Youngstown, Ohio to Propose BSL

By Editor
In BSL
Aug 21st, 2007
3 Comments
2208 Views

From the AKC:

The city council has a public meeting scheduled for tomorrow (Wednesday), August 22nd and is TODAY expected to add a breed ban proposal to their agenda. The fact that this proposal, which will have a dramatic impact on many residents, is being introduced with so little public notice is outrageous. In fact, the actual text of the measure will not be available until noon today.

It is our understanding from one councilmember who had seen a draft that the proposal will ban American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers and some of the Mastiff breeds. We will forward the details of the ordinance as soon as they are available.

We need you to immediate alert any members of your clubs who live in Youngstown to attend tomorrow’s meeting. As of right now the public will not be able to address the council, but if a significant number of constituents appear it will make it much more difficult for them to move this item without public input. Four of the seven council members would have to vote to allow public comment. It is also vital that residents call or email their representative on the Youngstown City Council and alert them to their opposition of the proposal and ask that public testimony be allowed.

If you are unsure of who your representative is, you can contact the city clerk at 330.742.8708 [or via the city website by clicking here]. The meeting will begin at 5:30pm and take place in the council chambers on the 6th floor of City Hall at 26 South Phelps Street.

3 Responses to “Youngstown, Ohio to Propose BSL”

  1. Melanie Diaz says:

    The meeting was changes to September 5th. There will be an article in todays newspaper on the subject. I would like to be a part of any fight against this ignorant proposal. Thank you and please continue to support this loving, misunderstood breed.

    Punish the deed-not the breed!

  2. Maura Evans says:

    I will definitely be attending the meeting on September 5th @ 5:30. I did hear from a source that you are able to go to City Hall a week before the meeting and fill out some kind of paperwork if you’d like to speak at the meeting. Is this true? Regardless, I will be there to show my opposition to such a ridiculous proposal!

    PITBULLS:
    BAD RAP…NOT BAD DOGS!!!!

  3. SCOTT DAILEY says:

    RUMOR HAS IT THAT THE BAN PASSED. IS THIS TRUE. HERE IS THE LETTER THAT I SENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.
    I OWN 2 MALE PITS MYSELF. I LOVE THE BREED. DOWN WITH BSL!!!!!

    Mayor Jay Williams wants to ban Pitbulls in Youngstown,Ohio. This failed in 1999. Now with a new mayor it is being brought up again. Here is my letter to him over Breed Specific Legislation

    TO:..Mayor Jay Williams
    FROM:..Scott Dailey, Salem,Ohio

    Dear Mayor Williams

    To be useful, legislation must be effective, enforcible, economical, and reasonably fair. Recently I was informed that yourself, city council etc. is talking about a Pitbull ban that would fail all of these tests. This legislation is motivated by fear and lack of relevant knowledge. .

    The media and the inexperienced would have you believe that this breed is vicious and should be prohibited. However, these very breeds as a whole have proven their stability and good canine citizenry by becoming ‘Search & Rescue dogs, Therapy dogs working inside hospitals, professional Herding dogs and family companions for years.

    Our Country was not founded on the restriction and punishment of the masses based on the actions of a few….when has this changed?

    A five year study published in the Cincinnati Law Review in 1982, vol. 53, pg 1077, which specifically considered both Rottweilers and “pit bulls”, concluded in part that:

    ..statistics did not support the assertion that any one breed was dangerous, ..when legislation is focused on the type of dog it fails, because it is … unenforceable, confusing, and costly. .. focusing legislation on dogs that are “vicious” distracts attention from the real problem, which is irresponsible owners.

    In light of this and other studies, we urge you to take the following actions:

    1. Reject the current legislation, which is contrary to fact and distracts from the real issue, that of responsible ownership.

    2. Actively pursue legislation that would render owners liable for the actions of their pets, such as a good non-breed specific dangerous dog law.

    We suggest that the appropriate policy should be “blame the owner, not the dog.” Owners can and should take responsibility for their pets.

    Bottom line: the legislation proposed will not only be unfair for responsible citizens but it addresses the wrong problem. Voting for this proposal as it stands only harms the law abiding responsible dog owner.

    Thank you for your time – Scott Dailey

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*