November 19, 2008 at 2:03 pm
· Filed under Breed-Specific Legislation
Editor’s note: I could go on and on about how utterly lacking in logic the comments from Arkansas City city officials are, but I’ll let their own comments speak for themselves. I will however say that there is no such thing as a dog breed that is “violent and aggressive without provocation.” Nor are the breeds listed variants of the “pit bull” because “pit bull” is not a breed. American Pit Bull Terrier, yes, that’s a breed, but is that what is meant by the slang term “pit bull”? Hopefully someone legally challenges the city on grounds of vagueness (among other things).
From The Winfield Daily Courier:
“As expected, city commissioners banned the Presa Canario dog breed in Arkansas City at its meeting Tuesday. (more…)
November 19, 2008 at 12:15 pm
· Filed under Breed-Specific Legislation, Constitutional Rights
From KTJJ 98.5 FM in Farmington, Missouri:
“The Herculaneum Board of Aldermen is working on an ordinance that would ban the ownership of pit bulls in the city limits…The issue will be addressed at next weeks meeting [November 24 at 7:00 P.M.].”
Please contact the Herculaneum Board of Aldermen and politely inform them that breed-specific ordinances are unenforceable, ineffective, and unconstitutional.
November 19, 2008 at 12:03 pm
· Filed under Breed-Specific Legislation, Constitutional Rights
From ArkCity.com:
“Arkansas City may ban the dog breed Presa Canario at its meeting [November 18] at 7, at City Hall.
The dog is large, aggressive and has been known to kill people, Mayor Mel Kuhn said.
There are eight dog breeds on a list the city is considering, and each of them are some variant of the Pit Bull, which the city has already banned. (more…)
November 12, 2008 at 9:41 am
· Filed under Animal Rights Terrorism, Guardianship Law
Editor’s note: Following is an excerpt from a great article called “Terrorism in the name of animal rights” by P. Michael Conn which appeared in today’s L.A. Times.
…Animal rights activists know how important words can be. The Northern California-based organization In Defense of Animals and its founder, Elliot Katz, advocate substituting “companion animal” for “pet” and “animal guardian” for “pet owner” in local ordinances and everyday parlance. The idea is “to elicit responsible treatment of companion animals and end abuse, neglect and abandonment of pets.”
…it’s never right to abuse or neglect animals, but U.S. law already contains vigorously enforced animal welfare statutes that require animals to be fed, sheltered and treated as more than just property. It is legal to toss an old coat in a dumpster, but it is not legal to toss an old dog into one. (more…)
November 7, 2008 at 11:11 pm
· Filed under Animal Rights, Environmentalism
If any of my readers is tempted to tune in to the Animal Planet mini-series “Whale Wars” (which started this evening) well, there’s something you should know about Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society which is prominently featured in the series.
According to the May 2007 article “Eco-Extremist Wants World Population to Drop below 1 Billion” featured in Business and Media Institute magazine, Mr. Watson believes that “saving the whales is more important than saving 5.5 billion people.” The article went on to quote Mr. Watson as saying, “We are killing our host the planet Earth.” The cure? According to Mr. Watson, the “cure” would be “a population drop to less than 1 billion.” Indeed, his exact words were, “We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion.” (more…)
October 28, 2008 at 6:34 pm
· Filed under Breed-Specific Legislation, Constitutional Rights
Recently we sent a letter to Salisbury regarding their possible consideration of breed-specific legislation (BSL) based on comments from one of their Selectmen in The Daily News in Newburyport:
“[Selectman Don] Beaulieu, an insurance broker, said there are breeds of dogs listed as potentially problematic — such as pit bulls — by the insurance industry. To prevent residents from fearing walking through their own neighborhoods, Beaulieu suggested selectmen consider “tightening up” the town’s dog ordinances to provide more stringent rules for those who own dog breeds with aggressive tendencies.”
In response we received a curt reply from the town manager indicating that no interference from outsiders was warranted. (more…)
October 28, 2008 at 6:31 pm
· Filed under Anti-Tethering, Breed-Specific Legislation, Constitutional Rights, Mandatory Spay/Neuter
From The Joplin Globe:
“There was no movement Monday night by the Joplin City Council to ban any particular breeds of dogs to try to reduce aggressive-dog behavior and bites.
Instead, council members informally agreed to look at making changes to the city’s animal-ownership ordinances that would forbid tethering or chaining as a means of securing dogs, require mandatory neutering and spaying, and strictly cite owners for violations of the ordinances.” (more…)
October 28, 2008 at 6:16 pm
· Filed under Breed-Specific Legislation, Constitutional Rights
From the Jennings Daily News:
“The Board of Aldermen…may amend the existing pit bull ban to include all similar, “vicious” dogs.
The current ordinance that was passed in 2002 requires that all pit bulls be impounded immediately. ” (more…)
October 21, 2008 at 3:36 pm
· Filed under Breed-Specific Legislation, Tethering, Dangerous Dog Law, Constitutional Rights
From The Seattle Times:
“Metropolitan King County Council…took the first step Monday toward a possible prohibition on chaining dogs or holding them in small enclosures for long periods. (more…)
October 21, 2008 at 3:18 pm
· Filed under Dangerous Dog Law
From the Columbia Basin Herald:
“Suggestions for changing the potentially dangerous dog ordinance were presented to the Moses Lake council but no action was taken.
A committee appointed by Mayor Ron Covey to evaluate the ordinance met Oct. 7 and compiled a list of possible changes to the ordinance to possibly avoid banning pit bulls from the city. The committee consists of pit bull owners and city representatives. (more…)
October 21, 2008 at 3:05 pm
· Filed under Dangerous Dog Law
From the TimesDaily.com:
“Tuscumbia officials now have more authority to handle complaints about vicious dogs after the council tonight approved an ordinance that defines such animals.
A dog is considered vicious if it bites or attacks someone without adequate cause. It also applies to an animal that consistently chases, snaps or barks at people or other animals without reason. (more…)
October 16, 2008 at 12:33 pm
· Filed under Breed-Specific Legislation, Constitutional Rights
Editor’s note: If you are an Illinoisan, a bull breed owner, and particularly if you are a resident of Canton, please say a BIG thank you to Canton Ald. Strandberg who in our dealings with him has been a perfect gentleman and a true patriot and public servant. He recognized immediately what the problem with this ordinance was and took immediate action to make changes keeping his oath to uphold the Constitution when so few other elected officials do. Please remember Alderman Strandberg at election time Canton residents. Please also thank the Fulton County Humane Society and the Chicago law firm Wildman & Harrold which agreed to take on the legal challenge against Canton free of charge. Thank you all for defending our constitutional right to own our dogs, no matter what breed they may be.
From the Canton Daily Ledger:
“Canton officials recommended Tuesday two sections of the 20-year-old city ordinance on vicious dogs be repealed and more comprehensive revisions made later.
About two dozen people attended the meeting of the city council’s Clerical Committees, who were interested in changing the ordinance on vicious dogs. Alderman Dave Nidiffer, chairman of the Legal and Ordinance Committee, said officials had learned elements of the ordinance may be unconstitutional. (more…)
October 15, 2008 at 11:26 am
· Filed under Breed-Specific Legislation, Constitutional Rights
Editor’s note: Following is our letter to the Fort Riley Commanding Officer regarding Fort Riley’s decision to ban “pit bulls” from the base. Read the article about the ban “Pit bulls banned from Fort Riley.”
To:
The Commanding Officer
Dear Sir:
It was of great concern to hear that Fort Riley has banned “pit bulls,” American Staffordshire Terriers, and their mixes from the base, particularly as “pit bull” is not a breed recognized by any breed registry like the AKC, UKC, or ADBA. Indeed, the slang term “pit bull,” which has repeatedly been found by many courts to be unconstitutionally vague, can refer and has referred to at least 30 different breeds. One could argue that any medium- or large-sized breed could technically be called a “pit bull” since this seems to be the standard the media uses. As such, statistics on “pit bulls” are greatly skewed making it appear as if the “pit bull” “breed” is inherently vicious or more deadly. However, if actual breed determinations were made for attacking dogs instead of simply labeling them “pit bulls,” no one breed would emerge as more statistically likely to bite/attack/kill.
Worse, breed bans have been found to negate due process rights (meaning they are unconstitutional) by several courts in the United States. We are told that these wars fought in Afghanistan and Iraq are undertaken in order to spread democracy to lands where the notion of freedom is a foreign idea, and yet this arbitrary ban is a stark violation of the constitutionally-protected rights to due process and ownership and use rights. Are my colleagues and those we represent to understand that Fort Riley would negate the very rights that our soldiers are fighting for in foreign lands as we speak? Is this just? (more…)
October 2, 2008 at 4:55 pm
· Filed under Military BSL, Breed-Specific Legislation, Constitutional Rights
Editor’s note: While we won’t post Fort Carson’s unnecessarily snarky, PR-machine generated response to our initial letter to them, we will post our response to their response. Suffice it to say there was no need for the tone they took with us, and there was certainly no excuse for treating tax paying members of the public this way. We civilians pay their salary do we not? As such I think it perfectly within bounds to demand an explanation when our own military treats our soldiers so shabbily.
To:Mr. Dean Quaranta
Chief, Housing Division
Mr. Quaranta-
My interest, and that of my colleagues, is in the upholding of the Constitution. Ironically, soldiers who have just deployed and their fellow soldiers are fighting a war on several fronts in order to defend those constitutional rights; rights which in this instance may not be afforded to them. (more…)
September 30, 2008 at 7:37 pm
· Filed under Blog
Editor’s note: My apologies for the lateness of this post. We’ve been real busy here lately. Hopefully folks can still join these classes a little late.
Join the ranks of dog-loving bloggers like Dog Politics, Caveat, Blue Dog State, Lassie Get Help, Terrier Man, No Pit Bull Bans and many many more.
Learn why blogs can blow websites away when it comes to reaching the general internet-surfing public. (more…)
September 30, 2008 at 4:38 pm
· Filed under Breed-Specific Legislation, Constitutional Rights
Editor’s note: Yes, government on every level, by all means, start giving in to your constituents’ irrational fears! Let’s ban everything that we have an irrational fear of! Let’s have an entire world wrapped in bubble wrap so nobody will have to be afraid of anything. We won’t be free, but we’ll be safe! (in theory anyway.) And government wonders why the citizenry has lost total faith in it? Really? Really???
From mcherald.com:
“Ridgeland neighbors that have been in a heated battle over dogs for months will appear in Ridgeland Municipal Court today.
April Scott of 617 Ralde Circle has alleged that her next-door-neighbors’ two pit bulls and Rottweiler are a danger, and she wants the pets removed.
Dog owners Pete and Gloria Grantham of 615 Ralde Circle keep the three dogs in their fenced-in backyard. The couple at one time also owned two other dogs that Ridgeland city officials have ordered removed. (more…)
September 26, 2008 at 2:16 pm
· Filed under Breed-Specific Legislation, Constitutional Rights
Though The Seattle Times and other media outlets declared that “Moses Lake backs off pit bull ban,” that doesn’t mean that Moses Lake isn’t still considering restrictions for “pit bulls.” The Seattle Times notes that “The Moses Lake City Council took no action Wednesday on a proposed ordinance to ban pit bulls in the city” and that “The council decided to form a committee of dog owners and other residents to find a compromise.” However, that does not mean that Moses Lake won’t still be considering or passing a breed-specific ordinance.
Please continue to contact the Moses Lake Mayor and City Council and politely inform them that breed bans/restrictions are ineffective, unenforceable, and worst of all, unconstitutional.
September 24, 2008 at 5:57 pm
· Filed under Breed-Specific Legislation, Constitutional Rights
From the Peoria Journal Star:
“Police and an animal control officer will start writing tickets to Canton residents who walk pit bulls in the city without muzzles.
…Last year, the council passed a vicious dog ordinance that requires pit bulls not in their owners’ yards to be on leashes and muzzled. (more…)
September 24, 2008 at 5:43 pm
· Filed under USDA, Breeder Restrictions
Editor’s note: A similar letter was sent to the sponsor and co-sponsors of S. 3519’s companion bill H.R. 6949 in the U.S. House of Representatives and each letter was CCed to the Agriculture Committees in both the House and Senate who will be considering the bills.
Dear Sen. Durbin:
It is quite alarming that at the outset of the U.S. Senate’s 2008-2009 session that such a severe bill as S. 3519 — the “Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act,” or “P.U.P.S. Act” — has already been proposed. Even more alarming is your acknowledgment — on the Senate floor, no less — that Oprah had anything to do with this bill. Are we, your constituents, to understand that your bill was inspired by the shoddy research of a daytime talk show host? If that is how things are done in the U.S. Senate then can we also expect bills inspired by Tyra Banks, Jerry Springer, and The View? (more…)
September 24, 2008 at 5:32 pm
· Filed under Breed-Specific Legislation, Constitutional Rights
September 15, 2008
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL and Regular Mail
Re: Miami-Dade County Ordinance No. 89-22
Dear Mr. Kerbel,
By way of this letter I would like to advise you that this office has been retained by certain owners (names at this time will be kept confidential) who lost, were forced to move, had to give up their beloved pet, or are presently in fear of losing their pet and being wrongly fined. This office has also been retained to represent
certain pet industry professionals of pit bulls or pit bull mixes. (more…)
