A Great Article About HSUS/ARF Atrocities

Posted on 11/08/2009


Dear Readers,

Here is a great article about the evil deeds against dogs and dog owners by HSUS/ARF organizations.

Ami Moore The Chicago Dog Coach

King County Washington was one of the first jurisdictions in the US to pass a MSN-type law – actually, it appears to be a differential licensing law, or as we would say, “MSN-lite”, as per the King County WA Municipal code


(see Title 11 Animal Control)

which was enacted there in 1992. King County’s MSN-type law followed closely on the heels of an MSN law passed in San Mateo County CA in 1991. Actually, AR activist Kim Sturla, who helped model San Mateo’s MSN law, also had input into that of King County, according to a detailed analysis archived on The Animal Council’s website (see link below.) Since San Mateo County’s MSN law had very poor results, as can be expected, King County’s results were also negative, resulting in higher animal control costs, as well as reducing the positive trends relating to shelter intakes and euthanasias of the years prior to MSN enactment. You can read the full report here – and it is a good one to save for those of you who, like myself, are methodically amassing the great deal of anti-MSN and similar laws data that is now available to us:


A summary of this analysis (this one without the tables and statistics from King County AC) is in the NAIA archives as well:


Here’s what SaveOurDogs.

net has to say about King County, Washington:

King County, Washington
1992 mandatory spay/neuter ordinance
License compliance decreases since passage of the ordinance.
Animal control expenses increased 56.8% and revenues only 43.2%.
In 1990 animal controls were $1,662,776. By 1997 animal control costs were $3,087,350.
Euthanasia rates fell at a slower rate after passage of the ordinance.


And from No Kill Advocacy in 2007:

“But perhaps no legislation has been more heralded, more promoted as a national model than the one passed in King County, Washington. Animal control in that community claims that because of the ordinance, they are now saving the vast majority of “adoptable” animals. But is this true? In fact, it is not.

“First of all, despite being billed as a lost pet’s ticket home, redemption rates have either remained flat or declined since King County’s ordinance went into effect. By real numbers, there is a decline in redemptions, so the claim made about cat licensing increasing reclamation rates is not borne out by the data. If anything, most of these are dogs, and even with doubling of dog licensing, redemptions are still down. In the end, reclaim rates are consistent with other jurisdictions where these laws are not in place. In some cases, King County’s are even lower.

“And despite its mandatory nature, there is no evidence that King County has higher rates of spay/neuter than jurisdictions who have made spay/neuter affordable without diverting animal care dollars to bureaucratic enforcement.”


And yes, King County’s differential licensing is still in effect, so they haven’t learned yet – which tells me they simply don’t care to learn and improve, despite the failure of these laws there and elsewhere:



Given the past history of King County Washington, nothing that happens there would surprise me anymore, no matter how sordid, despicable, or downright evil it may be – even what was revealed in Nathan’s blog, or what’s contained in the “Whistle Blower” letter, a link


which was referred to in an article that Nathan linked to


Posted in: HSUS, PETA