h1.CAMPAIGN SUMMARY: Why and how we will stop DC Bill 17-089.
• DC Bill 17-089, or the Animal Protection Act of 2007, as dubbed by its creators is anything but an act of protection. The bill addresses the classification of dangerous dogs (Section 111) and proposes to amend the Dangerous Dog Amendment of 1988.
• The proposed legislation will enable the Mayor (Adrian Fenty) to solely determine whether a dog is dangerous or potentially dangerous.
• In this case, if the Mayor has probable cause to believe a dog is dangerous or potentially dangerous, he can order a search of your home, seize and impound your dog, and then hold you liable for the expenses of impoundment.
• A hearing before the Superior Court would then be held to decide if your dog should be destroyed. Even if the court determines your dog should not be killed, the Mayor still retains the right to declare your dog dangerous and force you to comply with a series of unjust regulations and restrictions.
• Councilwoman Mary Cheh and her staff have put together a series of revisions to DC B17-089. This amendment to the original bill will make it much more difficult for the Mayor to legally define a dog as dangerous or potentially dangerous. If Ms.Cheh’s amendment is not accepted, this bill must be voted down.
• We must lobby our government officials to vote NO to this unfair piece of legislation. No one person should have the legal authority to infringe on your rights as a citizen and as a pet owner. We will agree to write letters and make phone calls to our DC City Council member as well as Mayor Fenty himself if 75 people join. If this fails, we will stage a protest in front of City Council.
h1.CAMPAIGN DETAILS: Protecting the rights of DC dogs and dog owners.
Washington, DC is a city where a quarter of its citizens own a dog. Compare that to New York City, where the percentage is nearly double. Why is that? DC has become a place that is not very dog friendly. The DC government and other city departments, including the Metro Police Department (MPD) and the Department of Health (DoH) have consistently aligned themselves against dog welfare.
There were fifteen incidents where dogs were killed by MPD officers in 2007. MPD officers are not trained properly in handling situations with aggressive dogs. Animal Control is under the umbrella of DoH, and the behavior of the DoH can only lead the public to believe that the DoH has made it their business to reduce the number of dogs in the city. This structuring renders Animal Control useless as an organization that fights for animal welfare.
Now, the DC City Council is attempting to do their part in making DC less dog friendly. DC Bill 17-089 under the title of ‘Animal Protection Act of 2007’ has been proposed by a group of city council men and women. The act, which includes revision to the Dangerous Dog Amendment of 1988, serves as an unjust and arguably unconstitutional piece of legislation that could be interpreted as a death sentence for many dogs in the city. The amendment defines what it is to be a ‘dangerous’ or ‘potentially dangerous’ dog, and puts the determination of this classification squarely on the Mayor’s shoulders. Mayor Adrian Fenty would be given the legal authority to declare a dog as either dangerous or potentially dangerous. He could then order the search of your home, seizure and impoundment of your dog, and ultimately order the death of your dog after an informal hearing. Whether you own a large or small dog is no matter. Any incident that could be misinterpreted could be the one that leads to the ‘humane destruction’, as the proposal states, of your dog. There is nothing humane; however, about this bill and its opposition is a must.
This bill gives unqualified individuals the right to decide the fate of DC dogs. Animal experts should be making these decisions, not politicians. This bill would make certain breeds of dogs, particularly big dogs, nearly impossible to own in the city. Even if your dog has done nothing wrong and is found to be innocent of any wrong doing by the Superior Court of DC, the Mayor can still classify your dog as dangerous. This would force the owners of these dogs to adhere to a series of regulations including; the payment of an annual fee to the DC government, the securement of a policy of liability insurance for an amount of up to $50,000, and the strict confinement of your dog. Failure to comply with these ridiculous regulations could result in fines of up to $1,000 or even a sentence of up to 90 days in prison. This is a clear infringement of rights and it is time for citizens to step up and act on behalf of dog welfare.
h2.OUR GOAL: A series of actions to stop DC Bill 17-089
The goal of this campaign is to enlist 75 supporters who will agree to engage in a social contract with each other to write a letter and make a phone call to the DC City Council member who is responsible for your district. Once we reach the tipping point of 75 people, we will all write one letter and make one call to both our individual Council members, as well as to Mayor Fenty. This will hit the Council members and the Mayor with a timely and concentrated force of public pressure. This bill will go before the Council Judiciary Committee in the coming months. In our letters & phone calls, we will insist that the City Council must either accept the amendment of Councilwoman Cheh or the bill’s progress must be halted. Include these demands in your correspondence with the City Council. The voice of dog owners needs to be heard and the DC government...Read More
message
