Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Dallas Animal Ordinance draws line between breeders and humane groups

By Teresa Gubbins

DALLAS — Whether you're for the Dallas Animal Ordinance or against it, those two extremes do share one thing in common: They all love animals. Say awww all you want, but that counts for a lot.

Both sides also agree that strays and "dangerous" animals are a problem. Where they disagree is in how to solve it. Stick with the "voluntary" method that's gotten us to where we are today? Or get pro-active with more aggressive legislation?

The two factions will be at City Hall in big numbers on Wednesday to weigh in before the Dallas City Council's vote on the ordinance. By end of day Tuesday, the City Secretary had 60 people signed up to voice their opinion, with the number split evenly among pro and con.

In the pro- camp are basically all of your humane societies and rescue groups: Humane Society of Dallas County, Paws in the City, Texas Cares, Operation Kindness, Animal Rescue of Texas, A Different Breed, Cat Matchers, DFW Wildlife Coalition, and many more.

The ordinance has even attracted the attention of former The Price Is Right host Bob Barker, a well known spay-and-neuter advocate who wrote the City Council a letter urging them to vote yes.

The anti- camp consists of breeders, mostly, and mostly dog people. For many, their dogs represent income: They breed puppies, show animals, run obedience schools. While a few are from Dallas, many are not, coming in from San Antonio (whose effort to enact a similar ordinance last year got watered down) and Houston and beyond, spurred to protest by national organizations such as the American Kennel Club, which posts alerts on its Web site whenever laws come up that might affect their livelihood. This week, it says, “Dallas Vote Wednesday: Action Needed Now!”

Who they are

Verjean Lunenschloss, 50, of Plano, a dog trainer who runs a pet photography business, has become an unofficial spokesperson for the anti-ordinance group. She's been coming to City Council meetings since January, when the breeding community realized an ordinance was under consideration, and she seems to best comprehend that there are two sides to the story.

"We are passionate and emotional, we all love our dogs, and we know there's a problem," she says. "But we are hoping this won't target people who are not the problem. The real problem is the puppy mills and people who are doing it wrong.

"If you start penalizing, then you have little incentive to make people want to do the right thing," she says. "People who aren't abiding by current ordinances won't abide by new ones."

Other members of the group aren't as level-headed. One retired fellow from East Texas attending the hearing confides his belief that the pro-ordinance people are out to eliminate all pets.

"It gets down to whether or not you feel you can use animals," he says. "Did you know that the guy who's in charge is a vegan? What does that tell you?"

The so-called "vegan" is Skip Trimble, who heads the Animal Commission. He's become the target of a silly smear campaign painting him as an extremist allied with People For the Ethical Treatment For Animals.

"Well, to set the record straight, I am a vegetarian, not a vegan," Trimble says. "The idea that I am a PETA activist infiltrating the government and all that, you need to stop and take a look at this thing. PETA gave me an award because of my efforts, along with many others, in 2001 to get the state legislature to make torture of an animal or poisoning someone else’s animal a state jail felony instead of class A misdemeanor. I guess PETA thought it was a good thing. That’s what I got the award for. The [anti-ordinance people] also said I co-hosted some event in New York, but I’ve never done that."

The ordinance came about after Trimble and the Animal Commission, a 15-person panel appointed by the City Council -- had successfully completed the opening of the new shelter last October. For their next project, they turned their attention to lowering the number of animals going into the shelter.

"I’ve lobbied in the legislature for many years, and people often try to diffuse the issue by trying to vilify the messenger," he says. "But let’s take all the personalities out of it. What difference does it make what I am? The issue is, what’s best for Dallas? Is it best to have an ordinance on the books that will help solve the problem of pet overpopulation? Or is it better to continue as we have been and deal with symptoms?"

To deflect the focus away from spaying and neutering, the anti- camp has framed the problem as a stray-dog situation. Get rid of the strays, and your problem is solved. Trimble says the strays are a symptom of the problem.

"I've used this example, it's the story of the two guys sitting on bank of a river fishing," he says. "A basket comes down the river and it has a baby inside. Their first reaction is to dive in and bring the baby to shore. Then two or three more babies come down, and sooner or later, these guys are going to drown, and be unable to save any babies. But if they stop that for a moment and go upstream and deal with what's causing those babies to be placed in the river. This is not to say you don't pull the babies out of the river. But we're not able to answer every stray dog and cat call."

At last week's hearing, strays are exactly what Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Dwaine Caraway focused on -- "in the Southern sector, the No. 1 problem are dangerous dogs, stray dogs," he said -- before grandstanding with an announcement that he'd be going out that night at midnight with one of the city's dog-catchers to try and round some up.

"You can go and wipe out the entire loose animal population in Dwaine Caraway's district," Trimble says. "And then move over to another district, and when you finish, there will be more dogs in Dwaine’s Caraway’s district -- unless you got everyone to fix their dog or cat."

"The idea here is not to do away with animals, it's to do away with excess animals. Animals who have no homes. Animals who cause problems for people. Animals that suffer. Those are the ones we’re trying to eliminate."

At the hearing, a mere 10 slots were open for public comment, and most were taken by anti-ordinance speakers who arrived early and nabbed the spots, including two lawyers and a representative from the Texas State Rifle Organization.

The pro-ordinance speakers were a ragtag bunch. One pleaded with the City Council to get rid of a dog terrorizing his Oak Cliff neighborhood. Another cited Lee Harvey's as an example of doggy heaven.

A security guard at the back of the room muttered pessimistically.

"You're talking about man's best friend," he said. "Do you know how hard it is to find a friend? And you're talking about people's animals."

Related stories

• City of Dallas passes animal ordinance, 10-3 (June 25, 2008)

See more stories in:

• Animals

Comments