AKC Finally Takes Action in Denver

This just in from AKC:
      (more than a little overdue….)

AKC Represents Dog Owners in Challenge to Denver Breed Ban

 

[Wednesday, July 30, 2008]

 

The American Kennel Club® (AKC®) will be joining Karen R. Breslin of the Progressive Law Center, LLC of Lakewood, Colorado and the Washington D.C. office of Kaye Scholer LLP in representing dog-owning plaintiffs Sonya Dias and others who are asserting that the Denver ordinance banning pit bulls within the city limits is unconstitutional.

In March the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, where the plaintiffs’ 2007 lawsuit was originally filed, dismissed the suit without granting a hearing. A brief is being filed today in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit asking to reverse that court’s decision and grant the plaintiffs/appellants a hearing on the unconstitutionality of the Denver breed ban. The original lawsuit stated Dias and the other owners were forced to move out of Denver with their dogs because of the ban which they asserted was a violation of, among other things, their constitutional rights.

The Denver ordinance bans ownership or possession of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Bull Terrier and the American Pit Bull Terrier and/or any dog with a majority of physical traits of one or more of these breeds within the city or county of Denver. Since 2005, as a result of this ordinance, several hundred dogs within the city limits had been euthanized.

The AKC supports reasonable, enforceable, non-discriminatory laws to govern the ownership of dogs. The AKC believes that dog owners should be responsible for their dogs. We support laws that: establish a fair process by which specific dogs are identified as “dangerous” based on stated, measurable actions; impose appropriate penalties on irresponsible owners; and establish a well-defined method for dealing with dogs proven to be dangerous. We believe that, if necessary, dogs proven to be “dangerous” may need to be humanely destroyed. The AKC strongly opposes any legislation that determines a dog to be “dangerous” based on specific breeds or phenotypic classes of dogs.

So.. What IS it Worth?

In today’s Albert Lea, MN Tribune Tim Engstrom wonders:

But if you are the owner of a trained dog, don’t you sometimes feel society gives little reward to you for the time and money you invested in obedience school? Don’t you wish the graduation certificate could function as a permission slip to bring your dog in stores or at least more stores than at present? Or even into government buildings and places such as trains, bus stations and shopping malls?

Today, we as dog owners find ourselves in an untenable situation.  At the same time that the number of dogs living in our country has dramatically increased (by approximately a million animals a year since 2000 according to the Pet Food Institute) the number of places we are allowed to take them has dropped precipitously.

The current politically correct, obsessively all-inclusive environment is the root of the problem.  When we reward everyone who just shows up, we cheapen the achievements of those who did much more.  Worse yet, we also create a society where extrinsic rewards are the focus.  Unlike the fleeting rush we get from extrinsic rewards (like money and ribbons,) intrinsic rewards (like the feeling of achievement one gets when hard work is rewarded) give us a deeper, long-lasting sense of accomplishment.  And since they  are internal (self-rewarding) rather than external (must be given by others) intrinsic rewards are available at any time and in any place.

We have come to expect the extrinsic rewards of instant gratification’s drive-through speed and convenience in nearly aspect of our lives.  And in a world obsessed with instant gratification – programs that emphasize (correctly) that training your dog is a lifetime pursuit are not likely to thrive….

This politically correct, all-inclusive, one-size-fits-all view of the world is – in reality – utterly intolerant of true diversity.  It’s not politically correct to allow some people to have more rights to public access with their dogs simply because they are responsible pet owners who train, socialize and clean up after their pets.  Current ‘wisdom’ says that we simply must reduce access privileges to meet the limitations of the lowest common denominator – those who can’t be bothered.

So, bit by bit and piece by piece, the rights of responsible pet owners everywhere are stolen chipped away by entitlement-driven, feel-good pet owners who put more effort into choosing a pair of shoes than in making the decision to take an innocent life into their hands.  And for some reason – we sit back and let them do it.

Your dog, your rights.  What are they worth to you?