by Marshall Tanick

1. Thou shalt anticipate:
   
   Many anti-dog measures sneak up as the products of stealth. They often arise without much warning, precluding the public, including those most affected by them, from having input into the administrative or legislative process. This dilemma can be averted by keeping antennae turned to prospective administrative actions or legislation that could infringe upon interests of dog owners. Meetings of governmental units that regulate dogs should be monitored, minutes of meetings reviewed and contacts within those organizations cultivated in order to have advance warning of prospective measures that could be harmful to the interests of dog owners.
   
   
2. Thou shalt organize:
   
   Early anticipation does not help unless organizational efforts follow. Dog clubs, dog owners, responsible breeders, pet shop owners and others with personal and professional interests in the dog community should be contacted, and a task force should be established to combat the restrictive measures that are on the horizon.
   
   
3. Thou shalt identify political allies:
   
   Don't wait until a calamity occurs to link up with political supporters. These alliances should be developed and nurtured on an on-going basis, not just when a crisis erupts. This can be accomplished in several ways, such as having periodic meetings with friendly legislators, inviting them to attend dog-related events during the year, furnishing them with literature about the positive activities of these groups and even making contributions to their political war chests as may be appropriate. Following these steps can assure the political infrastructure will be in place before a crisis develops, rather than having to construct one during a critical time period.
   
   
4. Thou shalt consider strange bedfellows:
   
   Effectively combating anti-dog laws may invite unlikely conditions. In most instances, allies are readily identifiable. But in other instances, organizations that are sometimes rivals may have common interests in combating particular measures. For instance, dog limitation laws impact farmers and hunters, in addition to members of dogdom. Even animal rights organizations, on occasion, may have common interests with dog owners with respect to rescue issues. These organizations may be looked to for assistance in combating restrictive measures even though they may not be natural allies.
   
   
5. Thou shalt act promptly:
   
   Haste, as the saying goes, may make waste. But delay can breed disaster when dealing with anti-dog measures. Those individual organizations seeking to deter or modify restrictive laws or regulations should act at the earliest possible time, rather than waiting until a proposal is before a final decision-making body. It is much easier and more effective to detect and deflect these developments when they are merely concepts, rather than cast in concrete.
   
   
6. Thou shalt seek pre-emption:
   
   Breed-specific laws are among the most onerous local ordinances dog owners encounter. They tend to target American Staffordshire Terriers, so-called pit bulls, Doberman Pinschers, Rottweilers, and occasionally German Shepherd Dogs. One way to fend off these measures is to pass statewide pre-emption laws that prohibit local units of government from enacting measures imposing disparate treatment on particular breeds. The experiences in large states, such as New York, Illinois and Minnesota, that have pre-emption laws, can be examined to develop an effective approach to achieve pre-emption.
   
   
7. Thou shalt emphasize the positives:
   
   Restrictive dog laws frequently are the byproduct of notorious incidents involving attacks by a dog, usually upon children. Media hyperbole often leads to a legislative frenzy, with all dog owners of the community subject to restrictive measures because of the fear of a single canine. This type of overreaction is akin to a municipality barring all cars after a particularly tragic auto accident.
   
   Emotive responses can be averted by dog owners stressing the positive achievements of their animals. Accounts of dogs that have performed heroic activities, such as rescuing individuals in jeopardy or aiding the aged and infirm, should be conveyed to the media in order to provide a more balanced view of the role of canines in the community. Creating this type of positive atmosphere can be a significant factor in minimizing or preventing anti-dog legislation.
   
   
8. Thou shalt use facts:
   
   Eschewing emotional feelings is not as easy as it sounds. Emotion can be a powerful force in enacting or combating anti-dog legislation, but it needs to be utilized with some other features, such as facts. Empirical data is available and can be used effectively in the legislative process. Gathering relevant statistics and providing them to decision-makers can go a long way toward achieving a desirable result.
   
   For instance, in one small Minnesota community, an effort to restrict multiple-dog ownership was fended off when records were gathered from the municipal police department showing that, in the previous two years, of more than 100 citizens complaints regarding dogs, only one dealt with a multiple-dog household. Factual data of this type can be aimed effectively at a legislative target and often hit their mark.
   
   
9. Thou shalt offer alternatives:
   
   Dog owners faced with restrictive governmental proposals often react negatively without offering any alternatives. A "Just Say No" attitude accomplishes little in fending off bad legislation. Owners should propose alternatives that address actual or perceived problems of canines. For instance, instead of imposing Draconian "Dangerous Dog" designations, local governments should be encouraged to require owners of dogs that have engaged in anti-social behavior to participate in training programs, perform community service or other positive contributions that are less detrimental to their dogs.
   
   
10. Thou shalt litigate when appropriate:
    
    Litigation can fend off bad laws, but it should be only a last resort. Litigation is costly, time-consuming and could have unpredictable results. But lawsuits can be used to combat onerous laws, especially if they are pursued promptly after the measures are enacted. Selecting an appropriate "test case" may provide a better target for legal proceedings, rather than waiting for an enforcement proceeding that may focus on an unsympathetic dog owner with a less desirable factual setting.

Appeared in Dog World Magazine & the ADOA newsletter
Tanick is a Minnesota attorney who has successfully litigated dog cases