-
Sheboygan, Wisconsin Common Council to Consider Breed-Specific Ordinance Regulating “Pit Bulls”
Editor’s note: Here we have an ordinance regulating American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, etc. and yet its author refers to these actual breeds as “pit bulls.” “Pit bull” is not a breed, so does it not follow that if you list actual breeds in a breed-specific ordinance (and their mixes,…
-
Ypsilanti Township, Michigan Considering Mandatory Spay/Neuter Law for “Pit Bulls”
Editor’s note: Please contact the Ypsilanti Township Board of Trustees here and politely inform them that since almost any medium- and large-breed dog (and I guess even Chihuahuas!) can be called a “pit bull,” though “pit bull” is not a breed, that perhaps the Humane Society of Huron Valley’s stats on “pit bulls” might be…
-
Sylvan Lake, Michigan Passes “Pit Bull” Ban
From Fox Detroit: Sylvan Lake has become the latest community to ban pit bulls. The new law also puts restrictions on residents who already own pit bulls. …Under the new ordinance, new pit bulls are banned. Existing pit bulls are grandfathered in, but starting October first, yet to be determined restrictions will be in effect…
-
Marion, Arkansas to Consider “Pit Bull” Ban
Though there has been no media web article about Marion, Arkansas’ consideration of a “pit bull” ban, there is a petition going around which gives more information. Please politely inform the Marion Mayor and City Council that pit bull is not a breed and that breed-specific legislation (BSL) is ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional.
-
Douglasville, Georgia to Consider Restrictions for “Pit Bulls”
Editor’s note: Please politely inform the Douglasville Mayor and City Council that “pit bull” is not a breed and that breed-specific legislation (BSL) is ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional. From the Times-Georgian: The city councils consideration of a proposal that would regulate ownership of pit bulls drew lively discussion during its Sept. 2 Public Safety Committee…
-
Kirksville, Missouri to Consider “Pit Bull” Ban
March 25, 2011 update: Unfortunately, BSL passed in Kirksville. While our thanks go to Mayor Kuhns for voting against BSL, the rest of the Council appears to have been hellbent on ignoring the overwhelming evidence of the inefficacy of breed-specific legislation, instead subscribing to the hysteria, skewed statistics, and junk science of the opposition.…
-
What’s in a Name?
What’s in a name? Plenty. So when animal rightists disguised as normal, rational human beings say things like this, “We needed to change the language [from “owner” of pets to “guardian”]…My feeling* was the term ‘owner’ denigrated the animal companions we share our lives with.” it sounds reasonable. But guardianship is anything…
-
With Elected Officials Like These, Who Needs Enemies?
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…
-
Colerain Township, Ohio May Consider “Pit Bull” Restrictions
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…
-
Batesville, Arkansas to Consider “Pit Bull” Ban
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…