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: There are some surprising statistics in this article, like that in the U.S., 5,479 “pit bulls” are killed daily in shelters.  Boy if that doesn’t just break your heart, I don’t know what would!  Great article with lots of great quotables.

From the Danville News in Danville, Pennsylvania:

[Drayton Michaels of Red Bank, N.J.] known as “the Pit Bull guru,” has worked professionally with dogs for more than 10 years. He presented a seminar Sunday in Wagging Tail Doggie Day Care, attracting 30-plus people from areas including Danville, Lewisburg, Bloomsburg, Lycoming County and as far away as Connecticut and Baltimore.

“There is no epidemic of dog bites,” he said.

With about 300 million people in this country and 74 million dogs, .0002 percent of people bitten by dogs die, he said. People have a 1 in 25 million chance of being killed by a dog, he said.  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 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 »

February 14th, 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, which would allow any municipality in Illinois to pass breed-specific legislation, is currently in the Illinois House Agriculture & Conservation Committee. You can track the bill here.

As I’ve said in prior posts, for many reasons it is always cause for concern when dog mauling victims and/or their families push for a breed-specific legislation (especially for “pit bulls” since “pit bull” is not a breed).  Their anger is understandable of course, but I submit to them that they should instead lobby for the enforcement of laws already in existence in Illinois municipalities instead of lobbying for additional laws — like breed-specific legislation (BSL) — that are impossible to enforce and that don’t keep communities safer. And remember, when enforced, dangerous dog (owner) laws, like the one Illinois already has in place, have a proven track record of success.  Breed-specific legislation has proven unsuccessful nationally — most recently in Toledo, Denver, and Topeka — and worldwide — in Toronto, Italy, the Netherlands, and the U.K. Read the rest of this entry »

February 14th, 2011 by Editor

While reading an article in the Toledo Blade about Ohio Representative Sears’ HB 14 which would remove the “dangerous” dog definition for “pit bulls” in the state of Ohio, I noticed that the Toledo Blade quoted former Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon who said,

“Here in Lucas County, ["pit bulls" are] the No. 1 biting dog…They’re the dog most often shot by police officers. They’re the No. 1 fighting dog in the world, and they are a criminal tool as far as drug houses and dog-fighting operations are concerned.”

How can “pit bulls” be the #1 biting dog and the dogs most often shot by police officers when there is no such breed as a “pit bull”?  Really?  After all this time, the fact that “pit bull” is not a breed still escapes him?  Of course, according to Toledo’s kill rates, Skeldon had “pit bull”-colored goggles on, and, as I said in a prior post, Skeldon couldn’t tell a “pit bull” from the broad side of a barn.  Read the rest of this entry »

February 14th, 2011 by Editor

Due to recent dog attacks in Piney Green, N.C., Onslow County, N.C. Sheriff Ed Brown is calling for a ban of what he calls “aggressive dog breeds.”  Putting aside for the moment that no one dog breed has been scientifically proven to be inherently aggressive (and certainly not that non-existent “breed” “pit bull”), Sheriff Brown uses as his “proof” that Onslow County should pass breed-specific legislation (BSL) the fact that Marine base Camp Lejeune put a ban of so-called “vicious” breeds in place last April.  We’ll assume that Sheriff Brown is in part using the same erroneously-named 10 Most Dangerous Dog Breeds List which was gleaned from the CDC’s long-debunked dog-bite-related fatality stats compiled from 1979-1998.  For some reason people never seem to actually read the original CDC report wherein the study’s own authors advise against BSL because, as the CDC researchers themselves concluded, the study “does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill”? (Emphasis mine.)

Yes, and what did the CDC warn against based on their own study?: that it “is not appropriate for policy-making decisions [meaning passing BSL] related to the topic.”  In fact, based on their own “study” the CDC concluded that,

“Breed-specific legislation does not address the fact that a dog of any breed can become dangerous…  From a scientific point of view, we are unaware of any formal evaluation of the effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in preventing fatal or nonfatal dog bites.  An alternative to breed-specific legislation is to regulate individual dogs and owners on the basis of their behavior.”

Yet, municipalities, and the armed forces apparently, disregard this information as well as the full CDC report itself, and continue to pass BSL taking the top 10 breeds, and sometimes more, from the CDC report that appears to show those breeds (though, again, “pit bull” is not a breed) most likely to bite, attack, or kill.  Read the rest of this entry »

February 14th, 2011 by Editor

After a so-called “pit bull” attack has occurred in a city, citizens and often elected officials alike are quick to knee-jerk and request or even demand a breed ban or some other form of breed-specific legislation (BSL).  For instance, after a dog, Annie, was attacked in her backyard by two so-called “pit bulls” (though “pit bull” is not a breed) in Parker, Florida, Annie’s owners are calling for a “pit bull” ban.  Unfortunately the city may be open to the idea.  But, as ever, we must investigate further and ask: Is the problem in Parker a “pit bull” problem or a free-roaming dog problem?

According to Parker Police Chief Charles Sweatt,

“…dogs are allowed to be off their leashes as long as they are under verbal control of the owners. Changes in the ordinance could require all dogs to be on leashes if they are off their owner’s property or not in a secured area on the owner’s property.”

Clearly Parker has a free-roaming dog problem, not a “pit bull” problem.  Read the rest of this entry »