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 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 »

March 7th, 2011 by Editor

Editor’s note: Fatal dog maulings almost always have mitigating factors — like the dog being sick, unaltered, abused, unsocialized, or some combination of these — that the media seldom takes into consideration.  What we know for sure is that dog-bite related fatalities are not a breed problem.  Any dog of any breed if left unsocialized or if abused can become dangerous.  Pete Murphy with the Dubuque Regional Humane Society sums it up best in the article below when he says, “There’s a potential for this to happen with every breed… it’s very important to supervise dogs with kids as well as socialize and train them.”  Indeed, even small-breed dogs have been known to kill infants, so parents, grandparents, guardians, etc. must always be vigilant.

Please contact* the Hopkinton Mayor and City Council at the following address and politely inform them that breed-specific legislation does not prevent dog bites/attacks; that it is ineffective, unenforceable, and has been ruled unconstitutional:

Hopkinton City Hall
115 First St SE
PO Box 154
Hopkinton, IA 52237-0154

Phone: 563-926-2181
Fax: 563-926-2065

Email: cityhopk@iowatelecom.net

From KWWL NBC 7:

We now know the name of a three year old girl killed after she was mauled by dogs this weekend. And some government leaders say they may make changes in their city as a result of the attack.  Read the rest of this entry »

March 1st, 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, 2011 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.

****

HB 1080 has been assigned to the House Agriculture & Conservation Committee. You can track the bill here.  Please send your polite letters opposing HB 1080 to the Illinois House Agriculture & Conservation Committee and let’s stay vigilant Illinois.  This bill, if passed, will spell needless death for thousands of dogs in the state of Illinois!

As we wrote about several days ago, Illinois Representative John Bradley has proposed HB 1080, a bill that would overturn the prohibition of breed-specific legislation in the state of Illinois allowing any municipality to ban or restrict any breed of dog it so chooses. As this article on the KFVS channel 12 website explains, HB 1080 is supposedly in response to several dogs attacking a boy in southern Illinois.  Yet, rather than looking at the situation logically, Bradley concludes instead that the attack on the boy was a failing of poor legislation rather than poorly-enforced legislation.  In other words, had the city where the attack happened enforced its leash law and had there been adequate Animal Control personnel, maybe there wouldn’t have been free-roaming dogs roaming around; free-roaming dogs that put the boy in jeopardy. [And here I should make it clear that I'm not accusing Animal Control of failing to protect the boy. Many times attacks happen after repeated complaints have been made to Animal Control, but municipalities across Illinois have been hard-hit by the economic downturn and have cut back on Animal Control.  This is not the Animal Control officers' fault, but it's also not the fault of any one breed of dog either.]

The other faulty assumption Bradley makes is that because the attacking dogs were supposedly “pit bulls” (though there is no such breed as “pit bull”) that a breed ban or breed-specific restrictions would have prevented the attack.  On the contrary, there is ample evidence nationally and internationally of the failing of breed-specific legislation.  We must also conclude that Rep. Bradley knows little about dogs because if he did understand the nature of dogs, he’d know that it’s not the breed in a free-roaming situation that makes dogs dangerous; it’s the fact that they are free-roaming that makes them potentially dangerous.  Again, this points to a lack of Animal Control enforcement, not a breed problem.  In fact, Ledy VanKavage, attorney for Best Friends Animal Society observes that,

“Illinois has some of the strongest dangerous dog laws on the books, so what’s the problem? The answer is lack of enforcement.”  Read the rest of this entry »

February 25th, 2011 by Editor

Editor’s note: Looks like Canada, along with all the rest of the world, is finally waking up to the fact that breed-specific legislation is costly, ineffective, and unenforceable.

From the Winnipeg Sun:

…After launching an e-mail campaign, advocates for ownership of the reputedly vicious dog breed are expected to urge a group of councillors Monday to repeal the municipal prohibition that began in 1990. Coun. Gord Steeves, who met with some of the pit bull supporters in December, says he’ll listen with an open mind when they come before the protection and community services committee.

“They have certain feelings on the breed, and feel that it’s been unfairly treated over time with this ban,” said Steeves (St. Vital), the committee’s chairman. “It’s probably fair that we have the discussion. And then we can ask our people to review it.”  Read the rest of this entry »

February 22nd, 2011 by Editor

Editor’s note: The Denver Daily News article didn’t mention the 2004 case of Margolius v. the City of Denver in which it was demonstrated that “all of Denver’s animal control officers were disqualified because they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt they could identify what is known as the American Pit Bull Terrier” as defined by their own ordinance.  Just like in Toledo, Denver is killing indiscriminately and apparently now not even informing Denver dog owners of their right to appeal.  And while the article below refers to dogs mislabeled as “pit bulls” in Denver as “innocent dogs,” the breeds they call “pit bull” are just as innocent and deserving of life.

From the Denver Daily News:

Denver animal control officers mislabeled another dog as a pit bull, raising additional questions over the department’s credibility when handling the lives of both the dogs themselves and the families they come from.

An administrative-law judge this month ruled that animal control officers mislabeled a 10-month-old boxer-mix puppy as a pit bull.

Despite being identified by three independent animal control officers as being a pit bull, the administrative-law judge heard testimony from experts stating otherwise, and ruled that the animal control officers had mislabeled the dog. Read the rest of this entry »

February 22nd, 2011 by Editor

Feb. 22, 2011 update.  Councilman Kevin Voisin sent the following regarding Monday’s meeting:

“…We are sending the issue back fo more work and it will be reviewed soon.  One of the issues we identified as needing work at our meeting last night was to avoid a breed specific ordinance.  Thanks for all of the information.  I am sure that we will come up with something that works and moves us forward…”

Editor’s note: Please contact the Terrebonne Parish Council here and politely inform them that there is no such breed as “pit bull” and that breed-specific legislation is ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional.

From Houma Today:

Published: Sunday, February 20, 2011 at 6:01 a.m.

Pit-bull law. Terrebonne Parish Councilman Billy Hebert, who represents Bayou Cane and Broadmoor, researched the possibility of a breed-specific dog law after a 4-year-old was mauled last month in Houma. The issue will be discussed at the Policy, Procedure and Legal Committee meeting at 6:15 p.m. Monday. Any change to parish law must also go to a public hearing, which has not been scheduled in this case, according to council documents.  Read the rest of this entry »

February 17th, 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, 2011 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 AKC:

Illinois Committee to Consider Removal of BSL Ban

The Illinois House Agriculture & Conservation Committee is scheduled to consider a bill…that would remove the state ban on breed-specific legislation. All responsible dog owners are strongly encouraged to contact the committee and ask them to oppose House Bill 1080.  Read the rest of this entry »

February 16th, 2011 by Editor

Feb. 24, 2011 update: Word is that BSL was voted down in Friday Harbor, 3-2.  That’s close, so folks please stay vigilant.

Editor’s note: It looks like a discussion of BSL is on the agenda for tomorrow’s council meeting:

http://www.fridayharbor.org/PDF/Council%20Packet/021711/dog.pdf

If you’re in the area, you may want to attend.  Otherwise, please write the Friday Harbor Mayor and City Council here and politely inform them that breed-specific legislation is ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional. (Notice that on the town council’s page they have posted the same quote from Benjamin Franklin that we often use here: “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” I wonder if they know that the breed-specific ordinance that they’re considering would negate those very essential liberties that Franklin was talking about while ironically BSL wouldn’t even make residents of Friday Harbor safer.)

From the San Juan Journal:

Just how far they’re willing to go remains to be seen.

But the Friday Harbor Town Council made no bones about its intent to tighten up on town law and to clamp down on dangerous dogs, and on potentially dangerous ones as well.

At the council’s request, town staff is expected to present a set of preliminary regulations for consideration when the council meets this Thursday, Jan. 20.  Read the rest of this entry »

February 16th, 2011 by Editor

Last Friday I stumbled across what I thought was going to be a promising article in The Seattle Times that began,

“Pit bulls are the most abused, reviled, abandoned and euthanized dogs in the United States.”

Anyone who has ever rehabilitated abused bulldog breeds knows first-hand the heartbreaking truth of the above statement.  But while The Seattle Times seemed to be attempting a “pit bull” apologetic, it doesn’t look like they quite had all the facts.  Read the rest of this entry »