Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Hidden comments

I get to read all the comments before anyone else does. Call me a control freak, if you will, but that is just the way I want it. So anyway yesterday I get a notice that a comment has been posted. I read it and wonder why it was written since it is referring to a post written by a resident of the city in question. All I did was give that post a larger viewing audience.

Now comes the really strange part. The comment was attached to one of the reports I did on Cap Haggerity's memorial service and the food and memories time held after the service. Why there? Why not post the comment as an attachment to the blog entry it was referring to in the first place?

Anyway, I thought it would be a good time to encourage the rest of you to respond and you certainly can't respond if the thing you are responding to has been hidden from general view. So here it is in all its twisted illogic. Please read the Albuquerque NM:The Least Dog Friendly City in America entry to learn what they are complaining about and please take note of the fact that I did not author the piece. It was simply posted unedited in any manner by yours truly.

So with no more ado, there ya' go..................



At 6:09 PM, ABQDog said:

I think Sanity is a definite misnomer. Anyone from Maryland calling Albuquerque an unfriendly city to dogs because we've passed the HEART ordinance to protect them needs her head examined. Who will this ordinance hurt? Overzealous and irresponsible breeders, people who fight dogs, people who abuse dogs. Evidently Maryland has no animal overpopulation problem, so they have the time to criticize those of us working to save the thousands of purebred dogs that are killed right away. Unfortunately, we in Albuquerque don't have that luxury and are working tirelessly to educate people and push a spay/neuter campaign. People like you are clearly in it for yourselves and not for the animals. You make me sick. Just stay on your side of the Mississippi and we'll all be better off.

ABQDog.


My goodness, I had no idea that the citizens of Albuquerque were so stupid and cruel that they needed the type of heavy-handed control the HEART law imposess. What's more that law is cruel and in the long run will do far more painful damage than anything that may or may not have been going on before the law was passed.

4 comments:

  1. Anonymous6:08 PM

    I think HEART is dog-friendly in the way that India is cow-friendly. Which is to say, the cow gets to do whatever it wants, creating utter chaos just by standing in traffic, and not a darn thing any people can do about it, because all the things that would seem obvious ways to take control of the situation in Maryland (where we don't worship cows and therefore hate animals!) are illegal in India.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As the author of the initial post that ABQDog has taken exception to, I am providing some additional information regarding the comment.

    First, the post was clearly identified as being written by someone in Albuquerque, not Maryland, as stated by ABQDog.

    Second, actually, HEART does no more to protect animals than the animal ordinance it replaced, although it certainly does put responsible animal owners in an untenable position of either breaking the law or being unable to
    actually provide for the mental and physical well-being of their animals.

    The failure of the City to enforce many aspects of the prior ordinance is not sufficient reason to enact another ordinance that will reportedly "fix" alleged problems in Albuquerque. The main focus of proponents of HEART appears to be "overpopulation" and the resultant euthanasia of
    animals. However, despite repeated requests to the City for facts to
    support the allegation that there is an animal overpopulation problem in the City of Albuquerque, these facts have never been produced.

    Information that has been teased out of annual reports from ACC would indicate that in fact the vast majority of animals euthanized at ACC were not "adoptable" by the criteria imposed by ACC and were euthanized due to injury, illness or temperament issues. Of interest, last week a spokesperson from the Animal Humane Association (AHA), a nonprofit shelter in Albuquerque stated that dogs were currently being brought in from areas outside Albuquerque because there were insufficient animals to
    meet the demands of the public for pets. This hardly supports claims of an overpopulation problem in Albuquerque.

    If anyone has actual FACTS to support allegations that there is an overpopulation problem in Albuquerque, please contact me. Unlike the post by ABQDog, which does not provide any contact information where this unknown person can be reached, my posts are accompanied with full information about who I am
    and how to reach me. I am quite willing to stand behind my statements about HEART and the impact it will have upon responsible animal owners in
    Albuquerque.

    Jan Gribble NADOI #925
    IACP #1016
    CDBC, IAABC #076
    ABC Dog Training LLC - Albuquerque, NM - (505) 410-5810
    abcdogtraining@juno.com - www.newmexicodogtraining.com

    ReplyDelete
  3. He's a cooked dog?

    >Maybe you hit a nerve with a town official?

    When Cuddles and Dilly have opinions they at least sign theirs and leave where they live. An anonymous post just screams scared little person to us.
    Karen Frenette with Cuddles and Dilly

    ReplyDelete
  4. Tracy Doyle, Trainer in Illinois10:48 AM

    Just a few comments for ABQDog... You don't read very well. The original post was written by a trainer in Albuquerque who has to live with this ordinance. ...........You ask who this ordinance will hurt. Quick answers are: anyone who is trying to housebreak a dog by crate training, anyone's dog whose water must be withheld before surgery, anyone whose dog is well-trained enough to be walked off-leash, anyone with more than one dog who puts them together in a yard to exercise, and pretty much anyone who has a neighbor who doesn't care to live near a dog-owning household (as the law will be selectively enforced). ......... I understand that there were previously laws in place which define and allow prosecution of animal cruelty and dog fighting. .............. Now, I can't say for Albuquerque specifically, but in most other places, dogs are surrendered to shelters not because "there's just no place for them," but because the dog has behavioral issues from a lack of training, management and guidance. But the number one reason is... "we're moving and can't take the dog." This is a lack of commitment, not lack of space. Over the past 25 years or so, shelter populations have been declining. It's going in the right direction and there's no reason to believe this trend will not continue. I believe firmly in owner education and low- or no-cost spay/neuter programs, but mandating spay/neuter is so problematic that I can't even begin to cover the subject in this forum. ......... You ask us to stay on "our side of the Mississippi." Oh, how I wish these insane laws were and would remain localized to your side of it. This new trend in legislation is part of a national, if not international, campaign, designed by animal rights organizations to bring us closer to their goal of the extinction of domestic animals. A bad, overbroad law is bad and overbroad no matter where in the country it is in place. And one can be sure that no matter where it has been passed previously, it will soon be coming to a town near you. ........... If you are truly concerned about shelter population, think about the effect a law will have which criminalizes mundane and routine husbandry practices and enables AC to confiscate animals more easily. Will this increase or decrease shelter populations? How many people will be committed enough to hire attorneys and fight to get their dogs back? What do you think will happen to these dogs? ............ Getting off my soapbox now... over and out.

    ReplyDelete