URGENT! Hunters' propaganda against Dallas ordinances protecting our pets!

[Guest guest]

His post is very long, but I read the whole thing. It's from the "Sportsmens' Alliance", a group of hunting lobbyists. It is nothing but lies and hunters' propanda about ALL the proposed ordinances, including the space required for penning, which is a very cruel practice, and one that traditionally involves hunting dogs. He is spouting off lies about how dangerous spay/neuter is to the health of dogs and how people can sue their vets!!!!! He is cross posting to ALL hunters and breeders to show up by the hundreds, telling them to write letters to the editor and call all the council. But, apparently the council, the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem are favoring these ordinances! Please call, emails will be deleted. And write

a short letter to the editor as well. Here is his ridiculous post. It is definitely worth reading, as he is naming powerful names. Even called Animal Connection of Texas "radical". I am so proud to be a member!!!!! Letters to the editor at Dallas Morning News Letters to the Editor bmong (AT) dallasnews (DOT) com PLEASE CROSS-POST THIS REPORT AND FORWARD IT TO YOUR FRIENDS PLEASE READ! We need EVERYONE to write letters to every Dallas Council Person in the Cityof Dallas. All their contact information is at the bottom of this article!We have been told they WILL NOT READ E-MAILS...so please send letters, faxesand phone calls only. If

you have nothing else to write, then copy and sendthe article below, or read it, take info from it and send any way you can tothe City Council Members. We need BODIES to show up by the HUNDREDS to the City Council Meeting thisWednesday at 9:00. Dallas City Hall, 6th floor. Wear black (we're inmourning) and if you have any 'animal jewelry' so we can recognize you andknow you OPPOSE these HORRIBLE Ordinances. WE MUST STOP THE COUNCIL FROMSIGNING THIS ORDINANCE INTO LAW. The other date of major importance is April28, same place, for the Dallas Quality of Life meeting where these laws willbe discussed and possibly voted on right then and there. Please keep in mindthat things change DAILY, so if you have any questions, please feel free tocall me or e-mail me and I'll be happy to answer any questions you have.These new laws affect EACH CITIZEN IN DALLAS..not just the breeders. ANYONEwho owns an intact dog (not

spayed/neutered) will be affected, as well asall our Breed Rescue Groups, veterinarians. ..the list goes on and on. Please help the citizens of Dallas STOP this Ordinance or ALL YOUR FAMILYPETS IN THE FUTURE WILL MOST LIKELY COME FROM PUPPY MILLS, where conditionsare horrible and most border on animal abuse of the worst kind. If allRESPONSIBLE BREEDERS are no longer allowed to own/breed quality, healthy,temperamentally sound dogs which this law proposes...God help us all. Thank you for taking the time to read the article below. These Ordinancesare up for a vote April 28 in Dallas, and most of the citizens are not evenaware of it, yet. Stand up and be heard! OPPOSE CHAPTER 7 DALLAS ORDINANCES!! !!!!!!! Dallas Ordinance Will Destroy Hobby Dog Breeding, Trample Constitution Radical Animal Rights Agenda Infiltrates Metro Area Government by JOHN YATES The American Sporting Dog Alliance http://www.american sportingdogallia nce.org DALLAS, TX - Texas may seem like the most unlikely of places for animalrights groups to infiltrate and take over local government. This state hasthe reputation for vigorous defense of property rights and the traditionalrelationships between animals and people. However, the entire Dallas metropolitan area has become a case study of howthis can happen in the absence of vigilance, and how dog owners can pay adevastatingly high price when it does. The City of Dallas is facing a series of animal control ordinances that willstrip dog owners of all property rights to their animals, eliminate privatebreeding of purebred dogs, subject dog owners to unconstitutional searchesand seizures and, in fact, impose the full animal rights dream agenda of theradical People for the

Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the onlyslightly less radical Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). People who are closely affiliated with PETA and HSUS have, quite literally,taken over both city and metro advisory councils. These extremists not onlyhave written the ordinances, but they also will enforce them. Dog owners in the City of Dallas face a city council vote on the ordinances,possibly within days, and every municipality within the metro area facessimilar ordinances because of the actions and influence of thequasi-official Metroplex Animal Coalition, which is dominated by HSUS andPETA members and supporters, an investigation by The American Sporting DogAlliance shows. No known representatives of dog owners groups or kennelclubs are listed as members of either the Metroplex or City of Dallas boardsThis group also has exported its agenda to other cities, such as Houston,where the animal

control program now is administered by a former Dallasanimal control board President, Kent Robertson, who has worked closely withHSUS and conducted training seminars for the radical group. In 2002,Robertson brought in a team of six officials from the HSUS national officeto review Dallas animal control programs and make recommendations. Robertson barely let the ink dry on his contract before he convinced citycouncil to institute restrictive breeders licenses in Houston last year. TheAssociated Press reported that no one had applied for the requiredbreedersâ?T permits three months after the ordinance took effect, and thuswere running the risk of fines of up to $2,000 a day. This time, Dallas dog owners are in the crosshairs and animal rights groupshave won the support of Mayor Tom Leppert, Mayor Pro Tem Dr. Elba Garcia,and several members of City Council, according to a report of a closed-doorbriefing between animal

activists and city officials by Metroplex AnimalCoalition President Elaine Munch. Munch is closely aligned with HSUS. In a description about how the MetroplexCoalition was formed, she wrote: "We asked our regional office of HSUS andother national groups for help in identifying those to invite." Also, HSUS representative Lou Guyton is a member of the Metroplex CoalitionAdvisory Board, as is long-time PETA ally and award winner Robert â?oSkipâ?Trimble, an animal rights attorney who also is president of the City ofDallas Animal Shelter Commission, chairman of the board of the PETA-likeTexas Humane Legislative Network and a director of the radical fringe AnimalLegal Defense Fund. Another member of both the Dallas and Metroplex boards is Jonnie England,who was drafted recently by HSUS to judge that organization' s annual "PetsFor Life" award. Munch quoted Mayor Leppert as telling people at the briefing that

he has a sense of urgency" to pass the ordinances in 30-to-45 days. CouncilwomanPauline Medrana was quoted as calling the ordinances "fair, firm andcomprehensive, " and Council Members Dave Neumann, Mitchell Rasansky and RonNatinsky reportedly expressed their support. "Almost all council members stressed being aggressive in getting theordinances ready ASAP/with a sense of urgency" Munch wrote of the briefing.(The ordinances) were received very well with no council members showing anyopposition to these proposed ordinances. Trimble and Munch are key players in the animal rights takeover of theDallas Metroplex. Both hold leadership positions on both the City and metroadvisory boards, and both have close ties to radical animal rights groupsthat oppose the private ownership of animals. PETA awarded Trimble its 2001 "Activist Award" for his work on Texas animalrights issues, and he also was honored by HSUS in

1997 with a "LegislativeAchievement Award" and by a New Mexico group in 2000 for lifelong commitmentto animal rights." In a published article, Trimble described himself as a former "animal abuser, and his description says a lot about what he now thinks is abuse. "I'm aformer animal abuser, Trimble says. I used to own racehorses, raise ropingsteers, hunt and eat meat." Now, Trimble describes himself as a vegan vegetarian, deplores traditionalfarming and ranching, and echoes the animal rights agenda of opposition tobreeding animals, hunting, rodeos and competing with horses. The American Sporting Dog Alliance believes that only a handful of Dallasresidents would agree with Trimbleâ?Ts idea of animal abuse, and that alarge majority would describe his views as radical fringe - if not fruitcakefringe! We urge City Council to reject these views and uphold the values andbeliefs of the large majority of Dallas residents. No

state has foughtharder than Texas to protect the rights of individuals from unwarrantedintrusion by government, beginning with the Alamo and continuing into themodern era. As an attorney, Trimble has developed a specialty of using the law as a toolto advance the animal rights agenda, and is credited with playing the majorrole and banning the slaughter of horses in Texas. In one case, his workbolstered PETA in shutting down a Texas primate sanctuary. Trimble was withthe police on the raid, and the effort received direct praise from PETAPresident Ingrid Newkirk on the organizationâ ?Ts website. Trimble also iscapitalizing on the Michael Vicks dog fighting scandal, and has been quotedas saying that it is a major problem in Dallas. Dog fighting is a majoranimal rights battle cry that HSUS is using as a false justification for newlaws against dog owners, almost none of whom have ever been involved withthis crime in any

way. Munch has close ties to HSUS through the Metroplex and city animal controlboards. HSUS has nothing to do with local Humane Societies, which helpanimals. Instead, HSUS is a national political action and lobbying group foranimal rights issues. Wayne Pacelle, the head of HSUS, has been quoted extensively about hisradical views on animal rights that oppose eating meat, pet ownership andhunting. He wrote: We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds oflivestock produced through selective breeding ...One generation and out. Wehave no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creationsof human selective breeding. Pacelle also said, "I have a hands-on fondness for animals. To this day Idon't feel bonded to any non-human animal. I like them and I pet them and Im kind to them, but there's no special bond between me and other animals Infact, I don't want to see another dog or cat

born." The Metroplex board also is endorsed by a wide range of animal rights groupsincluding the radical Animal Connection of Texas and a Buddhist groupcalled Ahimsa. Both of these groups advocate vegan vegetarianism. Trimble also works to end the breeding of dogs through his leadership rolein the Texas Humane Legislation Network. On its website, Trimble's group attacks dog breeders: Do not buy frombreeders. No matter how caring they appear to be about the animals they areselling, they are still contributing to the overpopulation crisis. At least25 percent of dogs entering shelters are full-bred dogs.â? Another quote: "~Don't breed or buy while animals in shelters die" is abumper sticker slogan worth taking to heart. What's The Problem? Proposed solutions such as the Dallas animal ordinance presume that there isa problem to solve. City officials have been quoted extensively as saying that Dallas has

asevere problem with pet overpopulation. What does that mean? "We have to do something? Acting Shelter Director Willie McDaniel said. Hedescribed an epidemic of stray dogs running loose in low-incomeneighborhoods, and also complaints by people who don't like their neighborsdogs. McDaniel then went on to bemoan the fact that Dallas free spay and neuterprogram isn't working, and that tougher laws are needed to force people tosterilize their pets. The answer, in the eyes of McDaniel, is to eliminate the private breeding ofdogs that are owned by the people who do not cause the problems. People whobreed dogs for show, hunting or competition are very selective, do not allowindiscriminate matings, and confine their dogs so that they cannot get bredaccidentally. Several newspaper articles say that Dallas has very poor compliance withrequired dog licensing rules, and Animal Control almost never

prosecutespeople who violate a strict leash law by allowing their pets to run loose.It also is reported that very little effort has been given to promote thefree spay and neuter clinics. Thus, it would appear that City Council has done little to try to solve theproblem by means that are available now, are pressing for new laws when theyrefuse to enforce the current ones, and are targeting the wrong people withthe new laws. In doing so, they have been led by the nose into embracing theanimal rights groups agenda to take a giant leap toward eliminatingresponsible breeding and private ownership of all animals. Shelter statistics for Dallas are hard to find, as they are combined withPlano and Fort Worth in data published by the state. A Dallas Morning News Article from 2006 said 28,686 dogs and cats wereimpounded in 2004. The article did not separate dogs from cats in the data.In 1994, 10 years earlier, 38,294

dogs and cats reportedly were impounded. Those figures indicate that there has been a 25-percent improvement in thesituation during that 10-year-long period. The improvement continues at an even more rapid rate. The most recentstatistics show that 26,979 dogs and cats entered the city shelter in FY2006-07. That is a 6-percent reduction in the most recent two years. Trimble's legislative advocacy group maintains that 25-percent of the dogsentering the animal shelter are full-bred animals that is, dogs thatresemble a recognized breed of dog and may or may not be purebreds. Thatfigure is standard HSUS rhetoric. What HSUS doesn't say is that about 20-percent of dogs entering shelters arebrought by their owners specifically for euthanasia because of old age,severe illness or debilitating injuries. They also don't say that dogs ofthe pit bull? breeds and crosses comprise between 25-percent and 70-percentof

shelter admissions nationwide, with large cities like Dallas tending tobe on the high end of the scale. These two categories of dogs account for almost all of the full-bred? orpurebred dogs entering shelters, nationwide statistics show. Moreover, national research of the major reasons for pet abandonment ranktoo many dogs or puppies sixth and 10th on the list of major causes. Thebiggest reasons are social factors, such as landlord issues, moves for jobchanges and divorce. Thus, the research shows, any effort toward forcedpopulation control would have a minimal impact on the problem, because mostof the abandoned pets are wanted by their owners. The Shotgun Solution? The animal rights groups are asking City Council to make a logic-defyingleap with the proposed new ordinances. While there is not one shred of evidence that hobby breeders contribute tothe problem in any significant way, the ordinances

target them for theelimination of activities that are done responsibly, involve hundreds if notthousands of law-abiding and conscientious Dallas residents, and play alarge role in the city's economy. Pets are a multi-million- dollar business in Dallas, and hobby breeders playa major role in purchasing veterinary services, food for their animals,supplies, equipment, fencing, building materials, advertising, businessservices and sporting goods at hundreds of businesses in the city. Hundredsof jobs are directly and indirectly at risk from these ordinances. Here is how the ordinance targets those innocent and responsible people whoalso are the geese that lay a golden egg for Dallas economy: a.. A person or family would be prohibited from keeping more than six dogs,cats, or a combination of dogs and cats. a.. All dogs and cats must be spayed or neutered at four months of age, orthe owner will face

confiscation of the animal and fines of up to $2,000 aday. This requirement flies in the face of much modern veterinary scienceresearch, and also exposes the city to devastating lawsuits (see below). a.. This provision would effectively outlaw dog shows and other canineevents in the City of Dallas, because anyone who lives outside of the citywould be subject to citations and stiff fines, and would risk having theirdogs confiscated and subjected to forced sterilization if they are notspayed or neutered. This would have a major negative economic impact onDallas businesses. a.. There are some provisions for obtaining a breeding permit, but McDanieland other city officials have been quoted as saying that breeders permitswill not be issued in residentially zoned areas, where most people who raisedogs live. It's a classic Catch 22? People can get a breeder's permit intheory, but not in practice. a.. In the

unlikely possibility that someone does not live in a residentialarea, breeders permits are available at the cost of $500 per year for eachdog or cat, but only if the owner and animal qualify. All other animals mustbe spayed or neutered. To qualify, the animalâ?Ts owner must be a member ofan approved club for the breed of dog or cat. a.. Breeders permits are available only for dogs that are registered with aregistry that meets the citys approval. To be approved, the registry mustconvince city officials that it maintains and enforces a code of ethics fordog and cat breeding that includes restrictions from breeding of dogs andcats with genetic defects and life threatening health problems that commonlythreaten the breed? This also is a Catch 22, as this would be unenforceableby a registry in the absence of personal inspections, discussing it with thedogs veterinarian, and mandating prohibitively expensive genetic

tests(thousands of dollars for some tests) that are not available for manyconditions. No registry would meet this standard. Thus, no registry couldqualify. a.. Anyone who owns a dog would be subject to unannounced inspections of hisor her home and property by animal control officers to assure compliancewith the ordinance. A search warrant would not be required, and probablecause would not have to be established. This is in direct violation ofprotections contained in the Bill of Rights of the both Texas and U.S.Constitutions. a.. If anyone is found with a dog that is not spayed or neutered, animalcontrol officers are empowered to seize and impound the animal. To get theanimal back, an owner would have to either obtain a breeding permit ofsterilize the dog. Dogs that are not reclaimed under this provision becomecity property, and can be adopted or euthanized. a.. Tethering is banned except for short

periods, and all kennels used tohouse dogs must be a minimum of 150 square feet. That size limitation makessense for a large dog, but is absurd for a Chihuahua. a.. Several other provisions would stringently regulate dangerous dog,animals used for research, circuses and other performance events. Possessionof certain kinds of animals is prohibited or severely restricted. a.. Fines of up to $2,000 for each day of noncompliance are provided, withhigher fines for repeat offenders. It is clear that the intention of the writers of this ordinance has nothingat all to do with reducing the number of stray dogs in poor neighborhoods ofDallas. It is a naked attempt to deny people the right to raise and breeddogs, and clearly is part of the animal rights plan to eliminate dogs fromthe lives of people. Sterilize now and, as Wayne Pacelle of HSUS said, onegeneration and out? It must be emphasized that hobby breeders

play a vital role in helpingpeople to obtain companion animals that will be an intergal part of theirfamily for more than a decade. Dedicated hobby breeders work hard to improvetemperament, genetic health, beauty and utility in the various breeds ofdogs, and offer an important alternative to shelter and rescue dogs whosehealth background, history, disposition and genetic backgrounds are unknown.Hobby breeders do not contribute to the problem. Indeed, they are the mostimportant element in the solution. In this regard, too, the proposed Dallasordinances are wholly counterproductive. Hobby breeders and other people whoown purebred dogs are not responsible for people who allow mixed-breed dogsto roam the streets and breed indiscriminately. There is utterly nojustification for restricting or eliminating hobby breeding. Indeed, thereare many excellent and proven reasons why it should be strongly encouraged! But

Lawyers Will Love It If City Council approves these ordinance revisions, one thing is certain.The City of Dallas will become embroiled in a nonstop series of lawsuits bydog owners who can claim damages if their pet is diagnosed with one of themany serious and sometimes fatal medical conditions that have been linked byrecent research to spaying and neutering, especially at a young age. They also will have to face legal challenges based on the Texas property lawand for violations of due process and search and seizure protectionsenshrined in the Texas and U.S. Constitutions. The American Veterinary Medical Association has long advocated spaying andneutering of dogs, and continues to do so, under the belief that thebenefits outweigh the risks. However, recent research has led manyindividual veterinarians to seriously question this premise, and a majorityof the most recent research indicates that there are

substantial risksinvolved with sterilization. This has the strong potential to become a majorliability issue for City of Dallas taxpayers. A 2007 analysis of the research by Dr. Larry Katz of Rutgers Universityconcluded: Tradition holds that the benefits of (sterilization) at an early ageoutweigh the risks. Often, tradition holds sway in the decision-makingprocess even after countervailing evidence has accumulated. Ms (Laura)Sanborn has reviewed the veterinary medical literature in an exhaustive andscholarly treatise, attempting to unravel the complexities of the subject.More than 50 peer-reviewed papers were examined to assess the health impactsof spay / neuter in female and male dogs, respectively. One cannot ignorethe findings of increased risk from osteosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma,hypothyroidism, and other less frequently occurring diseases associated withneutering male dogs. It would be irresponsible of the

veterinary professionand the pet owning community to fail to weigh the relative costs andbenefits of neutering on the animals health and well-being. The decision forfemales may be more complex, further emphasizing the need for individualizedveterinary medical decisions, not standard operating procedures for allpatients? Sanborns review of the research concluded: The number of health problems associated with neutering may exceed theassociated health benefits in most cases. On the positive side, neutering male dogs · eliminates the small risk of dying from testicular cancer · reduces the risk of non-cancerous prostate disorders · reduces the risk of perianal fistulas · may possibly reduce the risk of diabetes (data inconclusive) . On the negative side, neutering male dogs a.. if done before 1 year of age, significantly increases the risk ofosteosarcoma (bone cancer); this is a common cancer

in medium/large andlarger breeds with a poor prognosis. b.. increases the risk of cardiac hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 1.6 c.. triples the risk of hypothyroidism d.. increases the risk of progressive geriatric cognitive impairment e.. triples the risk of obesity, a common health problem in dogs with manyassociated health problems f.. quadruples the small risk of prostate cancer g.. doubles the small risk of urinary tract cancers h.. increases the risk of orthopedic disorders i.. increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations. For female dogs, the situation is more complex. The number of healthbenefits associated with spaying may exceed the associated health problemsin some (not all) cases. On balance, whether spaying improves the odds ofoverall good health or degrades them probably depends on the age of thefemale dog and the relative risk of various diseases in the different breedsOn the

positive side, spaying female dogs a.. if done before 2.5 years of age, greatly reduces the risk of mammarytumors, the most common malignant tumors in female dogs b.. nearly eliminates the risk of pyometra, which otherwise would affectabout 23% of intact female dogs; pyometra kills about 1% of intact femaledogs c.. reduces the risk of perianal fistulas d.. removes the very small risk from uterine, cervical, and ovarian tumors On the negative side, spaying female dogs a.. if done before 1 year of age, significantly increases the risk ofosteosarcoma (bone cancer); this is a common cancer in larger breeds with apoor prognosis b.. increases the risk of splenic hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 2.2 andcardiac hemangiosarcoma by a factor of greater than five; this is a commoncancer and major cause of death in some breeds c.. triples the risk of hypothyroidism d.. increases the risk of obesity, a common health

problem in dogs with manyassociated health problems e.. causes urinary spay incontinence? in 4-20% of female dogs f.. increases the risk of persistent or recurring urinary tract infectionsby a factor of 3-4 g.. increases the risk of recessed vulva, vaginal dermatitis, and vaginitis,especially for female dogs spayed before puberty h.. doubles the small risk of urinary tract tumors i.. increases the risk of orthopedic disorders j.. increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations Sanborn concluded: One thing is clear?" much of the spay/neuter informationthat is available to the public is unbalanced and contains claims that areexaggerated or unsupported by evidence. Rather than helping to educate petowners, much of it has contributed to common misunderstandings about thehealth risks and benefits? It is ASDAs opinion that these research findings cast enough doubt on thepractice of universal

sterilization to make it inadvisable if not recklessfor any level of government to mandate spaying or neutering at this point intime. Moreover, such a mandate would expose any governing body to substantiallegal and financial liability if individual pet owners successfully claimdamages based on current or future research. Other Legal Concerns There will be many grounds to take the City of Dallas to court if thisordinance is approved. Many will be based on the simple fact that similar ordinances have proven tobe completely counterproductive in several cities around the country,including San Antonio, Texas. San Antonio rates of shelter admissionsdoubled in the year following enactment of a similar ordinance, as dideuthanasia rates. Thus, any lawsuit would begin on very solid legal ground:The city should have known beyond a shadow of a doubt that there would be nopossibility that these kinds of

ordinances would solve the problem, and toignore that evidence is reckless and negligent. The jury is in on several communities that have tried this approach, and theverdict is unanimous: They failed miserably. We have examined Dallas zoning codes, and can see nothing that wouldprohibit hobby breeding of dogs. The zoning code clearly permits residentsof residentially zoned areas to make occasional sales of personal property,as long as it does not constitute a business. Thus, there is no legal basis for denying breeding permits in residentialareas. Under Section 42.002(a)(11) of the Texas Property Code, a state law definingproperty rights, government is expressly prohibited from seizing householdpets? for any reason, including actions of eminent domain and bankruptcy. This state law clearly prohibits the City of Dallas from seizing any pet forany reason. The Bill of Rights in the Texas

Constitution clearly states: â?oThe peopleshall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from allunreasonable seizures or searchesâ?¦,â? and that a warrant shall be requiredin all cases. To obtain a warrant, probable cause of a legal violation mustbe shown. The Bill of Rights also is equally clear that people must be properlycompensated if any level of government seizes or destroys their property forany reason: No person's property shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for orapplied to public use without adequate compensation being made? Thus, under the Bill of Rights, it would appear that the City of Dallaswould be required to compensate a dog owner for the fair market value of anydog that is seized or destroyed, as dogs are considered to be personalproperty under Texas law. This issue of taking may extend farther, as a mandate to spay and neuteralso would be a taking of the value of the

property, since a dog could notbe used to provide valuable stud services or raise valuable puppies. Simplyput, a spayed or neutered dog is not worth as much money as a dog that isintact. The city thus would be taking the value of this dog, and would berequired by law to provide the owner with fair compensation. Lawyers truly would love this ordinance, all the way to the bank Please Help Dallas Dog Owners The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all of our members andsupporters to offer assistance to Dallas dog owners in this vital fight topreserve their fundamental rights. The proposed ordinances are slated to be discussed at a meeting of CityCouncils Quality of Life Committee on Monday, April 28. The announcement didnot state the time or place of this meeting, or if the public will beallowed to attend or participate. Trimbles Texas Humane Legislation Network,a radical animal rights group, prepared

and distributed the officialannouncement. The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges all Dallas residents to contactCity Council members (contact information is given below) prior to thismeeting. We are supporting the efforts of two Texas groups to fight these proposedordinances: The Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (www.responsiblepet ownersorg) and The Texas Kennel Club (contact Nancy Wright at OrielPWCs@verizonnet). Dog owners have retained an attorney, Zandra Anderson, to represent thembefore City Council. Residents of Dallas should forward information to Ms.Wright or The American Sporting Dog Alliance, to be passed along to theattorney. She needs to know that you are a resident of Dallas, yourprofession, the kinds of dogs that you own, and the events in which youparticipate. This information will be submitted to City Council. The American Sporting Dog Alliance also urges dog owners who do not

live inDallas to offer their support to dog owners in that city. Please contact Ms.Wright and let her know how you can help, or contact us at asda (AT) csonline (DOT) netand we'll pass on your information to the appropriate people. We strongly suggest letters of protest to the Dallas Morning News as aletter to the editor, and also to each member of Dallas City Council. TheAmerican Sporting Dog Alliance has written to all of them, but it is vitalthat citizens respond vocally, too. Here are their email addresses: Dallas Morning News Letters to the Editor bmong (AT) dallasnews (DOT) com City of

Dallas 1500 Marilla Street Dallas, Texas 75201 Mayor Tom Leppert Phone: (214) 670-4054 Fax: (214) 670-0646 Tom.leppert@ dallascityhall. com City Manager Mary Suhm Phone: (214) 670-3296 Fax: (214) 670-3946 Mary.Suhm@dallascit yhall.com Asst. City Manager David Brown (supervises Animal Services) Phone: (214) 670-3390 Fax: (214) 670-4965 David.brown@ dallascityhall. com Mayor Pro Tem Dr. Elba Garcia Phone: (214) 670-4052 Fax: (214) 670-3409 Elba.garcia@ dallascityhall. com Councilmember Pauline Medrano Chairman: Quality of Life Committee Phone: (214) 670-4048 Fax: (214) 670-5117 Pauline.medrano@ dallascityhall. com Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Dwaine Caraway Phone: (214) 670-0781 Fax: (214) 670-3409 Dwaine.caraway@ dallascityhall. com Councilmember David Neumann Member: Quality of Life Committee Phone: (214) 670-0776 Fax: (214) 670-1833 David.neumann@ dallascityhall. com Councilmember Vonciel Jones Hill Vice-Chair: Quality of Life Committee Phone: (214) 670-0777 Fax: (214) 670-5117 Vonciel.hill@ dallascityhall. com Councilmember Steve Salazar Member: Quality of Life Committee Phone: (214) 670-4199 Fax: (214) 670-5115 Steven.salazar@ dallascityhall. com Councilmember Carolyn Davis Quality of Life Committee Phone: (214) 670-4689 Fax: (214) 670-5115 Carolyn.davis@ dallascityhall. com Councilmember Tennell Atkins Phone: (214) 670-4066 Fax: (214) 670-5115 Tennell.atkins@ dallascityhall. com Councilmember Sheffield Kadane Quality of Life Committee

Phone: (214) 670-4069 Fax: (214) 670-5115 sheffield.kadane@ dallascityhall. com Councilmember Jerry Allen Phone: (214) 670-4068 Fax: (214) 670-5115 Jerry.allen@ dallascityhall. com Councilmember Linda Koop Phone: (214) 670-7817 Fax: (214) 670-5117 Debra.brown@ dallascityhall. com Councilmember Ron Natinsky Phone: (214)

670-4067 Fax: (214) 670-5117 District12@dallasci tyhall.com Councilmember Mitchell Rasansky Phone: (214) 670-3816 Fax: (214) 670-5117 Mitchell.rasansky@ dallascityhall. com Councilmember Angela Hunt Phone: (214) 6 70-5415 Fax: (214) 670-5117 Angela.hunt@ dallascityhall. com http://pets.Fortheanimals7/join