Watertown, WI Removes “Pit Bull” Language from Dangerous Dog Law, Ordinance Passes
Thank you sensible aldermen of Watertown, Wisconsin! In a vote of 6 to 3 on Tuesday, Sept. 3, 2013, the Watertown Common Council voted to amend their dangerous dog law proposal to remove language specific to so-called “pit bulls.” Thanks to Alderman Robert Stocks, who made a motion to amend the ordinance, council members Emily McFarland, Ken Berg, John Coughlin, Augie Tietz, Jim Romlein, and Stocks himself, voted to remove the breed-specific language for “pit bulls.” As you might have guessed, aldermen Fred Smith, Mark Kuehl and Steve Zgonc voted against the amendment. To the cooler heads that prevailed, thank you for taking the time to do the research, look at the facts, and not participate in the hysteria that was brought about by the hate-mongers at Dogsbite.org .
And for all Alderman Fred Smith talked a good game about public safety, had he listened to anyone other than the doggy-killers at Dogsbite.org he might’ve gotten on board to pass legislation that worked with his community and that actually had a chance to make his constituents safer, instead of continuing to repeat long ago debunked “pit bull” urban mythology like this:
“I believe pit bulls are inherently dangerous regardless of how responsible the owners are. That isn’t to say all pit bulls are dangerous, but the inherent danger is there . . . If we cloud our vision and pretend this is not the case, we are not furthering the total safety of the community,” Smith said. “Some people have said it is discriminatory to do this with pit bulls and they are right because (pit bulls) are in a class by themselves.”
Smith is right about one thing. The dogs he still insists on incorrectly referring to as “pit bulls” are in a class by themselves: They are the most loyal, loving, and beautiful breeds of dog that exist.
In fact, it is precisely those who hate — those pushing for breed-specific legislation (BSL) who want to kill all “pit bulls” and those evil people who exploit them, whether for heinous things like dog fighting, to further their own political careers, or even to further their domestic animal extinction campaign — who have slandered bulldog breeds and told lies about them. Will they tell you the truth about their real intentions? Doubtful. But their own words betray them anyway.
Regardless, as it is well known by now, breed-specific legislation does not make communities safer; dangerous dog (owner) laws make communities safer with deterrents like escalating fines and penalties. As I said in a prior post, with all the information out there showing that BSL is impotent and unconstitutional legislation that can actually increase dog bite rates, those who seek to pass it anyway are either stupid or corrupt. I don’t think Alderman Fred Smith is stupid.
Related Posts By Category
- Watertown, Wisconsin’s “Pit Bull” Ban Proposal Passes First Reading
- Watertown, Wisconsin Inflexible on “Pit Bull” Ban; Resident Gets Frosty Reception
- Flint MI: Will Pit Bull Language Really Be Removed from Ordinance Proposal, or is Councilman Neeley Double-Speaking?
- Baker City, Oregon May Consider Pit Bull Restrictions Via Dangerous Dog Law
- Springfield, Missouri May Remove Breed-Specific Language from Existing Ordinance in Favor of a Dangerous Dog Provision