BSL by Any Other Name Would Smell Just as Prejudicial: White Sulphur Springs, Montana Now Requires Liability Insurance for “Breeds” with Supposed “Reputations for Aggressive Behavior”
There’s no contact information anywhere for White Sulphur Springs, Montana, so we were unable to send them a letter informing them that their recent passage of an amendment requiring $500,000 in liability insurance for “breeds” with supposed “reputations for aggressive behavior” was based on incorrect information. (The named “breeds” are “pit bulls,” Doberman Pinschers, and Rottweilers, and “breeds” is in quotes, because, as we so often say, “pit bull” is not a breed!) But then since Denver’s supposed successful breed ban was mentioned, we can make an educated guess as to who may have helped White Sulphur Springs with their amendment; someone who would probably have been all too happy to send them his disinformation letter and/or packet. Yes, White Sulphur Springs’ amendment has the distinct smell of one-sidedness, so I would encourage White Sulphur Springs to do some independent research. In fact, look up Margolius v. Denver wherein it was shown that Denver’s Animal Control Officers could not discern a “pit bull” as defined by their own ordinance. We always cite this case whenever someone lies and says the Denver “pit bull” ban has been successful.
Perhaps someone should have told the White Sulphur Springs City Council the truth: that liability insurance in the amount of $500,000 for the above-named “breeds” may be difficult if not impossible to acquire, especially in a town where the city council just declared the “breeds” in question aggressive. And if dog owners are somehow able to acquire liability insurance in that amount, it may be so cost-prohibitive that owners of these “breeds” won’t be able to afford it. This type of legislation is what we like to call a back-door ban, because on the face of it, the amendment doesn’t appear to be a ban, but since the amendment’s requirements may not be possible to achieve, it may be impossible to adhere to the law. So, owners are either forced to give up their dogs, move, or break the law. This is how former perfectly law-abiding dog owners are turned into a potential criminal class, though they’ve done nothing wrong.
Worse, wicked forces acting shadily behind the scenes promote this kind of legislation to small towns and cities because these small towns and cities are often ignorant of the agenda. What’s the agenda you may ask? Well, it’s no secret that breed-specific legislation (BSL) has been pushed by radical animal rights groups who, by their own admission, seek the end of domestic animal ownership. Unfortunately, these small towns may not be aware that those pushing breed-specific legislation may have radical animal rightist ties. (And folks in these small rural towns should be aware that the animal rights groups behind those pushing BSL are also the ones trying to eradicate agricultural animal ownership, which would include ranching and rodeos. I bet White Sulphur Springs didn’t know that when they passed their amendment!)
So, because White Sulphur Springs does not have readily available contact information, it is our hope that they read this post, and posts from those internet-wide who are attempting to explain to them the cons of BSL. Indeed, White Sulphur Springs needs to hear from those who oppose BSL. We are, after all, more honest, upright, and moral than those who push BSL because our only agenda is to see that the Constitution is upheld and that the truth is told. Not so for BSL proponents who rely on junk science, faulty statistics, omission, manipulation, and outright lies to accomplish their agenda.