May 22nd, 2013 by Editor

Editor’s note: Again, what is a “pit bull” because “pit bulldog” is not a breed.  The slang term “pit bull” can be used to describe countless actual breeds, their mixes, and lookalikes.  In other words, “pit bull” is anything you want it to be which is why statistics on “pit bulls” and so-called “pit bull” attacks are notoriously inaccurate, skewed and therefore worthless, which the CDC itself has repeatedly acknowledged.  In addition, constant containment for specific breeds is animal cruelty and more likely to bring about the very behavior the ordinance would be looking to curb.  Commissioner Tommie Postell’s statement that Albany’s ordinance “should apply to all dangerous dogs, including poodles” is absolutely spot on.  Please contact the Albany, Georgia City Commission here and politely inform them that breed-specific ordinances are ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional.

From the Albany Herald:

Pit bull owners will have more restrictions placed on their animals under a proposed new city ordinance.

Albany City Commissioners plan to convene the city’s Citizens Advisory Committee to discuss a new dangerous dog ordinance that would come with more teeth.

Ward IV Commissioner Roger Marietta proposed adding an element to the city’s current ordinance that puts restrictions specifically on owners of the pit bulldog breed.  Read the rest of this entry »

May 21st, 2013 by Editor

As we wrote in February, Massachusetts’ S. 969 would overturn the prohibition of breed-specific legislation that Massachusetts  passed just last year, thanks to the special-interest lobbying, and one must assume favor-trading, of Boston Mayor Thomas Menino with S. 969′s sponsor, State Senator Michael Rush.  S. 969 is currently in the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government and a hearing on S. 969 will take place in that committee on June 4, 2013, at 11:00 AM in B-1.

Meanwhile, there sure have been a lot of  “attacks” by dogs commonly and erroneously fingered as “pit bulls” — one in Roslindale, one in Brockton, and several in Bridgewater — all within less than 30 miles of Boston.  Hmm, curious that.  Just as there happened to be a “pit bull” attack right when the Maryland legislature was poised to overturn the Court of Appeals decision labeling “pit bulls” as supposedly “inherently dangerous,” be looking for more of these “coincidental” “pit bull” attacks as S. 969 advances.

May 17th, 2013 by Editor

From WSBT in Indiana:

A new city committee meeting for the first time to review and rewrite South Bend’s codes governing Animal Care and Control has their work cut out for them.

Thursday night they looked at an updated version of Ft. Wayne’s codes to see how it might apply here.  They started by looking at how key terms used in the code are defined.  They tackled it alphabetically and by the end of the meeting they hadn’t made it past the letter “c.”

A Notre Dame law student who has studied other animal control laws throughout the U.S. has found many cities have been unsuccessful in defending those ordinances in court challenges.  Of particular concern are ordinances covering “BSL” or breed specific legislation.  She described the vulnerability of the city of South Bend this way:

“We are kind of a ticking time bomb here.”  Read the rest of this entry »

May 16th, 2013 by Editor

Editor’s note: Flemingsburg’s existing breed-specific ordinance isn’t working so they’re going to consider an outright ban which also won’t work?  Please write the Flemingsburg City Council by contacting the City Clerk, Joy Roark — joyroark@altiusbb.com — and politely tell them that “pit bull” isn’t a breed and that breed-specific legislation in any form is unconstitutional, ineffective, and unenforceable.

From the Ledger Independent:

City council members unanimously voted Monday to amend a current animal ordinance to ban ownership of the pit bull breed of dogs within city limits.

According to Mayor Marty Voiers, the ordinance previously allowed pit bulls to be within city limits, but required the animals to be registered and for owners to maintain insurance. Read the rest of this entry »

May 6th, 2013 by Editor

From the Osawatomie Graphic:

…After hearing statistics that show pit bulls are no more dangerous than other breeds, that media reports of pit bull bites tend to go national and other dog bites remain local news, a veterinarian’s testimony that dispels the rumor of pit bull’s locking jaws that clamp and will not release a victim, and further testimony that blamed bad owners for turning good dogs vicious, the [Osawatomie] City Council agreed to give the breed ban a second look.

“This is an ordinance that has been in effect long before we were here,” Mayor Mark Govea said, “and now we can take a look at it.”

Councilwomen Maichels and Karen LaDuex were appointed to a committee to study the issue and bring back recommendations.

“By taking time on this issue,” Maichels said, “it will give our constituents a chance to voice their concern or approval.”

Maichels said she plans to bring recommendations to the May 9 council meetings, with hope that at the May 23 meeting the council will be able to vote on a new ordinance…

April 17th, 2013 by Editor

April 25, 2013 update: According to the Wall Street Journal, HB 956 “died in committee.”  According to its sponsor, Rep. Rodney Moore, “he wasn’t sure that the breeds designated by the bill as aggressive are ones ‘with the most incidents,’ but he said they ‘were the most prevalent by the feedback that I’ve gotten’.”  Really?  So “Representative” Moore proposed HB 956 with no more than anecdotal “evidence” as “proof” that these breeds were “aggressive”?  Perhaps we should lobby for a bill to mandate minimum IQ requirements for potential “representatives.”

***

North Carolina HB 956, sponsored by Representative Rodney Moore and co-sponsored by Representative Larry Pittman, has a laundry list of nanny-state requirements (including the type of background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) that we have seen in gun control laws!) in order for North Carolinians to own dog breeds the bill defines as “aggressive.”  An “aggressive dog breed” is erroneously defined as “any of the following breeds of dog and dogs that are predominantly of any of the following breeds”:

(1) Pit bull, including the Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed, American Staffordshire Terrier breed, and
American Pit Bull Terrier breed.
(2) Rottweiler.
(3) Mastiff.
(4) Chow.
(5) Perro de Presa Canario.

The term “aggressive dog breed” also includes wolf hybrids.  Read the rest of this entry »

April 11th, 2013 by Editor

From the Palm Desert Patch:

….After hearing from their constituents, the [Riverside County Board of] supervisors voted 5-0 Tuesday to direct staff to draft an ordinance that would mandate spay and neuter of Pit Bulls and Pit Bull mixes across unincorporated areas of the county.

The draft will come before the board at a later date for consideration.

Among the citizens to speak before the board was Willa Bagwell, executive director of Wildomar-based Animal Friends of the Valleys. She spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance, arguing that Pit Bulls fill up the shelter she operates.

Shouldn’t Bagwell know that breed-specific laws, any breed-specific laws, make shelter intakes skyrocket???

Bagwell also agreed with Beaumont City Councilwoman Brenda Knight, who spoke Tuesday. Knight said she had been attacked twice by Pit Bulls, and argued the dogs have a different, more lethal bite than other canines.

“They rip and tear,” she said. “Their bites are more vicious.

“I am a dog lover,” Knight continued, but she urged the supervisors to move forward with an ordinance.

A dog lover?  Really?  Then why support legislation that’s going to see so many dogs relinquished to local shelters to be killed???  And the tired old line about “pit bulls” (whatever they are since “pit bull” isn’t even a breed) supposedly being more aggressive or more dangerous than any other actual breed of dog, is just that: tired, and long ago debunked.  Read the rest of this entry »

April 11th, 2013 by Editor

From the Times-Picayune:

Westwego officials want to make it more difficult for city residents to own pit bulls. After a near-fatal attack last month, city officials are amending the city’s pit bull ordinance, proposing that the dogs’ owners be at least 21 years old and have at least $100,000 in liability insurance under their homeowner or rental policies, according to a draft version of the city’s new ordinance.

“Those responsible pit bull owners will not have a problem with this, I’m sure, recognizing we do not want to take their dog away,” Mayor Johnny Shaddinger said Wednesday, a day after City Attorney Joel Levy submitted a first draft of the proposed ordinance.

…Under the proposal, owners must have microchips installed in the animals to track them if they escape. Breeding pit bulls will be banned, and the dogs must be spayed or neutered, Shaddinger said. If not confined to backyards, the dogs must be muzzled and must be walked on leashes no longer than 4 feet, he said.

Licensing fees haven’t been set, but the punishment for violating the ordinance could include up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $500, Shaddinger said.

Responsible “pit bull” owners do have a problem with this.  Breed-specific legislation (BSL) is unconstitutional, it unfairly scrutinizes law-abiding “pit bull” owners because of what a very few so-called “pit bull” owners do, and it erroneously defines “pit bull” as if it were an actual breed.  That and should “pit bull” owners in Westwego be assured that Westwego won’t eventually take their dogs away since this will be the second addition to an already existing breed-specific ordinance?  If Bluefield, W.V. is any indication, breed-specific ordinances often escalate to out-and-out bans, so if I were in Westwego, I wouldn’t be consoled by the fact that the Mayor says he doesn’t want to take my dog away.  Yeah, maybe not this time, but since Westwego is currently considering an escalation in their already not working BSL, how can Westwego citizens really trust that city officials don’t want to take their “pit bulls” away?  Read the rest of this entry »

April 5th, 2013 by Editor

April 11, 2013 update: Chippewa Falls Council stops short of a ban on “pit bulls.”

From the Chippewa Herald:

Does the city have a vicious dog problem? That’s the question Chippewa Falls City Committee 3 will discuss at an upcoming meeting.

“We haven’t set a date yet, but we’ll certainly do something (on) vicious dogs,” said Council Member Bill Hicks, vice chair of Committee 3, which deals with public safety issues.

The conversation has been initiated by resident Jillian Wollmer. She told the City Council Tuesday night that on March 29 her husband was chased into a vehicle by a dog she identified as a pit bull, before it and another pit bull mutilated the family’s cat, Ely, in her yard. Ely had accidentally been let out into the yard earlier by Wollmer’s 21-month-old son, who Wollmer said was fortunately inside the residence at the time of the attack.

The dogs ran off after police officers arrived at the West Central Street residence.

“As of now, the police haven’t found the dogs,” Wollmer said Wednesday. “They’re still out there, and no one knows if they’ve had any aggressive incidents prior.”

…“There will be serious discussion about a ban. The way (Wollmer) described her story, it could’ve been her child hurt or killed,” Hicks said. “Do we have to wait before someone is seriously injured first before considering this?”

…Ferg said the city’s ordinance against dogs running at large is a common citation, though the vicious dog citation applies to more serious incidents that involve injury or potential harm.

“The police are pretty good about when it’s a plain case of an animal running loose by accident and try to give a warning, but when there are repeat cases (of a dog running around) they will get cited,” Ferg said.

…“I can understand both sides (of the pit bull argument) but I think safety comes first,” she said.

Safety should always come first in any community, so why consider a breed ban or breed-specific restrictions for “pit bulls” when it is well known that breed-specific legislation (BSL) doesn’t work?  Oh, and that there is no actual breed “pit bull” .  Besides, Chippewa Falls doesn’t have a “pit bull” problem; Chippewa Falls has a free-roaming dog problem.  Read the rest of this entry »

March 19th, 2013 by Editor

From KY3 in Springfield, Missouri:

The city of Springfield is considering revamping its vicious animal ordinance, to include all breeds of dogs.  A task force could make some recommendations to the City Council this year.

Right now, pit bull owners definitely have to jump through the most hoops to own that dog — like registering it with the city, having a permit, etc.   A task force made up of citizens is discussing possibly recommending removal of that pit bull-specific part and making it where all vicious animals would be covered, regardless of breed.

…Mary Collette is one woman charged with figuring out how to build on what she calls the ordinance’s success.

“Perhaps not looking at having our ordinance be breed-specific in any way, but we could have it be vicious animal specific which is really what we are trying to get at anyway.  That is really how you are going to reduce the bites and damage,” Collette said.  “We’re hoping we can bring our ordinances in line with what is a little more progressive and actually more productive in curbing animal attacks and bites.”

Collette says the possible changes to the ordinance are in the very early stages.  There are a lot of people on the task force with ideas, and all the ideas will eventually go before city council, as well as the public getting to weigh in.

While of course breed-specific language should be removed from Springfield’s ordinance (we’ve been saying that for years) the dangerous dog language may not be much better.  Read up on how dangerous dog laws can be deadly.