September 30th, 2010 by Editor

Editor’s note: Here we have an ordinance regulating American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, etc. and yet its author refers to these actual breeds as “pit bulls.”  “Pit bull” is not a breed, so does it not follow that if you list actual breeds in a breed-specific ordinance (and their mixes, and their lookalikes), lump those breeds together, and then refer to them as “pit bulls,” as if that were one breed, that bite statistics on so-called “pit bulls” might be greatly skewed?  Also, the ordinance proposal’s author, Alderman Versey, has acknowledged that “it’s not the dog, it’s the owner.”  If that’s the case, and Alderman Versey acknowledges that it is the case, then why should these breeds and their responsible owners have to suffer discrimination???  Does this sound fair to you?

Please contact the Sheboygan Mayor and Common Council and politely inform them that the breed-specific ordinance proposal will be ineffective, unenforceable, and is an equal protection violation, i.e. the proposal is unconstitutional. (Alderman Versey has acknowledged that it’s not specific breeds that are causing a problem; it’s irresponsible owners.  Under the 14th amendment, a person can only be deprived of their property, their dogs, if there is a true threat to public safety, and since Mr. Versey has acknowledged that it is irresponsible owners who are the potential safety risk, not the dogs, then what he proposes is a glaring violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.)

From the Sheboygan Press:

An ordinance placing heavy restrictions on dangerous dogs in the City of Sheboygan, including confining them to a stockade-style fenced yard when outdoors, forcing their owners to carry $300,000 in liability insurance in case their dog attacks and injures another person, and enforcing strict leash and muzzle requirements, was unanimously passed Wednesday by the Common Council’s Public Protection and Safety Committee.

The ordinance, introduced by Ald. Scott Versey, also would require owners of dangerous dogs to place warning signs on their premises, and ban anyone under the age of 18 from controlling the dog with a leash.The Common Council is expected to vote on the ordinance next Monday.  Read the rest of this entry »

September 30th, 2010 by Editor

From KSNT 27 in Kansas:

Mayor Bill Bunten and eight city council members voted 9-0 to pass an ordinance amending rules regarding animal control and animal cruelty. The new ordinance eliminates breed-specific legislation which banned the ownership, keeping, or harboring of pit bulls that haven’t been licensed with the city.

According to dog day afternoon’s president, Julie Castaneda, breed-specific law was ineffective because a dog’s behavior is the result of its upbringing, not its genetics.

“What the new legislation will do is target the pet owner. Now it’s not a dog’s fault if a dog gets into trouble, it’s a pet owner’s fault,” said Castaneda.

September 23rd, 2010 by Editor

Editor’s note: Please contact the Ypsilanti Township Board of Trustees here and politely inform them that since almost any medium- and large-breed dog (and I guess even Chihuahuas!) can be called a “pit bull,” though “pit bull” is not a breed, that perhaps the Humane Society of Huron Valley’s stats on “pit bulls” might be grossly skewed.  Please also kindly inform them that breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter is just as unconstitutional as regular ol’ breed bans.  It is also well known now that mandatory spay/neuter is failed legislation bringing compliance down for other things like rabies vaccines and licensure.  And as with most punitive legislation, the same irresponsible people who bring it about won’t comply.  Irresponsible dog owners either ignore the law, or simply switch to irresponsibly owning other breeds.

From The Ypsilanti Courier:

Ypsilanti Township is considering a change to their code of ordinances that would require all pit bulls to be spayed or neutered by Jan. 1, 2011.

According to the language of the new law, pit bull owners found in violation of the ordinance would be guilty of a criminal misdemeanor punishable by not more than a $500 fine and/or imprisonment for not more than 90 days. Read the rest of this entry »

September 20th, 2010 by Editor

From Fox Detroit:

Sylvan Lake has become the latest community to ban pit bulls. The new law also puts restrictions on residents who already own pit bulls.

…Under the new ordinance, new pit bulls are banned. Existing pit bulls are grandfathered in, but starting October first, yet to be determined restrictions will be in effect for those animals.

Please contact the Sylvan Lake Mayor and City Council here and politely inform them that breed-specific legislation is internationally known to be unenforceable, ineffective, and, in the United States, unconstitutional.

Related:

Topeka, Kansas Proposes to Overturn “Pit Bull” Ban

September 13th, 2010 by Editor

Though there has been no media web article about Marion, Arkansas’ consideration of a “pit bull” ban, there is a petition going around which gives more information.

Please politely inform the Marion Mayor and City Council that “pit bull” is not a breed and that breed-specific legislation (BSL) is ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional.

September 13th, 2010 by Editor

Editor’s note: Please politely inform the Douglasville Mayor and City Council that “pit bull” is not a breed and that breed-specific legislation (BSL) is ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional.

From the Times-Georgian:

The city council’s consideration of a proposal that would regulate ownership of pit bulls drew lively discussion during its Sept. 2 Public Safety Committee meeting and comment from the Georgia director of the Humane Society at its legislative work session that followed.

…Components of the proposal look at requiring pit bull owners to house only one dog per pen, but not necessarily one dog per owner, and the dogs would have to be registered and have a microchip implanted.

Pit bull owners would be able to keep the ones they have, but wouldn’t be allowed to have any more, according to the discussion, and a person could be fined as much as $500 if found to be in violation.

September 9th, 2010 by Editor

March 25, 2011 update: Unfortunately, BSL passed in Kirksville.  While our thanks go to Mayor Kuhns for voting against BSL, the rest of the Council appears to have been hellbent on ignoring the overwhelming evidence of the inefficacy of breed-specific legislation, instead subscribing to the hysteria, skewed statistics, and junk science of the opposition.  Going forward, we will certainly be avoiding Kirksville and will not patronize any of its businesses.

Last week, I sent the Kirksville, Missouri Mayor and City Council a letter opposing their proposed breed-specific ordinance that would ban so-called “pit bulls” within the city.  To some of those folks’ credit, including Mayor Kuhns, they took the time to research the issue and realized that their city’s time, money, and efforts would be better spent elsewhere, like on enforcement of their existing laws.  Yet still, one council member, Councilwoman Martha Rowe, had this to say to a local paper:

“Councilmember Martha Rowe supports the pit bull ban. She said she spoke with a few people about pit bull cases and has heard other stories of aggressive pit bulls. She said she understands that any dog can be trained to be aggressive, but she worries about the pit bulls’ ability to lock its jaws during an attack.”

Really Ms. Rowe?  You still believe that urban myth after I provided the following evidence confirmed by a court of law, offered up by a Ph.D., and published in a document put out by the American Dog Breeders Association?:

“The few studies which have been conducted of the structure of the skulls, mandibles and teeth of [American Pit Bull Terriers] show that, in proportion to their size, their jaw structure and thus its inferred functional morphology, is no different than that of any [other] breed of dog. There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any kind of ’locking mechanism’ unique to the structure of the jaw and/or teeth of the American Pit Bull Terrier” (Source: American Dog Breeders Association, “Discover the American Pit Bull Terrier”).  Read the rest of this entry »

September 5th, 2010 by Editor

Editor’s note: Soon after publishing this post, I was watching America’s Funniest Home Videos and there was a clip of an overly-exuberant Golden Retriever who knocked a child down and excitedly licked the child’s face and kept bopping at the child with his nose.  The audience of course roared with laughter.  What’s the difference between the Golden Retriever in the clip and the “pit bull” mentioned in the police blotter below?  The Golden Retriever has better P.R.

Look at this police blotter from the September 5, 2010 issue of the suburban Chicago newspaper The Courier News which describes two citations for dog owners in the Chicago suburb of Bartlett:

Citations in dog bites: Tickets were written for a dog running at large, biting and attacking, and for dangerous behavior after the dog, a Rottweiler, bit a passerby on the 500 block of Illinois Street at about 2:30 p.m. Saturday. The victim, who police did not identify, was left with puncture marks on his arm but refused medical assistance. A resident on the 300 block of Seneca Street also was cited following an incident at about 3:30 p.m. Friday. The resident was given tickets for dog running at large, biting and attacking, and for dangerous behavior after the dog, a pit bull, ran from the back yard and jumped on a 2-year-old boy who was left with a scratch under his right eye, possibly from a bite.

Look at the difference in the way the two “attacks” were reported.  For the Rottweiler, the incident is described matter-of-factly.  The dog bit a passerby.  Yet for the “pit bull” “attack” (and for the umpteenth time, “pit bull” is not a breed!) the newspaper conjectures about whether the scratch under the boy’s eye is from a bite or a scratch.  That one just might have readers scratching their heads!  Reason would dictate, that if there’s a scratch, it’s probably a scratch, not a bite.

The “pit bull” incident sounds more like a dog getting loose from its yard and exuberantly jumping up on a child.  It does not sound like an attack.  But as with all things involving so-called “pit bulls,” the owner is guilty until proven innocent.

In the past, people have asked me if “pit bulls” could get a fair shake from the media, or just a fair shake period.  What do you think?

September 2nd, 2010 by Editor

March 25, 2011 update: Unfortunately, BSL passed in Kirksville.  While our thanks go to Mayor Kuhns for voting against BSL, the rest of the Council appears to have been hellbent on ignoring the overwhelming evidence of the inefficacy of breed-specific legislation, instead subscribing to the hysteria, skewed statistics, and junk science of the opposition.  Going forward, we will certainly be avoiding Kirksville and will not patronize any of its businesses.

Editor’s note: There is a wealth of information nationally and internationally that breed-specific legislation (BSL) does not work.  Please write the Kirksville Mayor and City Council here and politely inform them that BSL offers only a false sense of security since it is well known at this point that BSL in ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional .

From the Kirksville Daily Express:

Pit bulls and other “vicious” [quotes added] animals are once again in the city’s sights as a draft ordinance was debated Monday during the council’s study session.  Read the rest of this entry »