March 25th, 2011 by Editor

Editor’s note: 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 long-debunked urban myths, skewed statistics, and junk science of the opposition.  Kirksville itself defines the “pit bull” as three breeds.  Does it not follow that if you define three breeds as if they were one (though “pit bull” is not a breed) that statistics on so-called “pit bulls” would be skewed and therefore meaningless?

And you can see the radical animal rightist mentality of introducing stepping-stone legislation with the end-goal of ending domestic pet ownership has been fully adopted by some in Kirksville.  For instance, the woman that thinks all dogs over 30 pounds should be restricted in true nanny-state style, or the city codes and planning director, who, like the council, still subscribes to the long-debunked urban mythology about the locking jaws or stronger jaws of “pit bulls.”  And is there any excuse for this ignorance when I wrote the Council and excerpted the following 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”).

This testimony was affirmed by a court of law.  So does the Kirksville City Council think the court and a Ph.D. lied?  And, if you want to talk about lies, I would be curious to know what other lies the Council was told by the radical animal rightists who pushed BSL with the council.  We already know they told them one.  And again, I’m flabbergasted.  With the Internet at everyone’s disposal, is there any excuse for believing urban myths over science???  Going forward, we will certainly be avoiding Kirksville and will not patronize any of its businesses, and we hope that like in Midwest City, Oklahoma, citizens legally challenge Kirksville’s ordinance.

From HeartlandConnection.com:

The Kirksville City Council voted on Monday night to approve an ordinance that will add pit bulls to the city’s dangerous and vicious animal list.  Read the rest of this entry »

March 25th, 2011 by Editor

Editor’s note: It is unfortunate that there is so much disinformation out there.  City councils and city attorneys are repeatedly misinformed by those with an agenda about the supposed effectiveness and constitutionality of breed-specific legislation (BSL).  The constant stream of repealed BSL nationally and internationally of late illustrates the ineffectiveness of BSL, and when a case against BSL is tried properly and the court is not a kangaroo court, BSL is often found to be unconstitutional.  And, as we so often say here, “pit bull” is not a breed.  As such, statistics that lump together the countless breeds mislabeled “pit bull” are greatly skewed and therefore meaningless.

Please contact the Seward County Commission here and politely inform them that BSL is ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional.

From the Leader & Times:

In February, the Seward County Commission passed a resolution banning the possession of pit bulls in the county. That resolution came 20 years after an original one was passed in 1991.

In the 1991 ordinance was included a grandfather clause that would allow pit bulls in the county to stay in the county, but none could be raised after that.

Monday, after a half hour discussion, the commission voted to revisit the resolution it passed in February. The talk began when county resident Gerald Valentine, who breeds pit bulls, asked the board if the new ordinance could include a grandfather clause similar to the one in the 1991 resolution, which was repealed through the  current law.  Read the rest of this entry »

March 25th, 2011 by Editor

Editor’s note: The Hopkinton incident illustrates the danger, not of a specific breed, but of dogs that are constantly penned, unsocialized, and abused.  If Elkader seeks to be proactive, they should do what Hopkinton didn’t: respond in a timely manner to calls from citizens about possible animal abuse.  Folks want to point a finger at the breeds in the Hopkinton case, but it was the humans that failed that little girl, not the dogs, and certainly not the breed of dogs.

Please contact the Elkader Mayor and City Council via the City Clerk’s info that follows and politely inform them that breed-specific legislation in any form is ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional:

Jennifer K. Cowsert
City Administrator/Clerk
(563)245-2098
elkaderadmin@alpinecom.net

From the Clayton County Register:

The Elkader City Council will be taking another look at the city ordinance governing dog ownership at its next meeting.

Councilman Darryl Koehn said Monday that a concerned citizen approached him about the matter, prompted by a March 5 incident in Hopkinton in which three-year-old Vanessa Elizabeth Husmann was mauled to death in her backyard by two of her grandfather’s Rottweilers.  Read the rest of this entry »

March 25th, 2011 by Editor

Editor’s note: A breed-specific ordinance, whether an outright ban or breed-specific restrictions like Beatrice is considering, is still ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional.  And while DNA tests (which are not at all as reliable as the public has been made to believe and certainly not enough to withstand a legal challenge) have been proposed as a means to enforce “pit bull” bans, how do you DNA test for a “breed” of dog, “pit bull,” which isn’t a breed at all?  And if an ordinance has to parse out a handful of breeds that they define as “pit bull” doesn’t it stand to reason that statistics on so-called “pit bulls” would be skewed since the catch-all slang term “pit bull” must then encompass many breeds instead of just one?

Please contact the Beatrice Mayor and City Council via the City Clerk’s info that follows and politely inform them that breed-specific legislation in any form is ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional:

City Clerk: Linda Koch lkoch@beatrice.ne.gov

400 Ella Street
Beatrice, NE 68310
(402) 228-5200
Fax (402) 228-2312

From the Beatrice Daily Sun:

The Beatrice City Council held its first discussion regarding a proposed new animal ordinance Monday night.

During the hour and 15 minute discussion, the Council heard from multiple members of the community and discussed everything from how to determine the breed of a dog, to if pot-bellied pigs are considered “exotic” animals.  Read the rest of this entry »

March 18th, 2011 by Editor

All Illinoisans with a dog should know by now that Rep. John Bradley’s HB 1080, if passed, would allow breed-specific legislation — meaning breed bans and breed-specific restrictions — in any municipality in Illinois.  HB 1080 was in the House Agriculture & Conservation Committee for many weeks, but every time HB 1080 came up for a hearing, it was repeatedly not heard as if the bill’s sponsor was waiting out the bill’s opposition.

Then, an “amendment” was added to the bill with some wording about rabies vaccines, but all the “amendment” did was strike through the word “the” only to add it back in again.  It is our belief that this “amendment” was only added to HB 1080 in order to force the Agriculture & Conservation Committee to kick HB 1080 back down to the Rules Committee again in hopes that HB 1080 would be assigned to a committee more amenable to the idea of breed-specific legislation.  Because of these low-ball tactics and Rep. Bradley’s attempt at an end-around of the democratic process, we hope HB 1080 dies a well-deserved, dishonorable death in the Rules Committee.

Please write the Rules Committee and politely ask them not to give in to Rep. Bradley’s subversion of the democratic process.  And yes, merely changing one word in a so-called “amendment” in order to get HB 1080 out of the Agriculture Committee where it didn’t stand a chance, and back to the Rules Committee where it is hoped that the bill will get an assignment to a committee that will pass it on to the House floor is an end-around of the democratic process.  So is cancelling meeting after meeting where the bill is scheduled to be heard in committee in hopes of waiting out your opposition.

March 11th, 2011 by Editor

March 18, 2011 update: HB 1166 has been kicked back down to the Rules Committee.  Let’s hope it stays there.

March 11, 2011 update: You can track HB 1166‘s status here.  HB 1166 is scheduled to be heard in committee March 15:

Animals Subcommittee Hearing
Mar 15 2011, 1:05PM
Stratton Building, Room 413
Springfield, IL

This bill is currently in the Agriculture & Conservation Committee.  Please send your polite letters to the Ag Committee and oppose HB 1166!

***

We discussed Illinois HB 1166 in a prior post on hoarding, but this bill is so slimy I think it now merits its own post.  HB 1166 has the pretense of being an anti-hoarding bill, but it’s really an anti-breeder and even an anti-companion animal bill in disguise.  The bill language states that,

“A person must obtain a permit from the Board to possess 7 or more companion animals, as defined in the Humane Care for Animals Act. Failure to receive a permit for the possession of 7 or more companion animals is a violation of this Section and a person is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation is a Class 4 felony with every day that a violation continues constituting a separate offense.”

The Humane Care for Animals Act has a broad definition of companion animals.  Under the act, a,

“‘Companion animal’ means an animal that is commonly considered to be, or is considered by the owner to be, a pet. ‘Companion animal’ includes, but is not limited to, canines, felines, and equines.”

Per this definition, any animal Illinoisans keep as a pet could be considered a companion animal.  So consider the ramifications if HB 1166 passes.  For instance, a hamster is a companion animal is it not?  Have you ever brought a hamster home from the pet store only to find out later that it was pregnant and had anywhere from 5-8 babies?  So, HB 1166, if it passed, would then require you to get a permit because overnight your hamster became a mommy, unbeknownst to you.  And if you don’t get a permit for your little bundles of hamster joy, will a SWAT team bust down your door, confiscate all your animals, and throw you in jail?  Do you see how ludicrous HB 1166 is? Read the rest of this entry »

March 11th, 2011 by Editor

Editor’s note: The UK has had a breed-specific ban instituted since 1991.  I think 20 years of impotent breed-specific legislation is quite enough and indeed the repeal of the UK’s BSL is a testament to what animal welfarists have known all along: breed-specific legislation is ineffective, unenforceable, and needlessly kills innumerable innocent dogs.

Republished from the British Veterinary Association:

Over 10,000 people called for it; the country’s leading animal welfare and veterinary organisations, charities and local authorities fought for it; and Members of the House of Lords supported it when they voted to move Lord Redesdale’s Dog Control Bill on to its final stage in the Lords.

The Bill proposes to replace failed dangerous dog legislation with a new law that would repeal breed specific legislation, introduce Dog Control Notices, and apply to both public and private places. Constructed by the Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group (DDASG), the Dog Control Bill is continuing its path through the legislative system after being tabled by Lord Rupert Redesdale as a Private Members Bill in 2010. Read the rest of this entry »

March 10th, 2011 by Editor

Editor’s note: See?  Municipalities who pass these breed-specific ordinances have no idea how to enforce them because “pit bull” is not a breed and so “pit bulls” become whatever arbitrary designation the ordinance wants them to be.  Used to be they defined “pit bulls” as American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and Staffordshire Bull Terriers.  Now it looks like they think Bull Terriers are “pit bulls” too.  The truth is, “pit bull” is a catch-all that can literally be as many breeds as the ordinance defines it to be.  That’s why BSL for “pit bulls” in particular has been such a goldmine for those wanting to eradicate dog ownership, and why it is so blatantly unconstitutional.  Indeed, when even Chihuahuas are mistaken for “pit bulls” what can’t be called a “pit bull”?

From KFOR channel 4 in Oklahoma City:

A Midwest City family wins a long overdue court battle against the city. The family had been fighting for years to save their bull terrier pets. This week a state supreme court ruling ends the long legal battle.

Lower courts had previously ruled the dog ban violated state law.

This week the state supreme court refused to take up the issue, which means the Midwest City ban is now officially dead.

The dog owner at the heart of the lawsuit is obviously thrilled by the decision.

“It’s a huge relief,” said dog owner Jerry Stuckey.

The dispute centered on a now defunct Midwest City ordinance that banned dogs with “pit” or “bull” in their names as a danger to the community.

That included the Stuckey’s bull terrier dogs.

“It was just a bad ordinance. It was unconstitutional,” said Stuckey.  Read the rest of this entry »

March 9th, 2011 by Editor

Editor’s note: The following article was written by Illinoisan Lee Williams, originally posted on Illinoispolicy.org and is currently posted on the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership website. I have excerpted parts of the article below because first and foremost we deal with constitutional rights on this blog, and secondly because Illinois, as the whole world knows by now, is full of nanny-staters so corrupt even Al Capone would blush.

From JPFO.org:

Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s recent edict, which orders the state police to release the names of every gun owner to the media, is bad policy that could put guns into the hands of criminals, and give them a handy database of unarmed victims.

Madigan’s office recently mediated a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) dispute between the state police and the Associated Press. The AP had sought the names of every Illinoisan who holds a Firearms Owner Identification Card—a much-derided requirement if you want to exercise what’s left of your Second Amendment rights in this state. You can’t so much as buy a box of shotgun shells without one, much less own a gun.  Read the rest of this entry »

March 7th, 2011 by Editor

March 18, 2011 update: According to HB 1080′s status page, HB 1080 has been kicked back down to the Rules Committee where its sponsor is most likely hoping for an assignment to a more amenable committee.  We hope HB 1080 dies a well-deserved, dishonorable death in the Rules Committee because the bill and its sponsor stand for low-ball politics.

Please write the Rules Committee and politely ask them not to give in to Rep. Bradley’s attempt at an end-around of the democratic process.  And yes, merely changing one word in a so-called “amendment” in order to get HB 1080 out of the Agriculture Committee where it didn’t stand a chance, and back to the Rules Committee where it is hoped that the bill will get an assignment to a committee that will pass it on to the House floor is an end-around of the democratic process.  So is cancelling meeting after meeting where the bill is scheduled to be heard in committee in hopes of waiting out your opposition.

March 11 update: HB 1080 is now scheduled to be heard March 15, 2011, in the Agriculture & Conservation Committee:

Agriculture & Conservation Committee Hearing
Mar 15, 2011, 1:00 p.m.
Stratton Building, Room 413
Springfield, IL

A couple of years ago when Illinois was considering breed-specific legislation (BSL) at the state level, week after week the meetings where the BSL was to be heard kept getting cancelled just like what is happening now with HB 1080. They were waiting everyone out because they knew most people couldn’t keep making the trip hundreds of miles from all over the state to committee meetings that kept getting cancelled.  It was a subversion of the democratic process, just like what is happening now with HB 1080.

In this case, it looks like Bradley knows he clearly has no support for HB 1080 in the Agriculture Committee and so he has added some nonsense amendment (the “amendment” simply strikes out the word “the” and replaces it in some text about rabies vaccines) to the bill to try to kick it back to the Rules Committee hoping he gets a better committee assignment than Agriculture.  I’m guessing the “amendment” is also why his office is misleading people telling them that HB 1080 doesn’t have a committee assignment yet when you call.  Bradley is probably well aware that he has no support for the bill in the Ag Committee, but neither that, nor the fact that a majority of Illinoisans don’t want HB 1080 to pass, seems to be a deterrent for him. Usually that means there’s some special interest backing the bill from the shadows and that the bought-off “representative”  has to earn his payola, er I mean, his “campaign contribution,” and pull out all the political dirty tricks to try to get the bill through.

****

From The Journal-News:

Dear Editor:

Rep. John Bradley introduced House Bill 1080 to the Illinois General Assembly this past month. The bill, if passed, will allow amendments to the Illinois Animal Control Act so municipalities will be allowed to ban so-called “vicious” breeds from their towns.

This bill takes the judgment on the personality and behaviour of a dog out of the hands of the pet owner and places it into the hands of persons afraid of a dog based on its breed. If the Illinois house passes this bill, it will mean death to hundreds if not thousands of good dogs in the state.  Read the rest of this entry »