The City of Dallas is facing a series of animal control ordinances that will  strip dog owners of all property rights to their animals, eliminate private  breeding of purebred dogs, subject dog owners to unconstitutional searches  and seizures and, in fact, impose the full animal rights dream agenda of the  radical People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the only  slightly 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 only  have 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 faces  similar ordinances because of the actions and influence of the quasi-official  Metroplex Animal Coalition, which is dominated by HSUS and PETA members and  supporters, an investigation by The American Sporting Dog Alliance shows. No  known representatives of dog owners groups or kennel clubs are listed as members  of either the Metroplex or City of Dallas boards.

This group also has exported it’s agenda to other cities, such as Houston,  where the animal control program now is administered by a former Dallas animal  control board President, Kent Robertson, who has worked closely with HSUS  and conducted training seminars for the radical group. In 2002, Robertson  brought in a team of six officials from the HSUS national office to review Dallas  animal control programs and make recommendations.

Robertson barely let the ink dry on his contract before he convinced city  council to institute restrictive breeders licenses in Houston last year. The  Associated Press reported that no one had applied for the required breeders’  permits three months after the ordinance took effect, and thus were running the  risk of fines of up to $2,000 a day.

This time, Dallas dog owners are in the crosshairs and animal rights groups  have 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-door “ briefing” between animal activists and city officials by Metroplex Animal  Coalition President Elaine Munch.

Munch is closely aligned with HSUS. In a description about how the Metroplex  Complex was formed, she wrote: “We asked our regional office of HSUS and  other national groups for help in identifying those to invite.”

Also, HSUS representative Lou Guyton is a member of the Metroplex Coalition  Advisory Board, as is long-time PETA ally and award winner Robert “Skip”  Trimble, an animal rights attorney who also is president of the City of Dallas  Animal Shelter Commission, chairman of the board of the PETA-like Texas Humane  Legislative Network and a director of the radical fringe Animal Legal  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 “Pets For  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. Councilwoman  Pauline Medrana was quoted as calling the ordinances “fair, firm and comprehensive, ” and Council Members Dave Neumann, Mitchell Rasansky and Ron Natinsky  reportedly expressed their support.

“Almost all council members stressed being aggressive in getting the  ordinances ready ASAP/with a sense of urgency,” Munch wrote of the briefing. “(…The  ordinances) were received very well with no council members showing any  opposition to these proposed  ordinances.”

Trimble and Munch are key players in the animal rights takeover of the  Dallas Metroplex. Both hold leadership positions on both the City and metro  advisory boards, and both have close ties to radical animal rights groups that  oppose the private ownership of animals.

PETA awarded Trimble its 2001 “Activist Award” for his work on Texas animal  rights issues, and he also was honored by HSUS in 1997 with a “Legislative  Achievement Award” and by a New Mexico group in 2000 for “lifelong commitment  to 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 a  former animal abuser,” Trimble says. “I used to own racehorses, raise roping  steers, hunt and eat meat.”

Now, Trimble describes himself as a vegan vegetarian, deplores traditional  farming and ranching, and echoes the animal rights agenda of opposition to  breeding animals, hunting, rodeos and competing with horses.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance believes that only a handful of Dallas  residents would agree with Trimble’s idea of animal abuse, and that a large  majority would describe his views as radical fringe - if not fruitcake fringe!  We urge City Council to reject these views and uphold the values and beliefs  of the large majority of Dallas residents. No state has fought harder than  Texas to protect the rights of individuals from unwarranted intrusion by  government, beginning with the Alamo and continuing into the modern era.

As an attorney, Trimble has developed a specialty of using the law as a tool  to advance the animal rights agenda, and is credited with playing the major  role and banning the slaughter of horses in Texas. In one case, his work  bolstered PETA in shutting down a Texas primate sanctuary. Trimble was with the  police on the raid, and the effort received direct praise from PETA President  Ingrid Newkirk on the organization’s website.

Trimble also is capitalizing on  the Michael Vicks dog fighting scandal, and has been quoted as saying that  it is a major problem in Dallas. Dog fighting is a major animal rights battle  cry that HSUS is using as a false justification for new laws against dog  owners, almost none of whom have ever been involved with this crime in any way.  Munch has close ties to HSUS through the Metroplex and city animal control  boards. HSUS has nothing to do with local Humane Societies, which help  animals. Instead, HSUS is a national political action and lobbying group for animal rights issues.

Wayne Pacelle, the head of HSUS, has been quoted extensively about his  radical views on animal rights that oppose eating meat, pet ownership and hunting.  He wrote: “We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of  livestock produced through selective breeding ...One generation and out. We  have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations  of human selective breeding.”

Pacelle also said, “I don’t have a hands-on fondness for animals…To this  day I don’t feel bonded to any non-human animal. I like them and I pet them and  I’m kind to them, but there’s no special bond between me and other animals…  In fact, I don’t want to see another dog or cat born.”

The Metroplex board also is endorsed by a wide range of animal rights  groups, including the radical Animal Connection of Texas and a Buddhist group  called Ahimsa. Both of these groups advocate vegan vegetarianism.

Trimble also works to end the breeding of dogs through his leadership role in the Texas Humane Legislation Network.

On its website, Trimble’s group attacks dog breeders: “Do not buy from  breeders. No matter how caring they appear to be about the animals they are  selling, they are still contributing to the overpopulation crisis. At least 25  percent of dogs entering shelters are full-bred dogs.”

Another quote: " ‘Don't breed or buy while animals in shelters die’ is a  bumper sticker slogan worth taking to heart.”

What’s The Problem?

Proposed solutions such as the Dallas animal ordinance presume that there is  a problem to solve.
City officials have been quoted extensively as saying that Dallas has a  severe problem with “pet overpopulation.” What does that mean?  "We have to do something,” Acting Shelter Director Willie McDaniel said. He  described an epidemic of stray dogs running loose in low-income  neighborhoods, and also complaints by people who don’t like their neighbors’ dogs.  McDaniel then went on to bemoan the fact that Dallas’ free spay and neuter  program isn’t working, and that tougher laws are needed to force people to  sterilize their pets.

The answer, in the eyes of McDaniel, is to eliminate the private breeding of  dogs that are owned by the people who do not cause the problems. People who  breed dogs for show, hunting or competition are very selective, do not allow  indiscriminate matings, and confine their dogs so that they cannot get bred  accidentally.

Several newspaper articles say that Dallas has very poor compliance with  required dog licensing rules, and Animal Control almost never prosecutes people  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 the free spay  and neuter clinics.

Thus, it would appear that City Council has done little to try to solve the  problem by means that are available now, are pressing for new laws when they  refuse to enforce the current ones, and are targeting the wrong people with  the new laws. In doing so, they have been led by the nose into embracing the  animal rights groups’ agenda to take a giant leap toward eliminating  responsible breeding and private ownership of all animals.

Shelter statistics for Dallas are hard to find, as they are combined with  Plano and Fort Worth in data published by the state.

A Dallas Morning News Article from 2006 said 28,686 dogs and cats were  impounded 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 the  situation during that 10-year-long period.

The improvement continues at an even more rapid rate. The most recent  statistics show that 26,979 dogs and cats entered the city shelter in FY 2006-07.  That is a 6-percent reduction in the most recent two years.

Trimble’s legislative advocacy group maintains that 25-percent of the dogs  entering the animal shelter are “full-bred” animals – that is, dogs that  resemble a recognized breed of dog and may or may not be purebreds. That figure  is standard HSUS rhetoric.

What HSUS doesn’t say is that about 20-percent of dogs entering shelters are  brought by their owners specifically for euthanasia because of old age,  severe illness or debilitating injuries. They also don’t say that dogs of the “ pit bull” breeds and crosses comprise between 25-percent and 70-percent of  shelter admissions nationwide, with large cities like Dallas tending to be on  the high end of the scale.

These two categories of dogs account for almost all of the “full-bred” or  purebred dogs entering shelters, nationwide statistics show.

Moreover, national research of the major reasons for pet abandonment rank  too many dogs or puppies sixth and 10th on the list of major causes. The  biggest reasons are social factors, such as landlord issues, moves for job changes  and divorce. Thus, the research shows, any effort toward forced population  control would have a minimal impact on the problem, because most of the  abandoned pets are wanted by their owners.

The Shotgun “Solution”

The animal rights groups are asking City Council to make a logic-defying  leap with the proposed new ordinances.

While there is not one shred of evidence that hobby breeders contribute to  the problem in any significant way, the ordinances target them for the  elimination of activities that are done responsibly, involve hundreds if not  thousands of law-abiding and conscientious Dallas residents, and play a large role  in the city’s economy.

Pets are a multi-million-dollar business in Dallas, and hobby breeders play  a major role in purchasing veterinary services, food for their animals,  supplies, equipment, fencing, building materials, advertising, business services  and sporting goods at hundreds of businesses in the city. Hundreds of jobs are  directly and indirectly at risk from these ordinances.

Here is how the ordinance targets those innocent and responsible people who  also are the geese that lay a golden egg for Dallas’ economy:

* A person or family would be prohibited from keeping more than six  dogs, cats, or a combination of dogs and cats.
* All dogs and cats must be spayed or neutered at four months of age,  or the owner will face confiscation of the animal and fines of up to $2,000 a  day. This requirement flies in the face of much modern veterinary science  research, and also exposes the city to devastating lawsuits (see below).
* This provision would effectively outlaw dog shows and other canine  events in the City of Dallas, because anyone who lives outside of the city  would be subject to citations and stiff fines, and would risk having their dogs  confiscated and subjected to forced sterilization if they are not spayed or  neutered. This would have a major negative economic impact on Dallas  businesses.
* There are some provisions for obtaining a breeding permit, but  McDaniel and other city officials have been quoted as saying that breeders’  permits will not be issued in residentially zoned areas, where most people who  raise dogs live. It’s a classic “Catch 22.” People can get a breeder’s permit  in theory, but not in practice.
* In the unlikely possibility that someone does not live in a  residential area, breeders’ permits are available at the cost of $500 per year for  each dog or cat, but only if the owner and animal qualify. All other animals  must be spayed or neutered. To qualify, the animal’s owner must be a member of  an approved club for the breed of dog or cat.
* Breeders’ permits are available only for dogs that are registered  with a registry that meets the city’s approval. To be approved, the registry  must convince city officials that it “maintains and enforces a code of ethics  for dog and cat breeding that includes restrictions from breeding of dogs and  cats with genetic defects and life threatening health problems that commonly  threaten the breed.” This also is a “Catch 22,” as this would be  unenforceable by a registry in the absence of personal inspections, discussing it with  the dog’s veterinarian, and mandating prohibitively expensive genetic tests  (thousands of dollars for some tests) that are not available for many  conditions. No registry would meet this standard. Thus, no registry could qualify.
* Anyone who owns a dog would be subject to unannounced inspections of  his or her home and property by animal control officers to assure compliance  with the ordinance. A search warrant would not be required, and probable  cause would not have to be established. This is in direct violation of  protections contained in the Bill of Rights of the both Texas and U.S. Constitutions.
* If anyone is found with a dog that is not spayed or neutered, animal  control officers are empowered to seize and impound the animal. To get the  animal back, an owner would have to either obtain a breeding permit of  sterilize the dog. Dogs that are not reclaimed under this provision become city  property, and can be adopted or euthanized.
* Tethering is banned except for short periods, and all kennels used  to house dogs must be a minimum of 150 square feet. That size limitation makes  sense for a large dog, but is absurd for a Chihuahua.
* Several other provisions would stringently regulate dangerous dog,  animals used for research, circuses and other performance events. Possession  of certain kinds of animals is prohibited or severely restricted.
* Fines of up to $2,000 for each day of noncompliance are provided,  with higher fines for repeat offenders.

It is clear that the intention of the writers of this ordinance has nothing  at all to do with reducing the number of stray dogs in poor neighborhoods of  Dallas. It is a naked attempt to deny people the right to raise and breed  dogs, and clearly is part of the animal rights plan to eliminate dogs from the  lives of people. Sterilize now and, as Wayne Pacelle of HSUS said, “one  generation and out.”

It must be emphasized that hobby breeders play a vital role in helping  people to obtain companion animals that will be an intergal part of their family  for more than a decade. Dedicated hobby breeders work hard to improve  temperament, genetic health, beauty and utility in the various breeds of dogs, and  offer an important alternative to shelter and rescue dogs whose health  background, history, disposition and genetic backgrounds are unknown.  Hobby breeders do not contribute to the problem. Indeed, they are the most  important element in the solution. In this regard, too, the proposed Dallas  ordinances are wholly counterproductive. Hobby breeders and other people who  own purebred dogs are not responsible for people who allow mixed-breed dogs to  roam the streets and breed indiscriminately. There is utterly no  justification for restricting or eliminating hobby breeding. Indeed, there are 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 by dog  owners who can claim damages if their pet is diagnosed with one of the many  serious and sometimes fatal medical conditions that have been linked by  recent research to spaying and neutering, especially at a young age.

They also will have to face legal challenges based on the Texas property  law, and for violations of due process and search and seizure protections  enshrined in the Texas and U.S. Constitutions.

The American Veterinary Medical Association has long advocated spaying and  neutering of dogs, and continues to do so, under the belief that the benefits  outweigh the risks. However, recent research has led many individual  veterinarians to seriously question this premise, and a majority of the most recent  research indicates that there are substantial risks involved with  sterilization. This has the strong potential to become a major liability issue for City  of Dallas taxpayers.

A 2007 analysis of the research by Dr. Larry Katz of Rutgers University  concluded: “Tradition holds that the benefits of (sterilization) at an early age  outweigh the risks. Often, tradition holds sway in the decision-making process even  after countervailing evidence has accumulated. Ms (Laura) Sanborn has revie wed the veterinary medical literature in an exhaustive and scholarly treatise,  attempting to unravel the complexities of the subject. More than 50  peer-reviewed papers were examined to assess the health impacts of spay / neuter in  female and male dogs, respectively.

One cannot ignore the findings of  increased risk from osteosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma, hypothyroidism, and other less  frequently occurring diseases associated with neutering male dogs. It would be  irresponsible of the veterinary profession and the pet owning community to fail to weigh the relative costs and benefits of neutering on the animal’s health  and well-being. The decision for females may be more complex, further  emphasizing the need for individualized veterinary medical decisions, not standard  operating procedures for all patients.”

Sanborn’s review of the research concluded:  The number of health problems associated with neutering may exceed the  associated 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

* if done before 1 year of age, significantly increases the risk of  osteosarcoma (bone cancer); this is a common cancer in medium/large and larger  breeds with a poor prognosis.
* increases the risk of cardiac hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 1.6
* triples the risk of hypothyroidism
* increases the risk of progressive geriatric cognitive impairment
* triples the risk of obesity, a common health problem in dogs with  many associated health problems
* quadruples the small risk of prostate cancer
* doubles the small risk of urinary tract cancers
* increases the risk of orthopedic disorders
* increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations.

For female dogs, the situation is more complex. The number of health  benefits associated with spaying may exceed the associated health problems in some  (not all) cases. On balance, whether spaying improves the odds of overall good  health or degrades them probably depends on the age of the female dog and  the relative risk of various diseases in the different breeds.

On the positive side, spaying female dogs

* if done before 2.5 years of age, greatly reduces the risk of mammary  tumors, the most common malignant tumors in female dogs
* nearly eliminates the risk of pyometra, which otherwise would affect  about 23% of intact female dogs; pyometra kills about 1% of intact female  dogs
* reduces the risk of perianal fistulas
* removes the very small risk from uterine, cervical, and ovarian  Tumors

On the negative side, spaying female dogs

* if done before 1 year of age, significantly increases the risk of  osteosarcoma (bone cancer); this is a common cancer in larger breeds with a  poor prognosis
* increases the risk of splenic hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 2.2 and  cardiac hemangiosarcoma by a factor of greater than five; this is a common  cancer and major cause of death in some breeds
* triples the risk of hypothyroidism
* increases the risk of obesity, a common health problem in dogs with  many associated health problems
* causes urinary “spay incontinence” in 4-20% of female dogs
* increases the risk of persistent or recurring urinary tract  infections by a factor of 3-4
* increases the risk of recessed vulva, vaginal dermatitis, and  vaginitis, especially for female dogs spayed before puberty
* doubles the small risk of urinary tract tumors
* increases the risk of orthopedic disorders
* increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations

Sanborn concluded: “One thing is clear – much of the spay/neuter  information that is available to the public is unbalanced and contains claims that are  exaggerated or unsupported by evidence. Rather than helping to educate pet  owners, much of it has contributed to common misunderstandings about the health  risks and benefits.”

It is ASDA’s opinion that these research findings cast enough doubt on the  practice of universal sterilization to make it inadvisable if not reckless for  any level of government to mandate spaying or neutering at this point in  time.

Moreover, such a mandate would expose any governing body to substantial  legal and financial liability if individual pet owners successfully claim damages  based on current or future research.

Other Legal Concerns

There will be many grounds to take the City of Dallas to court if this  ordinance is approved.

Many will be based on the simple fact that similar ordinances have proven to  be completely counterproductive in several cities around the country,  including San Antonio, Texas. San Antonio’s rates of shelter admissions doubled in  the year following enactment of a similar ordinance, as did euthanasia 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 no possibility that  these kinds of ordinances would solve the problem, and to ignore that evidence  is reckless and negligent.

The jury is in on several communities that have tried this approach, and the  verdict is unanimous: They failed miserably.

We have examined Dallas zoning codes, and can see nothing that would  prohibit hobby breeding of dogs. The zoning code clearly permits residents of  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 residential  areas.

Under Section 42.002(a)(11) of the Texas Property Code, a state law defining  property rights, government is expressly prohibited from seizing “household  pets” for any reason, including actions of eminent domain and bankruptcy.  This state law clearly prohibits the City of Dallas from seizing any pet for  any reason.

The Bill of Rights in the Texas Constitution clearly states: “The people  shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from all  unreasonable seizures or searches…,” and that a warrant shall be required in all  cases. To obtain a warrant, probable cause of a legal violation must be  shown.

The Bill of Rights also is equally clear that people must be properly  compensated if any level of government seizes or destroys their property for any  reason: “No person's property shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for or  applied to public use without adequate compensation being made…”

Thus, under the Bill of Rights, it would appear that the City of Dallas  would be required to compensate a dog owner for the fair market value of any dog  that is seized or destroyed, as dogs are considered to be personal property  under Texas law.

This issue of taking may extend farther, as a mandate to spay and neuter  also would be a taking of the value of the property, since a dog could not be  used to provide valuable stud services or raise valuable puppies. Simply put, a  spayed or neutered dog is not worth as much money as a dog that is intact.

The city thus would be taking the value of this dog, and would be required 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 and  supporters to offer assistance to Dallas dog owners in this vital fight to preserve  their fundamental rights.

The proposed ordinances are slated to be discussed at a meeting of City  Council’s Quality of Life Committee on Monday, April 28. The announcement did not  state the time or place of this meeting, or if the public will be allowed to  attend or participate. Trimble’s Texas Humane Legislation Network, a radical  animal rights group, prepared and distributed the official announcement.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges all Dallas residents to contact  City Council members (contact information is given below) prior to this meeting. We are supporting the efforts of two Texas groups to fight these proposed  ordinances: The Responsible Pet Owners’ Alliance  and The Texas Kennel Club (contact Nancy Wright).

Dog owners have retained an attorney, Zandra Anderson, to represent them  before City Council. Residents of Dallas should forward information to Ms.  Wright or The American Sporting Dog Alliance, to be passed along to the attorney. She needs to know that you are a resident of Dallas, your profession, the  kinds of dogs that you own, and the events in which you participate. This  information will be submitted to City Council.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance also urges dog owners who do not live in  Dallas 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 by E-Mail, and we’ll pass on your information to the  appropriate people.

We strongly suggest letters of protest to the Dallas Morning News as a  letter to the editor, and also to each member of Dallas City Council. The American  Sporting Dog Alliance has written to all of them, but it is vital that  citizens respond vocally, too.

Here are their email addresses:

Dallas Morning News
Letters to the Editor
City of Dallas
1500 Marilla Street
Dallas, Texas 75201
E-Mail

Mayor Tom Leppert
Phone: (214) 670-4054
Fax: (214) 670-0646
E-Mail

City Manager Mary Suhm
Phone: (214) 670-3296
Fax: (214) 670-3946
E-Mail

Asst. City Manager David Brown
(supervises Animal Services)
Phone: (214) 670-3390
Fax: (214) 670-4965
E-Mail

Mayor Pro Tem Dr. Elba Garcia
Phone: (214) 670-4052
Fax: (214) 670-3409
E-Mail

Councilmember Pauline Medrano
Chairman: Quality of Life Committee
Phone: (214) 670-4048
Fax: (214) 670-5117
E-Mail

Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Dwaine Caraway
Phone: (214) 670-0781
Fax: (214) 670-3409
E-Mail

Councilmember David Neumann
Member: Quality of Life Committee
Phone: (214) 670-0776
Fax: (214) 670-1833
E-Mail

Councilmember Vonciel Jones Hill
Vice-Chair: Quality of Life Committee
Phone: (214) 670-0777
Fax: (214) 670-5117
E-Mail

Councilmember Steve Salazar
Member: Quality of Life Committee
Phone: (214) 670-4199
Fax: (214) 670-5115
E-Mail

Councilmember Carolyn Davis
Quality of Life Committee
Phone: (214) 670-4689
Fax: (214) 670-5115
E-Mail

Councilmember Tennell Atkins
Phone: (214) 670-4066
Fax: (214) 670-5115
E-Mail

Councilmember Sheffield Kadane
Quality of Life Committee
Phone: (214) 670-4069
Fax: (214) 670-5115
E-Mail

Councilmember Jerry Allen
Phone: (214) 670-4068
Fax: (214) 670-5115
E-Mail

Councilmember Linda Koop
Phone: (214) 670-7817
Fax: (214) 670-5117
E-Mail

Councilmember Ron Natinsky
Phone: (214) 670-4067
Fax: (214) 670-5117
E-Mail

Councilmember Mitchell Rasansky
Phone: (214) 670-3816
Fax: (214) 670-5117
E-Mail

Councilmember Angela Hunt
Phone: (214) 670-5415
Fax: (214) 670-5117
E-Mail

The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, hobby breeders and  professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We are a  grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure  that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its  rightful place in American society and life. Please visit us on the web.