January 25th, 2011 by Editor

Editor’s note:  For many reasons it is always cause for concern when dog mauling victims and/or their families push for a breed ban (especially for “pit bulls” since “pit bull” is not a breed).  Their anger is understandable of course, but I submit to them that they should instead lobby for dangerous dog (owner) laws in Texas municipalities still lacking comprehensive Animal Control laws.  Dangerous dog (owner) laws have a proven track record of success whereas breed-specific legislation has proven unsuccessful nationally — most recently in Toledo, Denver, and Topeka — and worldwide — in Toronto, Italy, the Netherlands, and the U.K.

From NBC DFW in Texas:

The family of a 10-year-old boy killed by two pit bulls is pushing for a statewide ban on the breed.

Justin Clinton was killed in June 2009 near Kilgore in Rusk County, and his family won a $7 million judgment against the dogs’ owner in September.

“Justin’s Law,” the proposed legislation written by Cynthia Kent, the family’s attorney, would make owning a pit bull a third-degree felony in Texas. But the proposal does not have any sponsors in the Legislature.

…The Lone Star State American Pit Bull Terrier Club posted an alert urging members to contact lawmakers to oppose such a ban while acknowledging that Justin’s Law is unlikely to pass if it is introduced to the Legislature.

Read this article in its entirety here.

January 25th, 2011 by Editor

March 1, 2011 update: Looks like, according to this article, a breed ban is off the table in Aberdeen.  Bravo to Aberdeen for choosing instead to step up enforcement of their leash and animals-at-large laws.

Editor’s note:  A hint at that age-old urban mythology about “pit bulls” supposedly having locking jaws, etc. is not what you want to see from an Animal Control officer. (Nor does any dog attack “unprovoked.”)  You expect them to know better.  This type of ignorance is all the more reason that ACOs should receive ongoing training.  For instance, in a course taught by the National Animal Control Association, a national organization that trains Animal Control officers, Daniel Estep, Ph.D., instructs that “One breed is not more likely to bite than another breed.”

So, is Aberdeen really seeing more so-called “pit bulls” — though “pit bull” is not a breed — or is the ACO just mislabeling them as such? (Maybe there’s a “breed” bias there.)  We see this a lot.  Animal Control, nor law enforcement, nor victims of dog bites, nor even the owners of the dogs themselves can always tell what breed a dog is.  So we see a lot of people mislabeling a dog as a “pit bull” because reports about them are so prevalent in the media.  Bites from so-called “pit bulls” garner more attention for the victims and are more newsworthy, certainly, but labeling a dog a “pit bull” as if “pit bull” were an actual breed is a misnomer.  Aberdeen doesn’t appear to have a “pit bull” problem, probably just an increase in population which comes with more dogs per capita.  The more dogs you have, the more bites you will have just as a matter of course.

Please contact the Aberdeen Mayor and City Council here and politely inform them that breed-specific legislation has worldwide proven ineffective, unenforceable, and in this country, unconstitutional.

From Keloland.com:

It’s not every day you’ll see standing room only in Aberdeen’s city council chamber. But a requested pit bull ban drew in a large crowd Monday.

Police are asking the city council to pass a law banning the breed but allowing those already in the city to stay. It held a meeting Monday to discuss the possibility of such a law.   Read the rest of this entry »

January 24th, 2011 by Editor

In the last ten years, I have seen so much conspicuously unconstitutional legislation that little surprises me anymore.  Yet, when I received a form letter from Saginaw Councilman “Doctor” Bill Scharffe last week, even my jaw dropped.  I have only one time prior ever seen such arrogance, such dismissiveness, and such belligerence in defense of the indefensible: a breed-specific ordinance that would restrict 10 breeds of dog based on nothing more than a widely-discredited CDC “study” which was dismissed by the study’s own authors.

The tip-off that “Doctor” Bill Scharffe might be one of those politicians that just couldn’t resist lecturing someone whose letter he hadn’t even bothered to read was the fact that though he only holds a Ph.D. (as opposed to an M.D.) he insists on being called “doctor.”  This practice has generally fallen out of use and is today most often seen in those with an inferiority complex.  I believe this is what The Who called an “eminence front.”  You know, it’s a put-on.  Napoleon complexes tend to be somewhat common in politics as you might well imagine.  We often see elected officials who overcompensate for some shortcoming in life by using bloated titles or some other ridiculous form of puffery.  Funny, isn’t that what they say owners of “pit bulls” and Rottweilers do; use their dogs to supposedly overcompensate for some inadequacy?  Project much?

So Bill Scharffe clearly prides himself on supposedly being erudite, but for all his education he seems to be ignorant (or at least one-sided) on the issue of breed-specific legislation.  For instance, in his glib response sent to all us opposed to breed-specific legislation (BSL), he describes us as caring more about our rights to own so-called “dangerous” animals than we do for the safety of citizens of Saginaw, Michigan and by supposedly taking this stance, we are, according to Mr. Bill Scharffe, selfish.  If taking a stand for inalienable constitutional rights is wrong, then I don’t want to be right Bill Scharffe! Read the rest of this entry »

January 24th, 2011 by Editor

February 8, 2011 update: After a second reading, SB 362 was referred to the General Government Committee.  Those pushing this bill appear to be trying to ramrod it through quickly before Oklahomans can mobilize against it.  Please write the General Government Committee here and oppose this bill.

Oklahoma’s SB 362, sponsored by Senator Ralph Shortey, is scheduled to be introduced on the Senate floor February 7, 2011.  SB 362 would remove the prohibition of breed-specific legislation in the state of Oklahoma. While Senator Shortey is the Vice-Chair of the Public Safety Committee in which the bill is almost certain to be heard (a conflict of interest perhaps?) it should be noted that there is now worldwide evidence that breed-specific legislation is ineffective, costly, and in this country, a violation of fundamental constitutional rights.

You can track this bill’s progress here. (Under “Measure Type” select “Senate Bills,” then make sure the button for “Introduced in the Senate” is clicked as is “All” in the “Include” drop-down menu.  Finally, you should click the button that says “With action on any day” and then “Retrieve.”  You will get a list of introduced legislation and can then just scroll down to SB 362 to check on the bill’s status.)

If you live in Oklahoma, please contact your senator here and ask them not to support this bill.

*Thanks to BSL Updates for the head’s up on this bill.

January 21st, 2011 by Editor

Editor’s note: Media reports conflict as to whether Waxhaw is looking at a breed-specific ordinance or not, but since they are researching new legislation, perhaps it would be a good idea to send them some information about the ineffectiveness of breed-specific legislation (BSL).  Indeed, in the aftermath of the death of little 5-year old Makayla Woodward and the serious injuring of her great grandmother, it is all the more important to address the problem of free-roaming dogs with legislation that encompasses all dogs, because “pit bulls” (and “pit bull” is not actually a breed) are not the only dogs that free roam.  It is the free roaming that makes a dog potentially dangerous, not its breed.  And breed-specific legislation has more than proven in this country and worldwide to be ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional.

Please write the Waxhaw Mayor and City Council and politely inform them that a breed-specific ordinance will not prevent further attacks but that a well-enforced leash law and dangerous dog (owner) law which includes an escalation in fines and penalties have proven effective deterrents.

From WCNC in Charlotte, N.C.:

…Last week [Makayla Woodard] was doing what kids do every day. She was playing outside. But the simple routine turned deadly for Makayla. The kindergartner was mauled to death by a neighbor’s two pit bulls. Her grandmother was badly injured by the same dogs.

Now, Waxhaw town leaders are debating whether more needs to be done to prevent another tragedy like this from happening. Does the town need tougher, enforceable leash laws? Should pit bulls be outlawed in the Union County town altogether?  Read the rest of this entry »

January 21st, 2011 by Editor

Editor’s note: In the aftermath of the death of little 5-year old Makayla Woodward and the serious injuring of her great grandmother, it is all the more important to address the problem of free-roaming dogs with legislation that encompasses all dogs, because “pit bulls” (and “pit bull” is not actually a breed) are not the only dogs that free roam.  It is the free roaming that makes a dog potentially dangerous, not its breed.  And breed-specific legislation has more than proven in this country and worldwide to be ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional.

Please write the Shelby Mayor and City Council and politely inform them that a breed-specific ordinance will not prevent further attacks but that a well-enforced leash law and dangerous dog (owner) law which includes an escalation in fines and penalties have proven effective deterrents.

From The Shelby Star:

Last week, a 5-year-old girl was attacked and killed by two pit bulls in Waxhaw and her grandmother was sent to the hospital with injuries.

Now, Waxhaw is looking into ways to limit ownership of the dogs and Shelby City Councilman Joel Shores wants to prevent a similar incident from happening here.  Read the rest of this entry »

January 19th, 2011 by Editor

Finally, Ohio is realizing that the dogs they call “pit bull” are no different than any other breed (though “pit bull” is not a breed).  Last week Representative Barbara Sears introduced HB 14 which would remove “pit bulls” from the state’s “vicious dog” definition.   You can track the bill’s progress here.  HB 14 is currently in the House Criminal Justice Committee.

If you live in Ohio, please contact your representative and ask them to support this bill.

January 18th, 2011 by Editor

Editor’s note:  Folks nationwide and especially in Aurora should thank Councilwoman Renie Peterson for requesting that the Aurora City Council revisit Aurora’s “pit bull” ban.  At this point, there is so much evidence nationally and even internationally of the failure of breed-specific legislation that those who still advocate for it and/or defend it are just stubborn, ignorant to the point of stupidity, or corrupt.

From the Aurora Sentinel:

Posted: Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:45 am | Updated: 6:58 am, Mon Jan 17, 2011.

Aurora City Council members decided Monday they would not back away from their stance on banning pit bulls within the city — even as looming federal rules require cities to allow them as service dogs.

New Department of Justice regulations released last summer require cities to allow pit bulls as service animals for people with disabilities beginning March.

They are putting the pit bull issue on their winter workshop agenda at the request of Councilwoman Renie Peterson, who said they should revisit the entire restricted breed ban.

“I don’t know all the history that led us to this ordinance to begin with,” Peterson said. “Maybe we should have a new discussion about how people feel about pit bulls as a whole.”  Read the rest of this entry »

January 17th, 2011 by Editor

Editor’s note: We wish nothing but the best of luck for those trying to overturn Winnipeg’s ridiculous “pit bull” ban.  Winnipeg should look at the UK’s Dangerous Dog Act which was instituted in 1991 and has been pitifully ineffective.  Indeed, since 1991 the UK has seen a huge rise in banned fighting dogs which is why there is a growing movement in the UK to overturn the Dangerous Dog Act.   In other words, breed bans only serve to make prohibited dogs that much more appealing to the very unscrupulous individuals you don’t want owning them.

From Winnipeg’s CTV:

…[Winnipeg] has had a ban on ["pit bulls"] since 1990.

Dog trainer Ashley Reid wants the ban lifted. She says the dogs are born the same as other breeds—they’re not born fighters nor born to be aggressive.  Read the rest of this entry »

January 17th, 2011 by Editor

Editor’s note: Saginaw is considering restrictions for 10 breeds (though it should be noted that “pit bull” is not a breed): “pit bulls,” Rottweilers, German shepherds, Huskies, Alaskan Malamutes, Doberman Pinschers, Chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards, and Presa Canarios.  We suspect this list was derived from a CDC study on fatal dog bites called Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998 .  Unfortunately, it looks like Saginaw has neglected to read the fine print since the CDC itself says of its own study that,

“[The CDC study] does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic.”

The CDC has since stopped collecting dog bite stats because municipalities were misusing the information to do precisely what the CDC advised against: propose breed-specific legislation.  This “study” used dubious sources (i.e. flimsy media accounts of dog bites/attacks and the Humane Society of the United States which itself has pushed breed-specific legislation) and was even dismissed by the CDC itself! (Click here to see a piece we wrote debunking these CDC dog-bite stats using the CDC’s own disclaimers.)

And as an aside, how horrible that Saginaw’s ordinance proposal, which includes a limit of three dogs, does not have a grandfather clause for those who currently happen to have more than three dogs.  This is an ex post facto violation, as is applying new breed-specific restrictions to prior owners of specific breeds, and puts well-loved and perfectly well-cared for pets out of their homes.

Please write the Saginaw Mayor and City Council here and politely inform them that the CDC’s bite stats have been debunked (namely by the CDC themselves) and that breed-specific legislation has nationally and internationally proven to be ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional.

From mlive.com:

Dog owners may be restricted to no more than three pet pooches, buy licenses for them and face fines if they don’t register dogs that are on Saginaw’s list of the most dangerous canines.  Read the rest of this entry »