October 22nd, 2010 by Editor

Editor’s note:  If Councilwoman Lynch can say that “not all pit bulls are vicious” then is she knowingly seeking to propose legislation that would deprive innocent people of their innocent dogs?  And as an aside, no breed (though “pit bull” is not a breed) is inherently vicious.  That’s why people who know dogs repeatedly say “It’s the deed, not the breed.”  Deed not breed means that dog owners (and their dogs) should be judged singularly by what they do, not by what it is thought they might do based on some arbitrary designation like the kind of dog they happen to own, and not based on false media stereotypes or urban mythology about so-called “pit bulls.”

Also, since there is no such breed as a “pit bull,” the three incidents Councilwoman Lynch cites as “‘pit bull’ attacks” could easily have been from three different actual breeds.  As such, focusing on what she would define as “pit bulls” would be nothing more than an attempted catch-all to restrict the breeds that may or may not even have been responsible for the incidents in question.  This is madness and as has been shown by the recent examples of Topeka, Kansas and Toledo, Ohio nationally (to name a few), and Ontario, Italy, the U.K., and the Netherlands internationally, breed-specific legislation touted as a catch-all for these so-called “vicious” breeds doesn’t even work.  Worse, it severely punishes law-abiding dog owners while irresponsible dog owners (who are in the extreme minority) continue to disregard the law.

Please contact the Garden City Mayor and City Council here and politely inform them that breed-specific legislation — whether an outright ban or restrictions — is ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional.

From HometownLife.com:

[Councilmember Jaylee Lynch] is looking for stronger measures in dealing with pit bulls in the community.   Read the rest of this entry »

October 21st, 2010 by Editor

Editor’s note:  Here we have what looks like more false statistics on that non-existent “breed” “pit bull” when what Camanche really has is a free-roaming dog problem. (Please also note that the CDC bite stats referenced in the article below have long been debunked and dismissed as inaccurate by the CDC themselves.) I fear someone has been tickling the Mayor and Council’s ears with falsities and urban mythology about “pit bulls”; lies that we have debunked time and again, like that “pit bulls” have locking jaws, that all “pit bulls” have ‘gameness’ which supposedly makes them more aggressive, and that they were “bred to fight.”  The bulldog breeders I have talked to all say the same thing:  No dog is bred to do anything, let alone fight.  Traits are selected for, yes.  But these traits, if one is successful in achieving them, do not make dogs inherently good at let’s say hunting.  Owners of hunting dogs have invested hours upon hours in training their dogs; they don’t come out automatically trained to point or retrieve.  Likewise, dogs hundreds of years ago may have been bred for qualities that might have availed themselves to being better fighters in the heinous bloodsport of dog fighting, but where these traits are found, these qualities can also make for good search-and-rescue dogs, good drug-sniffing dogs, and good therapy dogs.  In other words, dogs are what you train them to be, and that is of course true for all dogs of any breed.  (And as Michael Vick’s former dogs showed, dogs trained to fight can be rehabilitated and go on to make perfectly pleasing family pets, and, in fact, both Sports Illustrated and The Washington Post did excellent write-ups on how well Vick’s former dogs are doing.)

Perhaps someone should enlighten Camanche about the animal rights agenda to end domestic animal ownership, and how breed bans are a part of it.  In addition, DNA tests are rife with inaccuracies and should never be relied upon to determine breed in order to uphold BSL, especially since, again, “pit bull” is not a breed.  Camanche’s existing dangerous dog law would be more than sufficient to police free-roaming dogs and their irresponsible owners if there was enough Animal Control enforcement, which it doesn’t sound like there is.

Please contact the Comanche Mayor and City Council by forwarding your e-mails to the City Clerk, Ms. Sheryl Jindrich, sherylj@mchsi.com or via snail mail to:

City of Camanche
917 3rd Street
P.O. Box 77
Camanche, Iowa 52730
563.259.8342

Please politely inform them that breed-specific legislation — whether breed-specific restrictions or an outright ban — is ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional.

From the Clinton Herald:

During Tuesday night’s Camanche City Council meeting, a discussion was held on the possibility of legislation on pit bulls.  Read the rest of this entry »

October 11th, 2010 by Editor

From the Toledo Blade:

After months of research, crafting, and debate, a proposed Toledo law governing dogs and their owners will come before City Council Tuesday.

Councilmen will vote on repealing the city’s old “vicious dogs” law that targeted “pit bulls” and “pit bull” mixes – ruled unconstitutional by Toledo Municipal Court Judge Michael Goulding in January – and replacing it with a law intended to promote responsibility among dog owners and change the scope of dogs considered to be dangerous.  Read the rest of this entry »

October 6th, 2010 by Editor

Editor’s note: Despite what one resident said, a database full of “pit bull” owners’ names and addresses will only encourage vigilante-style retribution on responsible dog owners since the irresponsible “pit bull” owners — who are in the minority despite what the media would have you believe — will continue to disregard the law.  It’s also a huge violation of “pit bull” owners’ privacy rights and likens them unto sexual predators though they may be “guilty” only of owning “pit bulls.”  And despite the misinformation given in the following article, a dog mauling from any medium- or large-sized breed is no more or less horrific depending on breed, and any grouping of dogs from any breed can form a dangerous pack if left free-roaming.  Also, since indeed it sounds as if Dearborn Heights has a free-roaming dog problem, not a “pit bull” problem, they should instead consider amping up existing Animal Control personnel.

In addition, please contact the Dearborn Heights Mayor and City Council and politely inform them that “pit bull” is not a breed and that breed-specific legislation is ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional.

From the Press & Guide:

…Mayor Dan Paletko said even though he may offend some residents by saying so, he thinks the city should ban pit bulls…

Councilman Tom Berry said the city needs to look at the pit bull ordinance again.

It’s likely the ordinance will be tightened after the recent attacks, Baron said. Council may also discuss other vicious animals, he said.

City Clerk Judy Dudzinski said there are many residents who have pit bulls. She said she spoke to a resident the previous day who said they would move out of the city if there was a ban.

“People that have them love them,” Dudzinski said.  Read the rest of this entry »