May 31st, 2010 by Editor
Update, June 1, 2010: According to a media report, it appears that the dogs in question were free-roaming through no fault of the owner. The dogs were discovered missing from their cages upon the owner’s return home and there was an apparent hole in the fence. As the owner herself has said, there should be a full investigation into this incident, including finger-printing of the empty cages and the hole in the fence, to determine the culprits of this crime and just who it was who put that 9-year-old boy’s life in jeopardy.
The people in Elgin, Illinois, must be thinking, “Here we go again!” after the Daily Herald reported yesterday on another supposed “pit bull” incident in which a boy, 9, in Elgin’s Festival Park was bitten by one of two free-roaming supposed “pit bulls.” Naturally, Councilman John Prigge is chomping at the bit and will almost certainly try to get something breed-specific passed, moving against the will of the majority of Elgin’s citizens again. Prigge is like the Terminator; he won’t stop until, I guess, he sees a lot of dead dogs. (And isn’t that what breed-specific laws always amount to: a lot of dead dogs?) Read the rest of this entry »
May 28th, 2010 by Editor
While we wholeheartedly support the amendment to Ohio’s HB 55 which would remove the designation of “pit bull” as a dangerous breed, we have some serious misgivings about some of the other provisions of the bill like court-ordered psych evals, particularly for minors, who violate certain provisions of the law. As such, we are only supporting HB 55′s amendment which would remove statewide BSL.
Victor Hugo said, “There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.” Apply that axiom to breed-specific legislation and Ohio specifically, and it’s about time that Ohio repealed its 1987 law declaring “pit bulls” as inherently vicious dogs (the only state law like it in the nation). After all, it’s known the world over now that breed-specific legislation (BSL) is unenforceable, ineffective, and prejudicial, and that there is no such thing as an inherently vicious breed of dog.
Like so much of BSL, Ohio’s law was passed capriciously in 1987 as the result of a dog attack. Instead of looking at the facts, Ohio went for the quick “fix,” which ironically fixed nothing at all. That’s why several brave Ohio representatives have this year and in years past tried to repeal Ohio’s statewide BSL. This year, Rep. Matt Szollosi seems to have gained the most momentum with his amendment to House Bill 55 which would strike the “breed” “pit bull” from Ohio’s definition of a dangerous dog. The bill has already passed the Ohio House and now heads to the Senate. Please take a moment to thank Rep. Szollosi and Rep. Barbara Sears (who also tried this session to get the “pit bull” dangerous dog designation removed from Ohio state law with her bill HB 79) for their efforts in righting this 23-year long wrong. And if you live in Ohio, please contact your representatives and senators and support this amendment to HB 55! Read the rest of this entry »
May 27th, 2010 by Editor
Inside Edition today reported on a mother in California who recently had to shoot a stray dog that attacked her two daughters as they stood on their front lawn. The dog’s breed was believed to be a Boxer, but as ever, the breed is not what makes a dog potentially dangerous; the fact that the dog was free-roaming is. That’s why dangerous dog laws are so much more effective than breed-specific legislation (BSL). Dangerous dogs laws treat all irresponsible dog owners equally, increase penalties for irresponsible dog owners, and therefore act as an effective deterrent. Read the rest of this entry »
May 26th, 2010 by Editor
In the last decade, we’ve seen a lot of corruption in this country. We’ve seen corrupt and immoral politicians on the federal, state, and municipal levels; people who believe they don’t have to follow the same laws they pass in a true do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do fashion. Is that what’s happening in Garland, Texas with the recent “pit bull” fencing requirements just issued? Read the rest of this entry »
May 24th, 2010 by Editor
My, my, my what passes for journalism these days. Yesterday, the United Press International (UPI) published an article about bully breeds, but it was difficult to determine if the article was advocating for these breeds, or if it was just more of the same conflicting information. For instance, the article stated that PETA was a defender of “pit bulls”:
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is among defenders of the breed…”We’re for ‘em,” PETA said in a posting on its Web site. “By ‘for ‘em,’ I mean that we are for pit bull protection, for their happiness, and for treating them like dogs instead of like cheap burglar alarms, punching bags or gladiators in perverted death matches.”
Now by “defenders” does UPI mean advocates for “pit bull” death? Because a simple Google search turned up the following from PETA’s website:
We…support pit bull bans, as long as they include a grandfather clause allowing all living dogs who are already in good homes and well cared for to live the remainder of their lives safely and peacefully.
And so what does this stance result in? Lots and lots of innocent, dead dogs. Breed bans always result in high kill rates in shelters and in animal controls due to owner surrenders and confiscations. Not to mention, if PETA are the ones defining what is a “good home” for “pit bulls” there will likely be very few homes that will qualify. Read the rest of this entry »
May 23rd, 2010 by Editor
Last night on Saturday Night Live, a joke was made about martial law being declared and the Constitution being suspended. You could’ve heard a pin drop in the studio because nobody laughed…and rightfully so. What’s funny about that? Read the rest of this entry »
May 21st, 2010 by Editor
For some reason, the Toledo Free Press yesterday wrote a…well, gosh, I don’t know what to call it. The article — Former dog warden warns: watch out for pit bulls — about former Lucas County (of which Toledo is a part) Dog Warden Tom Skeldon, reads like an apologetic of sorts on the one hand, and a saving-face PR stunt on the other. Does Mr. Skeldon also have relatives working at the Toledo Free Press?
Anyone who has been involved in fighting breed-specific legislation (BSL) in the last 10 or so years knows the name Tom Skeldon like they know the names Kory Nelson or Merritt Clifton. These are the names of death. These men are responsible for the disinformation campaign that has seen the needless mass killing of thousands of adoptable, lovable dogs they inaccurately finger as “pit bulls.” One wonders if these men aren’t part of a death cult for what they have wrought. And so Mr. Skeldon is a former dog warden for a reason. One of those reasons seems to be that he can’t discern an American Pit Bull Terrier, or any other breed erroneously deemed a “pit bull,” from the broad side of a barn. Read the rest of this entry »
May 20th, 2010 by Editor
A guest editorialist for the Mansfield, Ohio, newspaper Mansfield News Journal today writes,
If the likelihood and frequency to bite is what makes [a dog] vicious, then there are many breeds that should be banned as vicious breeds well before the pit bull [and where the author uses the word "pit bull" it would seem s/he is referring to the American Pit Bull Terrier], such as Chihuahuas and cocker spaniels, which have been at the top of the list for bite frequency for nearly eight years. Read the rest of this entry »
May 19th, 2010 by Editor
6/15/10 update: According to the Auburn Journal,
There will be no breed-specific legislation in Auburn. In a three-to-two vote Monday night, Auburn City Council members decided to delete regulations about the mandatory spay and neuter of pitbulls from the city’s updated animal ordinance and directed city staff to work to support Safety First, the new educational and assistance program for dog owners and community members in Auburn.
Auburn, California is considering a breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter law for the following breeds considered to be “pit bulls”:
-Miniature Bull Terrier
-American Pit Bull Terrier
-Staffordshire Bull Terrier
-American Staffordshire Terrier
-Any dog that a ‘reasonable person’ would believe to be one of these breeds
-Any dog exhibiting the AKC or UKC breed standards for these breeds
Do you see just how random and arbitrary breed-specific legislation (BSL) is? Who comes up with these lists of banned or restricted breeds, who decides which breeds should be on them, and why are they always different? And does it not follow that if you have 10, 20, or 30 or more breeds defined as “pit bulls” that statistics on “pit bulls” might be vastly skewed and therefore meaningless?
Do you also understand why we immediately dismiss any incident of a dog attack where the dog in question is described as a “pit bull”? As you can see from the above list, “pit bull” can describe as many breeds of dogs and their mixes as those pushing BSL so choose. Also, it’s wildly unconstitutional to have language in an ordinance that defines a “pit bull” as “any dog that a ‘reasonable person’ would believe to be one of these breeds.” How in the world do you comply with such a vague provision??? Your compliance or non-compliance is based solely on someone else’s opinion about your dog, and that opinion doesn’t even have to be an educated one! And if you have to put the words “reasonable person” in your legislation, chances are quite good that you’ll get anything but reason. (Often the word “reasonable” is added to legislation that its author knows is quite unreasonable.) Indeed, you’re likely to get more of the same hysteria which brought about the BSL in the first place. Not to mention that the AKC and UKC have said time and again that their breed standards are not to be used to enforce BSL, and that doing so is a copyright violation. Read the rest of this entry »
May 17th, 2010 by Editor
Several years ago, we marveled at the fact that the city of Boston — site of the Boston Tea Party — had passed breed-specific legislation (BSL). Despite what municipalities are often told, breed-specific legislation has been ruled unconstitutional in several court venues. Boston’s ordinance requires the owners of “pit bulls” and “pit bull” mixes to register their dogs with Animal Control, to muzzle their dogs in public, and to post a warning sign on their property. (It’s as if the same unconstitutional, model breed-specific law travels the country; after all, we keep seeing this same poorly-written, unjust law cropping up again and again. If only the animal rights group(s) and other shady individuals behind this model BSL would have the guts to come right on out and admit that they’re the ones pushing this heinous piece of legislation. Instead, they act as the puppet masters, manipulating city councils around the nation into believing BSL keeps communities safer.) Could the founders have conceived of such a violation of individual liberties as a breed-specific ordinance? Doubtful, and yet Boston in part gave birth to American liberty. Hmm…wonder what Samuel Adams would have done had the British tried to pass a breed-specific law. Read the rest of this entry »