November 30th, 2010 by Editor

Editor’s note: Animal Control may maintain that there are issues with dogs in Cypress, but so-called “dog issues” are always resultant of people issues.  Since there has been no elaboration on what those issues are, we are left to surmise that they could be anything from free-roaming dogs to gangs or drugs.  Whatever the real problems in Cypress are, you can bet they aren’t as the result of a breed of dog and so a breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter law isn’t going to fix whatever is really wrong.  [And while, according to the article excerpted below, San Bernardino County may consider the impounding of 1,700  "pit bulls" (80% of which were killed) a success story, other animal advocates, including us, do not consider the deaths of so many innocent animals a success by any stretch of the imagination.]

Ironically, even the person pushing for the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance in Cypress admits it won’t work telling The OC Register,

“I’m in favor of it, but people like that don’t abide by it,” she said of the spay-and-neuter proposal. “Once the dogs are taken from them, (owners) just get another one. It takes (authorities) forever to declare a dog as vicious.”

While she doesn’t know it, she also just made a wonderful case against breed-specific legislation of any kind because the same people who initially broke the law by allowing their dogs to free-roam, etc., typically won’t abide by additional legislation.

And though it’s unclear which breeds may be named in the possible mandatory spay/neuter ordinance, you can bet it’s going to include “pit bulls” (though again, “pit bull” is not a breed).  Please write the Cypress Mayor and City Council here and politely inform them that breed-specific legislation in any form is ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional.

From The Orange County Register:

Responding to citizen complaints about pit bulls in one Cypress neighborhood, the city is considering a first-of-its-kind law, mandating spaying and neutering for specific dog breeds. If passed, the law would be the first of its kind in the county, according to OC Animal Control officials.  Read the rest of this entry »

November 23rd, 2010 by Editor

Update: According to The Macomb Daily, action on Sterling Heights’ proposed “pit bull” ordinance has been postponed until Feb. 1, 2011.

Special thanks to BSL Updates for this reminder:

A report and recommendations regarding a proposed “pit bull” ordinance are expected to be presented during the next Sterling Heights regular council meeting on December 7, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. Meetings take place in City Hall council chambers, 40555 Utica Road, Sterling Heights, MI.

Please continue to write the Mayor and City Council of Sterling Heights and politely inform them that breed-specific legislation is ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional.

Related:

Debate over pit bull ban in Sterling Heights gets heated

November 23rd, 2010 by Editor

Editor’s note: Notice the title of this post is not “Springfield, Missouri Believes Breed-Specific Ordinance has Reduced “Pit Bull” Euthanasia.”  That’s because killing perfectly innocent, adoptable dogs, which most “pit bulls” are, is not mercy killing.  It’s just killing.  Indeed, the article below raises more questions about Springfield’s “euthanasia” practices and it’s breed-specific ordinance restricting “pit bulls” than it answers.  For instance, are we to understand that Springfield passed a breed-specific ordinance restricting “pit bulls” because the city had no money for a proper dangerous dog (owner) law?   And if so, then how can the city now say that the breed-specific ordinance is working if the city also had no funds to enforce a dangerous dog (owner) law?

Also, those who claim breed bans or breed-specific restrictions have been effective in their city  may have simply stopped labeling every attacking or biting dog in their city as a “pit bull,” a “breed” of dog that doesn’t exist.  As such, there may only be the perception that their breed ban or breed restrictions are working.  Ontario is a good example of how passing a breed-specific law (BSL) doesn’t reduce dog bites.  In fact, in some cases BSL actually increases dog bite statistics because Animal Control is too busy trying to enforce BSL and isn’t policing the entirety of the dog population like it should.

The other thing that can sometimes happen is that in cities (like Toledo) where Animal Control has killed so many “pit bulls” — which can be any breed, their lookalikes, or mix the dog warden wants it to be — there are hardly any dogs left, let alone any that could bite or attack.  Is that what has happened in Springfield?  Springfield reports that they are killing far fewer “pit bulls” as a result of their breed-specific ordinance, but is that only because, like in Toledo, they had already put so many to death?  Or as already noted, did they just stop mislabeling every Boxer or mixed-breed a “pit bull”?  Or did “pit bull” owners pick up and move away or re-home their “pit bulls” after the breed-specific ordinance was passed? (We certainly heard from “pit bull” owners in Springfield who promised to do just that.)  Or did Springfield “pit bull” owners go underground?  Or all of the above?

As is the case with most breed-specific laws, there is a lot of fallout from the BSL that was passed in Springfield.  Judging from the furor then and now over Springfield’s breed-specific ordinance, there are far more progressive-minded individuals who did and do not want BSL in Springfield, than who do.  As former Springfield Councilwoman Mary Collette has urged, perhaps it’s time for Springfield to look at a comprehensive dangerous dog (owner) law to replace the archaic and ineffective breed-specific ordinance Springfield now has in place.

From the Springfield News-Leader:

The Springfield City Council is again studying policies regarding animals and has already zeroed in on two topics — the pit bull ordinance and the current animal shelter.  Read the rest of this entry »

November 23rd, 2010 by Editor

Editor’s note: First of all, “pit bull” is not a breed, so referring to them as “the most vicious breed” is a misnomer.  The conglomeration of dogs that make up the slang term “pit bull” are limitless and therefore statistics on “pit bulls” are skewed and meaningless.  Second, the urban myth that dogs called “pit bulls” have locking jaws has looong been debunked, but I’ll post affirmed court testimony debunking this fiction yet again for folks who haven’t heard it yet.  The following is court testimony from Dr. I. Lehr Brisbin, Ph.D., who is a Senior Research Scientist at the University of Georgia Savannah River Ecology Laboratory and an expert in training, handling, behavior and the anatomy of bulldog breeds:

“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”).

A more proactive and certainly more progressive approach for Yazoo would be to pass a dangerous dog (owner) law and to enforce Yazoo’s existing leash law.

Please contact the Yazoo Mayor and City Council and politely inform them that breed-specific legislation in any form is ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional. (Please note that the only e-mail address on the Yazoo city site seems to be the Mayor’s.  I simply politely requested that the Mayor forward my e-mail letter to the rest of the City Council.)

From My601.com:

Two Yazoo City aldermen are at odds on a ordinance that would ban pit bulls. Read the rest of this entry »

November 22nd, 2010 by Editor

Editor’s note: Once again, the key component in cases like these is not the breed of dog — especially since “pit bull” is not a breed and since there is no such thing as an inherently vicious breed of dog — but the fact that the dog was repeatedly free-roaming.  It sounds like Springdale needs more Animal Control enforcement to police free-roaming dogs and to cite their irresponsible owners.

Please contact the Springdale Mayor and City Council and politely inform them that breed-specific legislation in any form is ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional.

From NWAhomepage.com:

Sheila Elkins says Saturday’s pit bull attack in her neighborhood was unfortunate but not unexpected.

“We’ve seen it chasing children, we’ve seen it in our backyards to where we couldn’t come out of our homes and called animal control to come take care of the problems,” Sheila said. Read the rest of this entry »

November 17th, 2010 by Editor

Editor’s note:  Breed-specific requirements for certain kinds of containment, including muzzling, could force owners to feel stigmatized such they they cease exercising their dogs in public, or at all.  Extended muzzling, kenneling, etc. can also make a dog of any breed anxious and stressed, which could bring about the very behavior a muzzling restriction seeks to control.

Please write the Malden Mayor and City Council and politely inform them that breed-specific legislation in any form — whether an outright ban or breed-specific restrictions — is ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional, especially for “pit bulls” which isn’t even a breed.

From Boston.com:

A proposal to require all pit bulls to wear a muzzle in public passed a key hurdle last night, after the measure was unanimously recommended to the full  City Council during an Ordinance Committee meeting.  Read the rest of this entry »

November 9th, 2010 by Editor

Editor’s note:  Nine calls to Animal Control about one dog is not a breed problem but an owner problem (and possibly an Animal Control enforcement problem).  If Animal Control is having difficulty enforcing existing law, how is additional legislation going to help?  It looks like McMinnville lacks Animal Control personnel, or perhaps the proper dangerous dog (owner) law to police irresponsible dog owners, so how will additional expensive and unenforceable legislation in the form of breed-specific legislation help?

Please write or call the McMinnville Mayor and City Council here and politely inform them that “pit bull” is not a breed and that breed-specific legislation in any form is ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional.

From WSMV channel 4 in Nashville:

Pit bull owner Jennifer Barrickman, of McMinnville, said her 4-month-old rescue pit bull is playful and gentle, but McMinnville city officials are considering breed-specific-legislation that would place strict regulations on pit bull owners like her.  Read the rest of this entry »

November 4th, 2010 by Editor

Editor’s note: This ordinance* would regulate 10 breeds (though American “pit bull” is not a breed) of dog!  The “breeds” include the American Pit Bull (Do they mean terrier?  It’s hard to tell!), the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier, German Shepherd, Rottweiler, Chow Chow, Doberman Pinscher, Boxer, and Akita.  Certainly this is excessive given that a well-enforced leash law and dangerous dog (owner) law would address all irresponsible dog owners, not just owners of select breeds.  Indeed, Pointe Coupee Parish does not have a breed problem, but rather a free-roaming dog problem and an overall problem with irresponsible dog owners.

Please contact the Pointe Coupee Parish Police Jury via the Parish Administrator (whose contact info follows) and politely inform them that breed-specific legislation is ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional:

Mr. Owen J. Bello, Parish Administrator
Pointe Coupee Parish Police Jury
P. O. Box 290
160 East Main Street, Courthouse Annex Bldg.
New Roads, LA  70760
Phone: (225) 638-9556, Ext. 201
Fax: (225) 638-5555
Email address:  jbello@pcpolicejury.org

From channel 2 in Baton Rouge:

Published: Oct 25, 2010

Eighteen months after three dogs killed a Morganza toddler, the Pointe Coupee Parish Police Jury is set to overhaul the parish’s animalcontrol ordinance.

On Tuesday, police jurors are expected to begin debating whether to assign fees to owners of potentially dangerous dogs, levy fines to owners of loose dogs and make other provisions based on recommendations from the parish’s Animal Control Committee.

…The push to reshape the animal-control ordinance began after 4-year-old Michael “Blaise” Landry was mauled by a neighbor’s three boxers on April 10, 2009.  Read the rest of this entry »

November 4th, 2010 by Editor

Editor’s note:  Here again we have the media referring to attacking dogs in the incident involving the Straubes’ dogs as “pit bulls” when there is no such breed (and it doesn’t sound like the attack from the Border Collies was mentioned in the media at all before now).  Also you will note that the dogs that attacked the Straubes’ dog were causing a problem before this incident occurred which is not unusual in attacks from free-roaming dogs.  The main component in a free-roaming dog attack is not the breed, but rather the fact that the dog(s) is/are free-roaming, reverting to their pack mentality which can include territoriality.

The breed-specific ordinance that Blair now proposes will not stop irresponsible owners from allowing their dogs to free-roam.  Irresponsible owners typically ignore these types of laws, or simply switch breeds.  All dogs should be in a securely-fenced yard or on a leash when off their owner’s property.  That’s just common sense and it’s common sense that should be applied by law to all dog owners regardless of the breed of dog they own.  A non-breed-specific dangerous dog (owner) law which escalates fines and penalties per each offense would also go a long way in deterrence.

Please send your polite letters opposing breed-specific legislation because it is ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional to the Blair, Nebraska Mayor and City Council here before the next reading of this ordinance on November 9, 2010.

From the Pilot-Tribune & Enterprise*:

Several local residents questioned the effectiveness of new dangerous dog regulations in Blair during a public hearing about the proposed rules at the City Council meeting on Tuesday.  Read the rest of this entry »