriction laws would limit the options of dog buyers. Options are important to prospective dog owners because it is important for them to choose dogs that will fit in well with their lifestyles in terms of size, grooming requirements, and exercise needs. The fewer choices available to potential owners, the greater the chance that the new dogs will not fit in well with their lifestyles and expectations.

Restricting breeders of purebred dogs will not make mixed breeds from the shelter more appealing to everyone no matter how politically correct shelter adoptions are marketed to be. An elderly woman living in an apartment looking for a small lap dog, is not going to adopt an 80 pound collie/shepherd mix from the shelter if local breeders are shut down by mandatory spay/neuter laws or excessive breeder permitting.

Preserving your right to own, breed and enjoy animals is YOUR responsibility.
NCRAOA November Newsletter

Johnson City to consider mandatory spay/neuter ordinance

The Johnson City Commission approved a motion at their last meeting allowing Washington County/Johnson City Animal Shelter Director Debbie Dobbs to pursue seeking legal advice on a proposed mandatory spay/neuter ordinance and work in conjunction with Washington County on the ordinance.

The motion passed with four commissioners voting in favor. Prior to the vote, Commissioner Phil Carriger voiced concerns that the ordinance would not be effective without bringing the county onboard.

Commissioner Steve Darden abstained from voting. Johnson City Manager Pete Peterson said County Attorney John Rambo would be asked to assist in reviewing the proposed ordinance.

Dobbs is basing her proposal on the failed mandatory spay-neuter ordinance enacted in Buncombe County, North Carolina.