MICHIGAN current anti-tethering movement

Michigan Citizens Against Canine Long-Term Tethering, headed by Annie Carlson, a substitute teacher from Swartz Creek, MI and backed by Michigan HSUS are looking for a sponsor of an anti-tethering bill. The following is my response. Please share with others and write your reps and your Governor. Fight Anti-Tether legislation. Thank you for your time.

(For those of you fighting BSL, please do your research, it has (of course) been ineffective in other areas and others are repealing legislation. You can find research and statistics to fight NO BSL laws. There is NO valid scientific research in support of it.)







Dear extreme animal rights activists groups, I am not fooled by your propaganda.
Citizens and Legislative Representatives of Michigan and elsewhere, the following are 5 'facts' provided by Anti-Tethering groups they want you to believe:
1. "A study by the AVMA reported that 17 % of dogs involved in fatal attacks on humans between 1979 and 1998 were restrained on their owners’ property at the time of the attack.”
**Per this study, the other 82% (!) were UNRESTRAINED on or off their owners’ property. Oh, and by the way...AVMA would like you to know, THEY DIDN'T EVEN CONDUCT THIS STUDY! (Individual investigators did...including some from HSUS).

http://www.avma.org/advocacy/state/issues/javma_000915_fatalattacks.pdf
**Per Sacks, Sinclair, et al (2000): ”Of the 27 fatalities in 1997 and 1998…unrestrained dogs accounted for 23 deaths, while restrained dogs were responsible for 4 deaths.”

**Per lawcore.com: “…and the remainder (only 15%) of the fatal dog bite statistics are made up of dog bites from restrained dogs." 85% percent of all fatal dog bites are from UNRESTRAINED dogs.
http://www.lawcore.com/animal-and-dog-bite/statistics.html
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Study “Dogs most likely to bite are male, unneutered, and chained.”

***This study only looked at 18% of the dog bites reported in Denver county in 1991. This alone makes this statement invalid and inapplicable to even Denver County let alone dogs as a whole population.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dog3.pdf
On an interesting side note, the CDC stopped tracking dog bites by breed as a risk factor (as this study was) in 1998 as they knew their findings regarding this were not science nor something to be used for public policy...as proponents of breed specific legislation special interest groups were trying to do. AVMA and CDC issued a statement on it. They were tired of these folks using a ten year old study to try to get laws changed. No really, that's what they said. Read for yourself.
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/avma-cdc-2008-final.pdf




3. Fatal Dog Attacks, by Karen Delise:
“1965-2001, 25% were inflicted by chained dogs…” Here they also list reasons dogs attack, tethering not being one of them.
** Unrestrained dogs are again responsible for the significant majority (75%) of fatal dog attacks. Further, tethering isn't listed as one of the contributors to fatal attacks. This is their argument? Ha!
(I can only find a broken link to the study online, seems it's a book for sale now...).
4. The AVMA does not have an official policy or position on the tethering of dogs, regardless of what these groups want you to believe. See for yourself.
http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/policies.asp


However, when this animal rights movement invaded Nevada, Nevada Veterinary Medical Associaiton did take a position on the bill: "The Nevada Veterinary Medical Association has also announced opposition to the (anti tethering) bill, S.B. 132.Â" which "reflects a limit of 14 hours per day for tethering". The Michigan movement is pushing for a far more restrictive bill than that, citing no more than one hour, 3 x a day, with 3 hours in between each tether period. The Nevada bill passed 2009, though AR groups seemed to have protected themselves from the bill with the inclusion of this: "The bill would not apply to dogs...as part of a rescue operation" which many of these groups claim to be. So, it's humane, safe, and legal for them, though not for the general population of Nevada's responsble dog owners.


5. 'USDA states tethering is inhumane.' Really?
**"Persons...who tether their dogs are likely to be using this means of restraint under circumstances differrent than those typical to wholesale and breeding facilities. In these cases, tethering may be a humane method of restraint."
USDA Federal Register
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1997-09-25/pdf/97-25482.pdf
**Study from Cornell University: “There was no indication that tethering was more detrimental to the dogs' welfare than housing in a pen." Yeon, Golden, et al (2001)
http://www.ncraoa.com/PDF/Tethering/TetheringPenning
Annie argues this law is 'antiquated'...outdated, and needs to be modified. Seems we just paid our legislators in 2007 to take a good look and update it. House Bill no. 4551 introduced in 2007 passed. Effective 2008.


http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billintroduced/House/htm/2007-HIB-4551.htm


http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(afmzlv55pwgglf55tsj1qxag))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=2007-HB-4551


Then, why would Annie use this word 'antiquated' instead of 'updated' or 'modified' to describe this obviously recently modified law? Maybe it's because in Michigan Governor Rick Snyder's State of the State Address on January 19th, 2011, he stated this as one of his requests to the legislature..."Third, we will propose the elimination or modification of antiquated laws." Just a hunch...
http://eupnews.com/2011/01/transcript-of-governor-snyders-state-of-state-address/


Annie also states, "In severe cases, they also may develop deep scars or dangerous infections if their collar becomes embedded in their necks as a result of long-term tethering."
A collar embedded into a dog's neck is the result of an owner who neglects to loosen the collar as a dog grows...whether that dog is kept on a tether, in a pen, a crate, a fenced yard, or a home.


Working with Animal Rights Activist Annie on this effort is Michigan State Director of HSUS Jill Fritz, who is overseeing all legislative and lobbying activities in Michgian for HSUS. Who is Jill Fritz? "Before joining HSUS in 2006, Fritz was the national coordinator of World Farm Animals Day, a project of the Maryland-based Farm Animal Rights Movement (FARM), and a student coordinator for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). She was also a radio producer at San Diego's KPBS." Yes, Michigan, you read that right, PETA, FARM, and HSUS. Jill has also operated in CA, MN, and WI.
http://humanewatch.org/index.php/people/detail/jill_fritz/


Jill and Annie were interviewed by the Mid Michigan Pet Experts Talk Show that aired on April 30, 2011 on WILS Lansing. When asked how folks can help and learn more about the missions of HSUS just discussed on air, Jill responded with a different organization. Michiganders For Shelter Pets. Sounds nice. Sounds like an organization that simply donates direct to shelters. When you go to the site you see that if you'd like to contact the group, you can contact Jill. MSP takes donations throught the MI Pet Fund. Money goes to support AR lobby activities...initiatives of HSUS. Why would Michigan Director of HSUS tell folks to go to this organization to help HSUS...instead of the HSUS? Maybe because HSUS has been sued under the Racketteer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act? Maybe because 6 congressmen have requested an investigation into their tax exemption status? I wonder if they think directing their money donations through other 'non-profit' organizations that seem to be organized by them will throw the IRS off their tail? Sure leaves me with a whole lot of questions, you?
To hear the interview online, go to www.wils.com direct yourself to the show's audio recordings.



Now, if this isn't who you want representing you to your legislators, you 'd better speak up.

May 1st, 2011 was the one year anniversary of Naples, FL passing an anti-tethering law. Here's how it turned out: "For Commissioner Jim Colletta, his district has experienced a surge in reports of dog attacks to both humans and livestock last year."



I am not fooled by your propaganda.



FACT:



Tethers don't abuse and neglect dogs, irresponsible owners do. Abuse and neglect of an animal is already a felony in Michigan. Don't waste taxpayers' money on anti-tethering laws.


Do your own research and contact your lawmakers today, tell them you you know the facts.
http://www.house.michigan.gov/find_a_rep.asp
http://www.senate.michigan.gov/FindYourSenator/byaddress.htm
Rick.Snyder@michigan.gov
For far more interesting reading and facts, check out www.humanewatch.org