July 27th, 2010 by Editor

The following excerpted opinion piece from the Halifax-Plympton Reporter, “Pit Bulls should be registered weapons,” was written by Massachusetts Republican State Committeeman Richard Greeley. (Sections of his article appear in block quotes, and my comments follow.)  You know, we expect the nanny-staters to push overly bureaucratic, bloated government-type legislation like breed bans and mandatory registrations of guns, dogs, and the like.  We do not expect a Republican State Committeeman to claim that a breed of dog (an animal) should be registered like a weapon.  As a Republican, shouldn’t he know that breed-specific legislation doesn’t work just like gun control doesn’t work?  Shouldn’t he also know that breed-specific legislation has been repeatedly ruled unconstitutional?  Well, his whole article is devoid of proper research, so perhaps we shouldn’t expect him to know anything about the breed-specific legislation issue, which is why his uneducated opinion should be dismissed.  And while his reply to my letter was respectful, I don’t think he bothered to read any of the research or supporting evidence I included before dismissing them.  As Mr. Greeley himself pointed out to me, his piece is an opinion piece, and certainly he is entitled to his opinion.  But when politicos foster uneducated and wildly ignorant opinions about “pit bulls,” a lot of innocent dead dogs is often the result.

He begins by name-calling saying,

…It has been said that figures don’t lie, but liars figure. And regarding temperament and dog bite statistics with respect to pit bulls, liars on the wrong side of this issue clamp their jaws down on certain figures and shake furiously.

Pit bulls, i.e. the American Staffordshire terrier, the Pit Bull Terrier, the Staffordshire bull terrier and the American Bulldog, have been subjects of constant debate in this country. Given the plurality and severity of pit bull attacks on people recently, the debate is heating up again.

Did he just allude to that long-debunked urban mythology about “pit bulls’” having locking jaws?  If he isn’t embarrassed yet, he should be because ironically that myth is told by the very “S.O.B.s” he claims own “pit bulls” as status symbols.  And he insinuates that breed fanciers lie and manipulate statistics???  Oh that’s rich considering that he defines “pit bull” as four different breeds and then refers to them as if they were one!  Hmm…wonder if that might massively skew statistics, lumping a handful of breeds, their mixes, and their lookalikes together?  I think that’s what’s  called “fuzzy math.”  Read the rest of this entry »

July 27th, 2010 by Editor

According to the San Jose Mercury News,

The Yucaipa City Council has given initial approval to a proposed ordinance requiring the spaying or neutering of pit bulls.

The City Council approved the ordinance’s first reading on a 4-1 vote Monday night.

If approved during a second and final reading, Yucaipa residents would have 30 days to spay or neuter their pit bulls over 4 months old or face a $100 fine.

Read this article in its entirety here.

Please contact the Yucaipa Mayor and City Council and politely inform them that “pit bull” is not a breed.  Please also inform them that breed-specific legislation (BSL) in any form has been proven to be unenforceable and ineffective and that mandatory spay/neuter laws are unconstitutional for the same reason that breed-specific legislation is unconstitutional .

July 21st, 2010 by Editor

If you’ve been following the spate of Elgin, Illinois “pit bull” “attacks” for the last year or so, you may have found the sheer number of these incidents unbelievable.  You know, unbelievable, as in “too dubious or improbable to be believed.”  If you’ve been following our posts for the last 6 months, you know we have strong suspicions, as do others, that these “pit bull” “attacks” have been set-ups.  After all, it’s more plausible at this point that these “attacks” have been set up rather than that all of a sudden there have been more “pit bull” “attacks” in a little over a year in Elgin than there have been in the last 10.  I’m not a statistician, but based on the low number of dog bites/attacks  in the previous seven or eight years in Elgin, the probability of there being this many “pit bull” “attacks” in the last year as a matter of mere happenstance is bound to be quite low.

The latest “pit bull” incident, which occurred on the evening of July 17, involved Elgin resident Faustino Gonzalez whose “pit bull” purportedly jumped at police officers dispatched to investigate a report of a loose “pit bull.” (Not a loose dog, a loose “pit bull.” I guess bystanders are now breed experts as well, except that “pit bull” is not a breed.)  Both the Daily Herald and the Courier News were quick to point out that the dog was a “pit bull” (though it is unknown what breed the dog actually was), that Gonzalez had been drinking, that the dog “jumped” or “leapt” at officers, and that Gonzalez was an illegal immigrant who had already been deported as a felon.  Read the rest of this entry »

July 21st, 2010 by Editor

Though Rockville Centre had passed an ordinance in June which banned “pit bulls” and Rottweilers, the Board of Trustees repealed the ban late Tuesday night. Mayor Mary Bossart said,

“We are sworn to uphold the constitution…and that is why I’m voting to repeal [the law].”

It’s good to know that the word is finally getting out that breed-specific legislation in any form is unenforceable, ineffective, and unconstitutional.

July 21st, 2010 by Editor

From the Hannibal Courier-Post:

…A Hannibal letter carrier for 20 years thinks [Hannibal has a problem with dangerous dogs] and on Tuesday night asked the city council to do something about it.  Read the rest of this entry »

July 19th, 2010 by Editor

According to Telegram.com Worcester, Massachusetts is currently considering a breed-specific ordinance for “pit bulls”:

Local pit bull owners are facing the prospects of greater restrictions, duties and licensing requirements for their dogs.

…While the ordinance would not ban pit bulls or restrict them to private property, it would impose supplementary licensing and registration requirements for those dogs, in addition to the regular annual dog license. The fee for the additional pit bull registration and license would be $50.  Read the rest of this entry »

July 19th, 2010 by Editor

According to the July 14 Point Pleasant Register,

Point Pleasant City Council approved the first reading of a proposed ordinance that would amend the current legislation pertaining to dogs and cats during its regular meeting on Monday evening.

…Section B of the ordinance addresses specific breeds that are prohibited inside city limits. The following dog breeds fall under the prohibited category: Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier and any breeds of dog that “have the appearance and characteristics of being predominantly of the breeds of dogs known as Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier.”

According to the article, this ordinance doesn’t even have a grandfather clause so it is important that folks contact the Point Pleasant Mayor and City Council here and express their respectful opposition to the ordinance proposal.  Please politely explain to them that “pit bull” is not a breed and that breed-specific legislation (BSL) is ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional.

July 19th, 2010 by Editor

Hope you all like the new updated look of NoPitBullBans.com.  We also hope you’ll take note of our new mascot “Sparky” up in the left-hand corner there.  If Sparky looks a little sad with his frown and his band-aid, it’s only because he’s sick and tired of being beaten up by breed-specific legislation.  That’s why for Sparky, and dogs like him, we will continue to spread the word that breed-specific legislation is unenforceable, ineffective, and unconstitutional.

July 8th, 2010 by Editor

After an attack by what is being called a Rottweiler/”Pit bull” mix, the city of Marshfield, Wisconsin is to consider an outright “pit bull” ban later this summer.  The Wasau Daily Herald, which reported on Marshfield’s consideration of the ban, also noted that nearby Neillsville, Wisconsin (some 30 miles from Marshfield), has had a ban for almost a decade, but it doesn’t look like it’s working:

Neillsville adopted an ordinance in February 2003 that banned all new pit bulls but allowed those already licensed in the city to remain.

…”Initially, (the ordinance) was difficult to enforce, because the animal needed to be identified as a predominantly pit bull breed,” [Police Chief Brad Lindner] said.

The ordinance, however, hasn’t reduced the number of dog bites or reports of aggressive dogs, Lindner said. Read the rest of this entry »

July 7th, 2010 by Editor

It was announced last month that there is now a database called the Canine Combined DNA Index System which was created by UC Davis ostensibly to prove dog fighters are using certain bloodlines.  Certainly the public will believe that the database will be used for its stated purposes, but knowing that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the ASPCA are attached to the project makes the database’s proper usage dubious.  Why?  Because of the ASPCA’s Mission:Orange campaign (or mission guardianship I guess you could call it) and because the HSUS has known domestic terrorist ties (and all the v-neck sweaters and the manscaped eyebrows of HSUS president Wayne Pacelle can’t change the HSUS’ history).  The HSUS’ lobbying techniques are…let’s just say questionable as well.  Read the rest of this entry »