system: You are Avrama Gingold, a caller on a 1990s BBS posting in the Dogs message echo. Write like a real BBS user of the era — plain, direct, in your own voice, no modern polish.

user: You are replying to All about "3legislative update3-june".

They wrote:
A> FEDERAL NOTES:
A>
A> The House passed H.R. 2 after fighting off a floor amendment that would
A> have curtailed the guarantee that residents of public and publicly
A> assisted housing could have appropriate pets.  [Anyone want to bet
A> there will later be a fight about breeds that are appropriate?]
A> Reps. Nick Smith (R-MI) had announced his
A> intention to propose the amendment when floor debate began early in May.
A> Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) had announced that she might second the amendment
A> if it were the only way to get the major part of the bill through, but
A> after a heavy grassroots lobbying campaign, both reps backed off.
A> [Carolyn told me (private conversation) that if it became necessary to
A> let the amendment be discussed or even passed in order to get the
A> major part of the bill passed with at least some part of the pet
A> provision, she would accept that, but ONLY if it were necessary
A> for general bill passage.]
A>   Just as the part of the housing bill containing the pet provision
A> came up for debate, Rep. Smith again changed his mind.  Two other
A> representatives (Rich Lazio (R-NY) and Joe Kennedy (D-MA) supported
A> the provisions, and the amendment was defeated on a voice vote.
A> After the vote, Rep Smith busied himself trying to assure his
A> constituents that he was, really, an animal lover.
A>     The Senate Banking Committee (has jurisdiction over housing matters)
A> held a mark-up on the Senate's version of the housing bill, S. 462.
A> Here too an amendment was offered to scale back the pet provision,
A> and again it was defeated.  Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT) could not be
A> dissuaded from offering the amendment, but Committee Chairman
A> Alphone D'Amato (R-NY), a strong supporter of the pet provision,
A> got Bennett to promise that he wouldn't ask for a recorded vote
A> on the amendment.  Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun (D-IL) in debate spoke
A> very eloquently about the importance of pets in the lives of
A> children in public housing, and a voice vote was called against
A> Bennett's amendment.  The Committee passed the overall bill,
A> and has sent it to the full Senate (floor consideration can
A> come as early as this month).
A>
A> Senate floor consideration is the final major hurdle for the pet
A> provision in S. 462.  YOU CAN HELP BY CALLING OR WRITING YOUR
A> U.S. SENATOR'S OFFICE AND ASKING YOUR SENATOR TO SUPPORT
A> SEC. 124 (the new number of the pet section in the Senate
A> bill) OF S. 462.  S. 462 assures residents of public and
A> publicly assisted housing the right to have appropriate pets.
A> Also ask your Senator to oppose any amendments to limit
A> Sec. 124 of S. 462.
A>
A> A TALE (tail-?) OF SUCCESS:
A> Residents of BUFFALO GROVE, IL and dog fanciers in surrounding
A> areas, esp. members of the Medallion Rottweiler Club, are to be
A> congratulated for defeating the breed-specific dangerous dog
A> law proposed in Buffalo Grove.  Local fanciers had been working
A> on this since February 1997, when they learned that a Buffalo
A> Grove residents had registered complaints with the city about
A> a neighbor's buying a Rottweiler puppy.  Recognizing early on
A> that such complaints might readily escalate into a breed-specific
A> proposal, the fancy was quick to organize and take action.
A>
A> David Kearns, a member of Medallion, was designated to serve as
A> a contact with the AKC's Canine Legislation Department.  By working
A> with Kearns, the AKC was able to send the fancy materials and
A> establish positive contacts with city officials in Buffalo Grove.
A>
A> Members of the fancy also began attending city council meetings,
A> and on April 7th were ready when the complaining resident presented
A> the City Council with a petition to consider replacing the existing
A> generic dangerous dog law with a breed-specific law similar to the
A> one passed in Yonkers, NY in 1996.  The original proposal was
A> aimed at AmStaffs, Dobes, GSDs, Rottis, and Staffies.  The petitioner
A> and the Council agreed to drop Dobes and GSDs from the proposal at
A> the April 7 meeting, but the Council decided to forward the parts
A> of the petition that named AmStaffs, Rotties, and Staffies onto
A> the Board of Health for consideration.
A>
A> Fortunately, local fanciers did not content themselves with saying,
A> "It's not my breed."  instead, they attended all of the meetings and
A> public hearings scheduled by the Board of Health and the City Council
A> to discuss this issue in April and again in May.  They organized
A> presentations, coordinated speakers, worked with the AKC, and brought
A> in outside experts in dog training and animal behavior to help make
A> their case.  They also did a good job in handling the media.  (Because
A> Buffalo Grove is a suburb of Chicago, there was extensive news coverage.)
A> In the end, the good guys won, and the City Council decided
A> not to pursuee the petition for a breed-specific law.
A>
A> To help address animal control issues, the City Council of Buffalo Grove
A> established an advisory board that includes representatives from the
A> fancy.  Local club secretaries also volunteered to increase public
A> education efforts in the area.  As their first action, they promised to
A> sponsor CANINE GOOD CITIZEN tests and a book at the upcoming Buffalo
A> Grove Day.
A>
A> Good guys CAN finish first.
A>                            Avrama & Shomer
A> A> 18> ... nfx v2.7 [C0000] A house is not a home until it has a dog.
A> A> 18>
A> A>
A> A> ... nfx v2.7 [C0000] Responsible dog ownership or no ownership!
A> A>
A>
A> ... nfx v2.7 [C0000] World's most beautiful dog: he looks at you with
A>
A>
A> ... nfx v2.7 [C0000]
A>

Write your reply.

assistant: love.
... nfx v2.7 [C0000] Every dog deserves a person; not every person deserves a