The controversial change of the animal ordinance was unknown to the vast majority of the citizens of Fairfield County until the AKC posted and opposed it on the internet. Thanks to the AKC, dog owners were alerted before the second reading that allows public comment. Once Fairfield County dog owners read the ordinance, they showed up to oppose it. All of the speakers were against the proposed change. The AKC is not an animal welfare organization as stated in a column in the Voice newspaper. They are a for profit registration and pedigree records keeping company that many purebred dog owners have relied on for generations. The recent columnist portrays the AKC as an outsider group that should not be involved in our county. It was established in 1884 and they are respected nationally. Animal rights organizations want to end the current systems of animal use. That is why the AKC is rightly concerned. The local level is where they begin. That brings us to a very important question. Where is the County Council getting its advice of how to run our animal services?
The leading organizations with an agenda to change the culture of animal use are the Humane Society of the US and PETA (people for the ethical treatment of animals). If you research their organizations, they have mission statements. The end goal for them is to take away freedoms of animal owners and farmers. The AKC would not exist in this futuristic world. Thus, the interest from these AKC “outsiders”.
We have a problem in our county with too many dogs in our shelter. The solution to the problem is not to levy taxes (fees) on law abiding citizens who love and care for their pets. It is not to impose unconstitutional requirements on responsible pet owners. Irresponsible citizens who discard and abuse their pets are the cause of the problem. The vast majority of the dogs at the shelter are pit bulls. A report on the front page of the Voice reported on a vicious attack by two pit bulls on a citizen of our county. A woman walking on a public road was mauled. If the dogs had attacked a child, it could have been fatal. Current code in section 2 C requires the shelter to release dangerous and vicious dogs after a fee is paid. Where will the county be when those same two dogs maim or kill their next victim? A lawsuit is a certainty for our taxpayers.
The focus of our county council should be on enforcing current laws. Please look at the current shelter policy. All the requirements and fees will not make the problem go away.
Bob Harkins
White Oak