September 2nd, 2010 by admin

Editor’s note: There is a wealth of information nationally and internationally that breed-specific legislation (BSL) does not work.  Please write the Kirksville Mayor and City Council here and politely inform them that BSL offers only a false sense of security since it is well known at this point that BSL in ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional .

From the Kirksville Daily Express:

Pit bulls and other “vicious” [quotes added] animals are once again in the city’s sights as a draft ordinance was debated Monday during the council’s study session.  Read the rest of this entry »

August 26th, 2010 by admin

From the Victorville Daily Press:

A consultant working with Barstow to update its vicious-dog ordinance recommends that the city consider a mandatory spay-and-neuter law. But whether that law would require all dog owners to fix their animals or only to pit bull owners is up to city officials, he says. Read the rest of this entry »

August 25th, 2010 by admin

Heavens to murgatroid, what is becoming of this country?  On the one hand we have very power-drunk nanny-staters who push overly-bureaucratic legislation like breed bans, and on the other hand we have racist podunkers who pass the same breed-specific legislation only with a racist bent.  The former, the nanny-staters, we lobby against every day because they are so busy pushing impotent breed-specific legislation it’s enough to keep a body quite busy.  But in a disturbing recent trend, we’re starting to see a lot more blatantly racist legislation involving pets too.  Read the rest of this entry »

August 21st, 2010 by admin

Editor’s note: Again, what is a “pit bull”?  There is no such breed.  And since what folks refer to as “pit bulls” often runs the gamut of actual breeds and their mixes, it’s clear that Colerain Township has a free-roaming dog problem, not a “pit bull” problem.  As we have seen time and again with municipalities seeking to push breed-specific legislation (BSL), a free-roaming dog problem, especially in this economic downturn, is usually due to a lack of Animal Control enforcement.

From Cincinnati.com:

…Colerain Township Trustee president Dennis Deters said he’s received at least five complaints about the dogs from residents in recent weeks. That follows an incident last month in which Colerain Township Police Officer Steven Karwisch was bitten by a stray pit bull and eventually shot and killed the dog.  Read the rest of this entry »

August 16th, 2010 by admin

Editor’s note: Since there is no breed “pit bull” statistics from this non-existent “breed” are meaningless.  Also, while breed bans themselves have been found to be unconstitutional, banning “pit bulls” from owners who owned their dogs prior to legislation being passed is a serious ex post facto violation.

From KAIT 8:

…”We’ve had seven attacks already this year,” says Batesville Council member Fred Krug, who is now looking to pass an ordinance to ban pit bulls within the city limits.

…The ordinance would give pit bull owners 60 days to find the dog a new home.  Read the rest of this entry »

July 27th, 2010 by admin

The following excerpted opinion piece from the Halifax-Plympton Reporter, “Pit Bulls should be registered weapons,” was written by Massachusetts Republican State Committeeman Richard Greeley. (Sections of his article appear in block quotes, and my comments follow.)  You know, we expect the nanny-staters to push overly bureaucratic, bloated government-type legislation like breed bans and mandatory registrations of guns, dogs, and the like.  We do not expect a Republican State Committeeman to claim that a breed of dog (an animal) should be registered like a weapon.  As a Republican, shouldn’t he know that breed-specific legislation doesn’t work just like gun control doesn’t work?  Shouldn’t he also know that breed-specific legislation has been repeatedly ruled unconstitutional?  Well, his whole article is devoid of proper research, so perhaps we shouldn’t expect him to know anything about the breed-specific legislation issue, which is why his uneducated opinion should be dismissed.  And while his reply to my letter was respectful, I don’t think he bothered to read any of the research or supporting evidence I included before dismissing them.  As Mr. Greeley himself pointed out to me, his piece is an opinion piece, and certainly he is entitled to his opinion.  But when politicos foster uneducated and wildly ignorant opinions about “pit bulls,” a lot of innocent dead dogs is often the result.

He begins by name-calling saying,

…It has been said that figures don’t lie, but liars figure. And regarding temperament and dog bite statistics with respect to pit bulls, liars on the wrong side of this issue clamp their jaws down on certain figures and shake furiously.

Pit bulls, i.e. the American Staffordshire terrier, the Pit Bull Terrier, the Staffordshire bull terrier and the American Bulldog, have been subjects of constant debate in this country. Given the plurality and severity of pit bull attacks on people recently, the debate is heating up again.

Did he just allude to that long-debunked urban mythology about “pit bulls’” having locking jaws?  If he isn’t embarrassed yet, he should be because ironically that myth is told by the very “S.O.B.s” he claims own “pit bulls” as status symbols.  And he insinuates that breed fanciers lie and manipulate statistics???  Oh that’s rich considering that he defines “pit bull” as four different breeds and then refers to them as if they were one!  Hmm…wonder if that might massively skew statistics, lumping a handful of breeds, their mixes, and their lookalikes together?  I think that’s what’s  called “fuzzy math.”  Read the rest of this entry »

July 27th, 2010 by admin

According to the San Jose Mercury News,

The Yucaipa City Council has given initial approval to a proposed ordinance requiring the spaying or neutering of pit bulls.

The City Council approved the ordinance’s first reading on a 4-1 vote Monday night.

If approved during a second and final reading, Yucaipa residents would have 30 days to spay or neuter their pit bulls over 4 months old or face a $100 fine.

Read this article in its entirety here.

Please contact the Yucaipa Mayor and City Council and politely inform them that “pit bull” is not a breed.  Please also inform them that breed-specific legislation (BSL) in any form has been proven to be unenforceable and ineffective and that mandatory spay/neuter laws are unconstitutional for the same reason that breed-specific legislation is unconstitutional .

July 21st, 2010 by admin

If you’ve been following the spate of Elgin, Illinois “pit bull” “attacks” for the last year or so, you may have found the sheer number of these incidents unbelievable.  You know, unbelievable, as in “too dubious or improbable to be believed.”  If you’ve been following our posts for the last 6 months, you know we have strong suspicions, as do others, that these “pit bull” “attacks” have been set-ups.  After all, it’s more plausible at this point that these “attacks” have been set up rather than that all of a sudden there have been more “pit bull” “attacks” in a little over a year in Elgin than there have been in the last 10.  I’m not a statistician, but based on the low number of dog bites/attacks  in the previous seven or eight years in Elgin, the probability of there being this many “pit bull” “attacks” in the last year as a matter of mere happenstance is bound to be quite low.

The latest “pit bull” incident, which occurred on the evening of July 17, involved Elgin resident Faustino Gonzalez whose “pit bull” purportedly jumped at police officers dispatched to investigate a report of a loose “pit bull.” (Not a loose dog, a loose “pit bull.” I guess bystanders are now breed experts as well, except that “pit bull” is not a breed.)  Both the Daily Herald and the Courier News were quick to point out that the dog was a “pit bull” (though it is unknown what breed the dog actually was), that Gonzalez had been drinking, that the dog “jumped” or “leapt” at officers, and that Gonzalez was an illegal immigrant who had already been deported as a felon.  Read the rest of this entry »

July 21st, 2010 by admin

Though Rockville Centre had passed an ordinance in June which banned “pit bulls” and Rottweilers, the Board of Trustees repealed the ban late Tuesday night. Mayor Mary Bossart said,

“We are sworn to uphold the constitution…and that is why I’m voting to repeal [the law].”

It’s good to know that the word is finally getting out that breed-specific legislation in any form is unenforceable, ineffective, and unconstitutional.

July 21st, 2010 by admin

From the Hannibal Courier-Post:

…A Hannibal letter carrier for 20 years thinks [Hannibal has a problem with dangerous dogs] and on Tuesday night asked the city council to do something about it.  Read the rest of this entry »

July 19th, 2010 by admin

According to Telegram.com Worcester, Massachusetts is currently considering a breed-specific ordinance for “pit bulls”:

Local pit bull owners are facing the prospects of greater restrictions, duties and licensing requirements for their dogs.

…While the ordinance would not ban pit bulls or restrict them to private property, it would impose supplementary licensing and registration requirements for those dogs, in addition to the regular annual dog license. The fee for the additional pit bull registration and license would be $50.  Read the rest of this entry »

July 19th, 2010 by admin

According to the July 14 Point Pleasant Register,

Point Pleasant City Council approved the first reading of a proposed ordinance that would amend the current legislation pertaining to dogs and cats during its regular meeting on Monday evening.

…Section B of the ordinance addresses specific breeds that are prohibited inside city limits. The following dog breeds fall under the prohibited category: Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier and any breeds of dog that “have the appearance and characteristics of being predominantly of the breeds of dogs known as Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier.”

According to the article, this ordinance doesn’t even have a grandfather clause so it is important that folks contact the Point Pleasant Mayor and City Council here and express their respectful opposition to the ordinance proposal.  Please politely explain to them that “pit bull” is not a breed and that breed-specific legislation (BSL) is ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional.

July 19th, 2010 by admin

Hope you all like the new updated look of NoPitBullBans.com.  We also hope you’ll take note of our new mascot “Sparky” up in the left-hand corner there.  If Sparky looks a little sad with his frown and his band-aid, it’s only because he’s sick and tired of being beaten up by breed-specific legislation.  That’s why for Sparky, and dogs like him, we will continue to spread the word that breed-specific legislation is unenforceable, ineffective, and unconstitutional.

July 8th, 2010 by admin

After an attack by what is being called a Rottweiler/”Pit bull” mix, the city of Marshfield, Wisconsin is to consider an outright “pit bull” ban later this summer.  The Wasau Daily Herald, which reported on Marshfield’s consideration of the ban, also noted that nearby Neillsville, Wisconsin (some 30 miles from Marshfield), has had a ban for almost a decade, but it doesn’t look like it’s working:

Neillsville adopted an ordinance in February 2003 that banned all new pit bulls but allowed those already licensed in the city to remain.

…”Initially, (the ordinance) was difficult to enforce, because the animal needed to be identified as a predominantly pit bull breed,” [Police Chief Brad Lindner] said.

The ordinance, however, hasn’t reduced the number of dog bites or reports of aggressive dogs, Lindner said. Read the rest of this entry »

July 7th, 2010 by admin

It was announced last month that there is now a database called the Canine Combined DNA Index System which was created by UC Davis ostensibly to prove dog fighters are using certain bloodlines.  Certainly the public will believe that the database will be used for its stated purposes, but knowing that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the ASPCA are attached to the project makes the database’s proper usage dubious.  Why?  Because of the ASPCA’s Mission:Orange campaign (or mission guardianship I guess you could call it) and because the HSUS has known domestic terrorist ties (and all the v-neck sweaters and the manscaped eyebrows of HSUS president Wayne Pacelle can’t change the HSUS’ history).  The HSUS’ lobbying techniques are…let’s just say questionable as well.  Read the rest of this entry »

July 7th, 2010 by admin

Editor’s note: Of course the logic, or lack thereof, of upholding Sioux City, Iowa’s “pit bull” ban when dog bites have only increased, is mind-boggling.  An increase in dog bites where breed bans have been passed, which is a frequent occurrence, must be God’s little joke on those who knowingly pass impotent, expensive, unenforceable and unconstitutional legislation.  And of course, the utter hypocrisy of Counciliman Aaron Rochester, whose own Labrador was declared vicious last year, is still just as astounding as ever.

From the Sioux City Journal:

The 3-2 City Council decision to maintain the pit-bull ban – and do nothing to toughen penalties on irresponsible and dangerous dog owners – may make some of you sleep better at night. But there’s no evidence it will make you safer.  Read the rest of this entry »

July 7th, 2010 by admin

Pressure is mounting in the United Kingdom to repeal the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act, which banned many breeds of dog.  Lord Redesdale has proposed legislation that would replace the Dangerous Dogs Act.  The legislation states in part that,

Banning certain types of dogs…has done nothing but make these banned breeds and their lookalikes status symbols and penalised responsible owners of these types and the dogs themselves… 

It’s about time that worthless piece of legislation, the Dangerous Dogs Act, was done away with.  Hopefully, legislation replacing it will be more sensible.

July 5th, 2010 by admin

Furor over the U.K.’s 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act (which banned many breeds of dog) has reached fever pitch.  A veterinarian writing an opinion column in today’s London Daily Telegraph wrote that,

Existing legislation has failed to reduce the number of dog bite incidents in the UK, which have risen in the past five years by 79% in London and 43% nationally. Meanwhile costs have continued to rise; ten million pounds has been spent by the Metropolitan Police alone in the past 3 years simply to implement Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act, relating to the seizure, kennelling and euthanasia of banned breeds.

No surprise here.  Breed-specific legislation (BSL) has consistently been proven to be an expensive, dismal failure worldwide, and the U.K.’s BSL is no exception.  Read the rest of this entry »

July 5th, 2010 by admin

While we do advocate for dangerous dog laws here at NoPitBullBans.com, we do so with a little bit of tremulousness.  It’s more precise to say we advocate for dangerous dog owner laws.  Why?  Because many dangerous dog laws still put the onus on the dog instead of its owner.  Read the rest of this entry »

July 5th, 2010 by admin

Unfortunately, folks in Shadyside have been getting some bad information.  Shadyside committee member Greg Warren told the press in a July 3 article that “pit bulls” are “a nuisance and dangerous” which is why Shadyside may be seeking to pass breed-specific legislation (BSL) banning them. 

Mr. Warren added, “All the research shows the pit bull is the number one dog that will attack.”  What research?  Merritt Clifton?  Dogsbite.org?  Well, if so, may we refer the Shadyside Village Council to our resources section and particularly our Debunking Dogsbite.org page and our Debunking Merritt Clifton’s “Statistics” page.  So-called “statistics” on “pit bulls” are automatically false since “pit bull” is not a breed, but a type; a type which can describe countless actual breeds, their mixes, and dogs that bear an unfortunate resemblance to those breeds and mixes.  If you understand that “pit bull” is a conglomeration of breeds, mixes, and lookalikes, not a breed itself, then you can so easily understand why statistics on “pit bulls” are skewed, false, and therefore meaningless.  In fact, some have even confused Chihuahuas for “pit bulls,” so you have to wonder if there is a dog breed you couldn’t call a “pit bull.”  Read the rest of this entry »

July 2nd, 2010 by admin

There’s no contact information anywhere for White Sulphur Springs, Montana, so we were unable to send them a letter informing them that their recent passage of an amendment requiring $500,000 in liability insurance for “breeds” with supposed “reputations for aggressive behavior” was based on incorrect information. (The named “breeds” are “pit bulls,” Doberman Pinschers, and Rottweilers, and “breeds” is in quotes, because, as we so often say, “pit bull” is not a breed!)  But then since Denver’s supposed successful breed ban was mentioned, we can make an educated guess as to who may have helped White Sulphur Springs with their amendment; someone who would probably have been all too happy to send them his disinformation letter and/or packet.  Yes, White Sulphur Springs’ amendment has the distinct smell of one-sidedness, so I would encourage White Sulphur Springs to do some independent research.  In fact, look up Margolius v. Denver wherein it was shown that Denver’s Animal Control Officers could not discern a “pit bull” as defined by their own ordinance.   We always cite this case whenever someone lies and says the Denver “pit bull” ban has been successful.  Read the rest of this entry »

June 26th, 2010 by admin

Councilman Prigge (and perhaps others on the Elgin, Illinois City Council) must be thinking “Third time’s a charm” after the Daily Herald reported in an article yesterday that Elgin Mayor Ed Schock fought off a “pit bull” “attack” Thursday evening.  I won’t include excerpts from the article, because really, I think Elgin residents have learned by now that some in the media, at least as far as “pit bull” “attacks” go, can’t be trusted.

Indeed, does anybody else find this latest “pit bull” “attack” suspicious?  Here again we have another “pit bull” incident within weeks and even months of prior incidents in Elgin.  And again, the media is reporting it as an “attack” when the dogs in question did not bite, just like the May 28 Festival Park incident wherein the victim was reported as having been bitten, when he was merely scratched.  That alone shows that the media is blowing these incidents out of proportion. (And no, that does not excuse owner irresponsibility should it be determined that the owner was irresponsible.)  Are some in the media that much in the lap of the Elgin City Council?  Are they that much a part of Prigge’s banwaggoning?  Or has the agenda changed now?  Yes, what is the Elgin City Council after now we wonder? Read the rest of this entry »

June 24th, 2010 by admin

Folks who read this blog may be wondering why we have seldom mentioned dogsbite.org, a blog dedicated to fostering hysteria about “pit bulls.”  We have little mentioned the now infamous dogsbite.org because we didn’t think we had to.  Honestly, we couldn’t conceive of anyone taking them or their witch hunt seriously.  Their website is so poorly written and their “evidence” so spotty, we honestly didn’t think any elected official would actually stoop to cite their laughable “evidence” as reason to pass breed-specific legislation (BSL).  Well, we were wrong, but luckily not terribly wrong since many politicos and the mainstream media appear to have wisely steered clear of dogsbite.org.  Still, the fact that any municipal government – and there have been a few – or the media would cite dogsbite.org with a straight face is a little alarming.  So, let’s endeavor to do what has long been overdue: debunk dogsbite.org.  Read the rest of this entry »

June 22nd, 2010 by admin

July 2, 2010 update: On June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in McDonald v. Chicago:  “The Court held that the right of an individual to ‘keep and bear arms’ protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.” Still, before the ink had even dried on the reversal, the City of Chicago was hard at work proposing more impotent, nanny-state, anti-gun legislation which is certain to negate still more constitutional rights. Why doesn’t Chicago just declare itself a Socialist State and be done with it?  I’m sure Hitler — whose own Nazi Weapons Law was the source for the U.S Gun Control Act of 1968 — would thoroughly approve.  

According to the Sun-Times,

Ten people were killed and at least 44 others were shot across [Chicago] Friday night into early Monday, including a baby girl who suffered a graze wound to the neck when gunfire erupted at a Near West Side barbecue.

This is the escalation in violence in Chicago and its surrounding suburbs that elected officials often ignore or try to dismiss.  They often won’t acknowledge or effectively address the gang violence, instead turning to tried and true diversionary tactics like proposing “pit bull” bans or even mandatory spay/neuter laws  (under the assumption that getting at gang bangers’ dogs will somehow get at the gang bangers themselves) or proposing gun bans or additional gun restrictions.  Read the rest of this entry »

June 22nd, 2010 by admin

On June 2, 2010, the Center, Missouri City Council passed a vicious dog law which simultaneously banned “pit bulls” from the city limits.  “Pit bull” owners were given 30 days to remove their dogs with no grandfather clause (or what is often mistakenly called a grandfather clause).  While recognizing in their own ordinance that the slang term “pit bull” comprises many breeds of dog and their mixes, it seemed to escape city officials’ notice that statistics on “pit bulls” are therefore vastly skewed and meaningless.  Indeed, if you define “pit bull” as American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and Staffordshire Bull Terriers, their mixes, and any dog resembling those breeds, which could be countless breeds, does it not follow that statistics on this “breed” “pit bull” might be incredibly inaccurate???  Even the article about Center’s breed-specific ordinance in the Quincy Herald Whig acknowledges that “Pit bulls do not constitute a single dog breed in themselves.”  Read the rest of this entry »

June 15th, 2010 by admin

Editor’s note: As long as Sioux City keeps a portion of their animal control law breed-specific, they’re not actually keeping their city safer.  As has been shown repeatedly, increased fines/penalties under a reasonable dangerous dog law act as a deterrence which actually keeps the community safer, assuming there is adequate Animal Control to enforce it.  Breed-specific legislation (BSL), however, has proven to be a dismal failure worldwide.  I should also add that while this article refers to Sioux City’s “pit bulls” being “grandfathered in,” they were not.  True grandfathering would have allowed existing “pit bull” owners to keep their dogs without the new requirements being applied to them.  What Sioux City passed was actually an ex post facto violation.  But then BSL on its face is already unconstitutional. (Indeed, according to the Sioux City Journal, “a Woodbury County District Court judge in January overturned six vicious designations for due-process violations by the city.”)  Also, declaring “pit bulls” (which isn’t even a breed but a slang term that can describe a number of breeds) as “high risk” dogs, as Mayor Hobart has suggested, and applying attending restrictions to them is still breed-specific legislation and still prejudicial.  Worse, it’s prejudicial without having proven that “pit bulls” are any more dangerous than other “breeds.”  

From the Sioux City Journal:

Relaxing mandatory impoundment, placing vicious dogs outside city limits and implementing a panel system for hearings are three changes that may be discussed when the City Council revisits the city’s vicious-animal ordinances at its June 28 regular meeting.

City Attorney Andrew Mai said city staffers will recommend a variety of changes, including on whether dogs must be impounded after they are accused of biting. The ordinance could be changed to read that a dog suspected of being vicious “may” be, rather than “shall” be, impounded.

“Where it’s inappropriate to have a dog put in Animal Control for a long period of time it’ll allow to free up that space for another dog and allow the owner to keep their animal,” Mai said.

It will be the newest round of discussion on a topic that has sparked contention for more than two years. Read the rest of this entry »

June 8th, 2010 by admin

From today’s Toledo Blade:

A recently approved House bill stripping the “pit bull” from Ohio’s definition of “vicious dog” has made its way to the Senate, where such proposals have not been warmly received. The amendment was added to a bill increasing penalties for animal cruelty just before House Bill 55 left the lower chamber.  Read the rest of this entry »

June 5th, 2010 by admin

The latest from Elgin2030.

Tony is so right that the media writes what it’s told to write.  Some of the articles coming out about the Festival Park incident sound like press releases instead of investigative reporting.  Still, it is a positive that the council refused to pursue BSL. 

I’m sorry to say, however, that we cannot agree with the push for dog licensure in the city of Elgin, especially after what Councilman Prigge has tried to pull.  To understand why we oppose licensure for dogs, please read a position statement on dog licensure.  

June 4th, 2010 by admin

Elgin, Illinois, City Council members this week discussed what to do after an incident in which a 9-year-old boy was apparently pinched by one of two “pit bulls” a week ago today in Elgin’s Festival Park.  I say “pinched” because that’s what the Chicago Tribune called it.  Interesting that this incident went from an “attack,” to a “bite,” to a “pinching,” as if the media is now back-pedaling.  Will we soon find out that the dogs, barely out of their puppy phase, were just trying to play with the boy?  It’s also interesting too that while the owner of the dogs, Ms. Sonia Torres, is asking how the dogs got out of their cages while on her property, which sounds like she too thinks they were stolen, the Tribune is reporting today that the dogs “escaped from their cages.”  Yet, this is how the scene was described by the Courier News on June 1:

Torres had left her house to pick up her kids and upon her return found the gates to the dog’s cages open and a hole in her fence. 

Sounds like they were stolen, and yet Ms. Torres was charged with having two dogs at large?  Why?  Read the rest of this entry »

June 1st, 2010 by admin

Why do I love the smell of a set-up in the morning?  Because it makes it easier to expose shady wrongdoings which stink to high heaven.  Anyone else getting the feeling that there’s something really rotten in Elgin, Illinois, based on Elgin’s most recent “pit bull” incident?  The Courier News made sure to include a photo in their report today about the two dogs involved in an incident in Festival Park on Friday just so we’d know they were “pit bulls,” though we still don’t definitively know what breed the dogs actually were.  The two dogs were free-roaming on Friday, when they were found a mile from their home.

Read the rest of this entry »

May 31st, 2010 by admin

Update, June 1, 2010: According to a media report, it appears that the dogs in question were free-roaming through no fault of the owner.  The dogs were discovered missing from their cages upon the owner’s return home and there was an apparent hole in the fence.  As the owner herself has said, there should be a full investigation into this incident, including finger-printing of the empty cages and the hole in the fence, to determine the culprits of this crime and just who it was who put that 9-year-old boy’s life in jeopardy. 

The people in Elgin, Illinois, must be thinking, “Here we go again!” after the Daily Herald reported yesterday on another supposed “pit bull” incident in which a boy, 9, in Elgin’s Festival Park was bitten by one of two free-roaming supposed “pit bulls.”  Naturally, Councilman John Prigge is chomping at the bit and will almost certainly try to get something breed-specific passed, moving against the will of the majority of Elgin’s citizens again.  Prigge is like the Terminator; he won’t stop until, I guess, he sees a lot of dead dogs. (And isn’t that what breed-specific laws always amount to: a lot of dead dogs?)  Read the rest of this entry »

May 28th, 2010 by admin

Editor’s note: While we wholeheartedly support the amendment to Ohio’s HB 55 which would remove the designation of “pit bull” as a dangerous breed, we have some serious misgivings about some of the other provisions of the bill like court-ordered psych evals, particularly for minors, who violate certain provisions of the law.  As such, we are only supporting HB 55′s amendment which would remove statewide BSL.  Is this why this bill is 61 pages long?  Did they hope folks wouldn’t read the bill and just give a pass to the entire bill because parts of it would repeal statewide BSL?  

Victor Hugo said, “There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.”  Apply that axiom to breed-specific legislation and Ohio specifically, and it’s about time that Ohio repealed its 1987 law declaring “pit bulls” as inherently vicious dogs (the only state law like it in the nation).  After all, it’s known the world over now that breed-specific legislation (BSL) is unenforceable, ineffective, and prejudicial, and that there is no such thing as an inherently vicious breed of dog.

Like so much of BSL, Ohio’s law was passed capriciously in 1987 as the result of a dog attack.  Instead of looking at the facts, Ohio went for the quick “fix,” which ironically fixed nothing at all.  That’s why several brave Ohio representatives have this year and in years past tried to repeal Ohio’s statewide BSL.  This year, Rep. Matt Szollosi seems to have gained the most momentum with his amendment to House Bill 55 which would strike the “breed” “pit bull” from Ohio’s definition of a dangerous dog.  The bill has already passed the Ohio House and now heads to the Senate.  Please take a moment to thank Rep. Szollosi and Rep. Barbara Sears (who also tried this session to get the “pit bull” dangerous dog designation removed from Ohio state law with her bill HB 79) for their efforts in righting this 23-year long wrong.  And if you live in Ohio, please contact your representatives and senators and support this amendment to HB 55!   Read the rest of this entry »

May 27th, 2010 by admin

Inside Edition today reported on a mother in California who recently had to shoot a stray dog that attacked her two daughters as they stood on their front lawn.  The dog’s breed was believed to be a Boxer, but as ever, the breed is not what makes a dog potentially dangerous; the fact that the dog was free-roaming is.  That’s why dangerous dog laws are so much more effective than breed-specific legislation (BSL).  Dangerous dogs laws treat all irresponsible dog owners equally, increase penalties for irresponsible dog owners, and therefore act as an effective deterrent.  Read the rest of this entry »

May 26th, 2010 by admin

In the last decade, we’ve seen a lot of corruption in this country.  We’ve seen corrupt and immoral politicians on the federal, state, and municipal levels; people who believe they don’t have to follow the same laws they pass in a true do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do fashion.  Is that what’s happening in Garland, Texas with the recent “pit bull” fencing requirements just issued? Read the rest of this entry »

May 24th, 2010 by admin

My, my, my what passes for journalism these days.  Yesterday, the United Press International (UPI) published an article about bully breeds, but it was difficult to determine if the article was advocating for these breeds, or if it was just more of the same conflicting information.  For instance, the article stated that PETA was a defender of “pit bulls”:

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is among defenders of the breed…”We’re for ‘em,” PETA said in a posting on its Web site. “By ‘for ‘em,’ I mean that we are for pit bull protection, for their happiness, and for treating them like dogs instead of like cheap burglar alarms, punching bags or gladiators in perverted death matches.”

Now by “defenders” does UPI mean advocates for “pit bull” death?  Because a simple Google search turned up the following from PETA’s website:

We…support pit bull bans, as long as they include a grandfather clause allowing all living dogs who are already in good homes and well cared for to live the remainder of their lives safely and peacefully.

And so what does this stance result in?  Lots and lots of innocent, dead dogs.  Breed bans always result in high kill rates in shelters and in animal controls due to owner surrenders and confiscations.  Not to mention, if PETA are the ones defining what is a “good home” for “pit bulls” there will likely be very few homes that will qualify.  Read the rest of this entry »

May 21st, 2010 by admin

For some reason, the Toledo Free Press yesterday wrote a…well, gosh, I don’t know what to call it.  The article — Former dog warden warns: watch out for pit bulls — about former Lucas County (of which Toledo is a part) Dog Warden Tom Skeldon, reads like an apologetic of sorts on the one hand, and a saving-face PR stunt on the other.  Does Mr. Skeldon also have relatives working at the Toledo Free Press?

Anyone who has been involved in fighting breed-specific legislation (BSL) in the last 10 or so years knows the name Tom Skeldon like they know the names Kory Nelson or Merritt Clifton.  These are the names of death.  These men are responsible for the disinformation campaign that has seen the needless mass killing of thousands of adoptable, lovable dogs they inaccurately finger as “pit bulls.”  One wonders if these men aren’t part of a death cult for what they have wrought.  And so Mr. Skeldon is a former dog warden for a reason.  One of those reasons seems to be that he can’t discern an American Pit Bull Terrier, or any other breed erroneously deemed a “pit bull,” from the broad side of a barn. Read the rest of this entry »

May 20th, 2010 by admin

A guest editorialist for the Mansfield, Ohio, newspaper Mansfield News Journal today writes,

If the likelihood and frequency to bite is what makes [a dog] vicious, then there are many breeds that should be banned as vicious breeds well before the pit bull [and where the author uses the word "pit bull" it would seem s/he is referring to the American Pit Bull Terrier], such as Chihuahuas and cocker spaniels, which have been at the top of the list for bite frequency for nearly eight years. Read the rest of this entry »

May 19th, 2010 by admin

6/15/10 update: According to the Auburn Journal,

There will be no breed-specific legislation in Auburn. In a three-to-two vote Monday night, Auburn City Council members decided to delete regulations about the mandatory spay and neuter of pitbulls from the city’s updated animal ordinance and directed city staff to work to support Safety First, the new educational and assistance program for dog owners and community members in Auburn.

***

Auburn, California is considering a breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter law for the following breeds considered to be “pit bulls”:

-Bull Terrier
-Miniature Bull Terrier
-American Pit Bull Terrier
-Staffordshire Bull Terrier
-American Staffordshire Terrier
-Any dog that a ‘reasonable person’ would believe to be one of these breeds
-Any dog exhibiting the AKC or UKC breed standards for these breeds

Do you see just how random and arbitrary breed-specific legislation (BSL) is?  Who comes up with these lists of banned or restricted breeds, who decides which breeds should be on them, and why are they always different?  And does it not follow that if you have 10, 20, or 30 or more breeds defined as “pit bulls” that statistics on “pit bulls” might be vastly skewed and therefore meaningless? 

Do you also understand why we immediately dismiss any incident of a dog attack where the dog in question is described as a “pit bull”?  As you can see from the above list, “pit bull” can describe as many breeds of dogs and their mixes as those pushing BSL so choose.  Also, it’s wildly unconstitutional to have language in an ordinance that defines a “pit bull” as “any dog that a ‘reasonable person’ would believe to be one of these breeds.”  How in the world do you comply with such a vague provision???  Your compliance or non-compliance is based solely on someone else’s opinion about your dog, and that opinion doesn’t even have to be an educated one!  And if you have to put the words “reasonable person” in your legislation, chances are quite good that you’ll get anything but reason. (Often the word “reasonable” is added to legislation that its author knows is quite unreasonable.)  Indeed, you’re likely to get more of the same hysteria which brought about the BSL in the first place.  Not to mention that the AKC and UKC have said time and again that their breed standards are not to be used to enforce BSL, and that doing so is a copyright violation. Read the rest of this entry »

May 17th, 2010 by admin

Several years ago, we marveled at the fact that the city of Boston — site of the Boston Tea Party — had passed breed-specific legislation (BSL).  Despite what municipalities are often told, breed-specific legislation has been ruled unconstitutional in several court venues.  Boston’s ordinance requires the owners of “pit bulls” and “pit bull” mixes to register their dogs with Animal Control, to muzzle their dogs in public, and to post a warning sign on their property. (It’s as if the same unconstitutional, model breed-specific law travels the country; after all, we keep seeing this same poorly-written, unjust law cropping up again and again.  If only the animal rights group(s) and other shady individuals behind this model BSL would have the guts to come right on out and admit that they’re the ones pushing this heinous piece of legislation.  Instead, they act as the puppet masters, manipulating city councils around the nation into believing BSL keeps communities safer.) Could the founders have conceived of such a violation of individual liberties as a breed-specific ordinance? Doubtful, and yet Boston in part gave birth to American liberty.  Hmm…wonder what Samuel Adams would have done had the British tried to pass a breed-specific law.  Read the rest of this entry »

April 22nd, 2010 by admin

From Pantagraph.com:

Pit bulls will no longer be singled out by the animal control ordinance, the City Council decided in a unanimous vote Wednesday.

The old ordinance was drawn up several years ago to combat reports of the breed attacking people. State law now prohibits breed-specific ordinances, City Attorney Steve Myers told the council.

The new ordinance allows the city to take action against any vicious dog, as long as there are several complaints and they are documented, Myers told the council…