July 7th, 2010 by Editor
Editor’s note: Of course the logic, or lack thereof, of upholding Sioux City, Iowa’s “pit bull” ban when dog bites have only increased, is mind-boggling. An increase in dog bites where breed bans have been passed, which is a frequent occurrence, must be God’s little joke on those who knowingly pass impotent, expensive, unenforceable and unconstitutional legislation. And of course, the utter hypocrisy of Counciliman Aaron Rochester, whose own Labrador was declared vicious last year, is still just as astounding as ever.
From the Sioux City Journal:
The 3-2 City Council decision to maintain the pit-bull ban – and do nothing to toughen penalties on irresponsible and dangerous dog owners – may make some of you sleep better at night. But there’s no evidence it will make you safer. Read the rest of this entry »
July 7th, 2010 by Editor
Pressure is mounting in the United Kingdom to repeal the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act, which banned many breeds of dog. Lord Redesdale has proposed legislation that would replace the Dangerous Dogs Act. The legislation states in part that,
Banning certain types of dogs…has done nothing but make these banned breeds and their lookalikes status symbols and penalised responsible owners of these types and the dogs themselves…
It’s about time that worthless piece of legislation, the Dangerous Dogs Act, was done away with. Hopefully, legislation replacing it will be more sensible.
July 5th, 2010 by Editor
Furor over the U.K.’s 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act (which banned many breeds of dog) has reached fever pitch. A veterinarian writing an opinion column in today’s London Daily Telegraph wrote that,
Existing legislation has failed to reduce the number of dog bite incidents in the UK, which have risen in the past five years by 79% in London and 43% nationally. Meanwhile costs have continued to rise; ten million pounds has been spent by the Metropolitan Police alone in the past 3 years simply to implement Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act, relating to the seizure, kennelling and euthanasia of banned breeds.
No surprise here. Breed-specific legislation (BSL) has consistently been proven to be an expensive, dismal failure worldwide, and the U.K.’s BSL is no exception. Read the rest of this entry »
July 5th, 2010 by Editor
While we do advocate for dangerous dog laws here at NoPitBullBans.com, we do so with a little bit of tremulousness. It’s more precise to say we advocate for dangerous dog owner laws. Why? Because many dangerous dog laws still put the onus on the dog instead of its owner. Read the rest of this entry »
July 5th, 2010 by Editor
Unfortunately, folks in Shadyside have been getting some bad information. Shadyside committee member Greg Warren told the press in a July 3 article that “pit bulls” are “a nuisance and dangerous” which is why Shadyside may be seeking to pass breed-specific legislation (BSL) banning them.
Mr. Warren added, “All the research shows the pit bull is the number one dog that will attack.” What research? Merritt Clifton? Dogsbite.org? Well, if so, may we refer the Shadyside Village Council to our resources section and particularly our Debunking Dogsbite.org page and our Debunking Merritt Clifton’s “Statistics” page. So-called “statistics” on “pit bulls” are automatically false since “pit bull” is not a breed, but a type; a type which can describe countless actual breeds, their mixes, and dogs that bear an unfortunate resemblance to those breeds and mixes. If you understand that “pit bull” is a conglomeration of breeds, mixes, and lookalikes, not a breed itself, then you can so easily understand why statistics on “pit bulls” are skewed, false, and therefore meaningless. In fact, some have even confused Chihuahuas for “pit bulls,” so you have to wonder if there is a dog breed you couldn’t call a “pit bull.” Read the rest of this entry »
July 2nd, 2010 by Editor
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. Read the rest of this entry »
