| Home » |
 Dogs Bite Blog ::
browse:
animal groups,
comments and editorials,
criminal trials,
dogfighting,
dog law and bsl,
family dog attacks,
fatal dog attacks,
horse attacks,
pet attacks,
pit bull owners,
police shootings,
postal attacks,
senior attacks,
sticky stories,
victims of attacks
|
Announcement: Omaha City Council Public Forum Meeting on Pit Bull Ordinance
Tuesday, September 16th, 2pm, City HallOmaha, NE - On Tuesday, September 16th at 2pm, the Omaha City Council will be holding a public forum pertaining to pit bulls and dangerous dogs. Please attend this meeting if you are in support of regulating pit bulls through one or more of the following means: a ban, mandatory muzzles, higher fences, microchipping and, or the mandatory spay neutering of pit bulls.
If you are in support of helping protect the Omaha community -- our children, senior citizens and pets -- from pit bulls and other dangerous dogs PLEASE show this support in person on Tuesday the 16th. Wendy Blevins' citizen action group will be meeting in front of city hall 1:30-1:45 wearing white to show we stand together.
City Hall
1819 Farnam Street
Omaha, NE 68183
View Map
Related articles:
06/28/08: Coverage of the Omaha Pit Bull Attack - DogsBite.orgLabels: omaha, pit bull ordinance
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
1 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Spokane Woman Pushes for Pit Bull Ban at City Council Meeting
Afraid Someone Will Die
Spokane, WA - A woman who was attacked by a pit bull back in April is now pushing for a ban in the City of Spokane. The town has been on the DogsBite.org Watch List since May. The numerous pit bull attacks, combined with dogfighting and two questionable animal agencies in a population of 200,000 signals a problem. Our last blog posts in July and May describe these issues in more detail.
The victim, Nancy Sonduck, was attacked by three dogs in her fenced yard. At the time, all she had to defend herself and her two dogs was a plastic gardening bucket. "I hit the pit bull in the middle twice in the head and it did not faze it," she said. It took a shovel-wielding neighbor more than five minutes to get the dogs out of the yard. Since the attack, she said she's heard dozens of stories from neighbors who were also attacked by pit bulls.The victims were too intimidated by the owners to report it. Sonduck brought the issue to the City Council on Monday seeking new laws against the breed, including a ban against any new pit bulls within city limits. She wants all existing pit bulls to be spayed or neutered. Five people, including Sonduck, testified at the meeting about problems they've faced with pit bulls. City Council President Joe Shogan promised that the council would explore the issue.
Gail Mackie, the executive director of SpokAnimal (city animal shelter), was possibly untruthful at the meeting. She said that a breed-specific ordinance is likely "not legal." Yet, section 16.08.090 of Washington state law specifically allows for them and many cities across Washington have breed-specific laws. In 1989, the Washington State Supreme Court also upheld the validity of the Yakima ban.
Mackie did admit that many of the 1,500 calls SpokAnimal receives are complaints about pit bulls. Nancy Hill, the director of SCRAPS (county animal shelter), said pit bulls and their mixes make up almost half of the shelter's population. Back in May, SCRAPS wanted to adopt out eight dogs that had been seized in a dogfighting bust. This is after the dogs had been returned to them due to issues with the dogs.
Both Mackie and Hill illustrate a formidable problem to city council members, the news media and the general public. When people want information about pit bulls, they often look to the directors of local animal agencies. Unfortunately, most of them label breed-specific laws as "canine racism" (a term unsupported by the US constitution) or it's "illegal" (not in Washington state), as a way to defend their beliefs.
Animal agencies consistently act as road blocks to cities wanting to develop breed-specific laws. If a city does manage to institute one, it becomes the animal agency's duty to enforce the law. If the agency was strongly opposed to the law in the first place, how can citizens trust them to enforce the new law? Once again, we come to the issue of whether or not some animal agencies can be trusted to enforce public safety.
Related articles:
07/29/08: Father Hangs Pit Bull After Dog Attacks Son
05/30/08: Pit Bulls in Spokane, Washington Can't Stay Out of the News
04/17/08: Pit Bull Attack Puts Owner in the HospitalLabels: pit bull ordinance, spokane
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
7 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Omaha Ordinance Hits City Council Today
Liability Insurance Added
Omaha, NE - The city's dangerous dog ordinance heads to the Omaha City Council today. The latest version of the proposal requires pit bull owners to muzzle and leash their dogs, have a secure fence and carry one hundred thousand dollars of liability insurance. The insurance requirement -- so that victims can receive medical recourse should an attack occur -- is new and highly applauded by DogsBite.org.
Please tune into the video to learn more. Even the Nebraska Humane Society (NHS) -- who is opposed to breed-specific laws -- said there are good elements to the new proposal. "It's definitely proactive in terms of having people a.) be responsible pet owners and b.) catching those dogs that may have potential issues later on early enough to be able to change their behavior or muzzle them so they don't hurt the public," says the Humane Society's Pam Wiese.
Nearby in Council Bluff's, where there is a pit bull ban, city attorney Don Bauermeister said, "Having insurance is a good idea, having the dog muzzled those are all parts of our ordinance." He added that micro chipping pit bulls also makes sense. If one cannot identify a pit bull to it's owner, authorities can't pursue criminal charges. While Omaha's proposal does not address a ban, supporters say it's a workable compromise.
The public hearing will be on Tuesday, September 16th. City councilmen on both sides of the pit bull debate are expected to push for some changes to the mayor's plan.
Related article:
07/28/08: Coverage of the Omaha Pit Bull Attack - DogsBite.orgLabels: pit bull ordinance
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
3 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
2 Michigan Cities Pass Pit Bull Regulations in Same Week
Michigan - Two nearby cities recently passed pit bull laws: Grosse Point Park and Hazel Park. Another close city, Allen Park, is considering similar actions. Back in July, two pit bull type dogs attacked an Allen Park council woman's two dogs. All three cities lie in the area of Detroit, which is often called the dogfighting capital of the US. In July, Robert Howard was killed by a loose pit bull in Detroit. The animal reportedly had been a fighting dog.
Grosse Point Park Bans Pit Bulls
Last week, Grosse Point Park banned pit bull type dogs and clearly defined a "dangerous" dog in their new ordinance. A dog is now considered dangerous if it "causes injury to a person or domestic animal, chases or menaces a person or domestic animal in an aggressive manner, or acts in a highly aggressively manner within a fenced or enclosed area, and appears to a reasonable person able to jump over or escape."
The last part is fascinating. Basically, it might eliminate a dog like Chopper in the neighborhood, in addition to fenced dogs that terrify people that pass by a home. Though a non breed-specific measure, it is extremely powerful. Cities that reside in states with a prohibition to breed-specific law would do well to adopt this measure. It's simple enough to prove that pit bulls snap chains and scale 6-foot fences in order to reach their victims: dogs, cats and human beings.
Hazel Park Declares Pit Bulls as "Dangerous"
Over in Hazel Park, officials said they have been working on the new ordinance for many years, holding workshops on the issue and conducting their own research on breeds. City officials also said they want swift and severe penalties for all dog owners who allow their dogs to engage in dangerous behavior, including high fines and jail time. Pit bull restrictions defined in Hazel Park's ordinance include:
- No person under 18 years of age can walk a pit bull type dog
- The animal must be muzzled when off the owner's property
- The dog must be secured and locked in a six-foot pen with secure sides and a secure top.
- Owners must post "Beware of Dog" on the kennel, pen or fence containing the animal.
- Owners must notify the city in writing about the removal or death of a pit bull, must report the birth of offspring and the notification of the new address if the owner moves to another address in the city.
- Prohibition of spiked dog collars
- Prohibition of tethering
Related articles:
08/18/08: 2008 Fatality: Detroit Man Killed by Stray Pit Bull Attacking Dog
07/29/08: Councilwoman's Dogs Attacked; 1 Killed by Loose Pit Bulls
07/29/08: 10-Year Old's Arm Amputated After Family Pit Bull Attack
04/04/08: Cocker Spaniel Killed by Chopper, the Neighborhood Pit BullLabels: pit bull ordinance
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
0 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Sioux City Irons Out Final Pit Bull Ordinance Issues
Additional Restrictions Proposed
Sioux City, IW - Sioux City continues to hammer out details for their pit bull ordinance. Councilman Jim Rixner asked for additional restrictions on existing owners of pit bulls after the ban is instituted. Currently, the proposed ban (driven by councilman Aaron Rochester) only requires that the remaining dogs be registered after the ban. Rixner wants new specifics added including:- Require all pit bull owners to register and license their dogs with the city within 60 days of the ordinance's approval. In order to obtain the city license already, pet owners must vaccinate their dogs and cats.
- After that 60-day period, the city should start a campaign to encourage people to report pit bulls in their neighborhoods. Animal Control officers will follow up on those reports and would seize pit bulls that have not been registered and licensed. Those dogs would be euthanized. Pit bull owners who prove they have registered and licensed their dogs could keep them.
Rixner said, "These proposals protect our city, punish irresponsible owners and respect the rights of responsible owners. Furthermore, they take effect immediately." At a previous meeting, the council gave second round approval to Rochester's legislation, but gave the ad hoc committee another two weeks to draft additional proposals.
It appears that final legislation is only weeks away from a final vote.
Related article:
07/21/08: More Cities Contemplating Pit Bull LawsLabels: pit bull ordinance
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
0 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
City Within Leflore County Adopts Pit Bull Ordinance
Greenwood Adopts Pit Bull Policy
Greenwood, MS - Owners of pit bulls in Greenwood soon will face new restrictions following unanimous action by the City Council. The Leflore County Board of Supervisors passed a similar pit bull ordinance in July. The new law, which takes effect in 30 days, requires owners of pit bulls to register them with the Leflore County Humane Society along with other rules including:
- $100,000 personal liability policy (or post a $100,000 cash surety). Proof of such insurance must be filed with the city clerk’s office.
- Registration includes the name, address and telephone number of the dog's owner; where the dog is harbored and a complete identification of the dog.
- A color photograph of the dog along with a "description of the method of compliance with the confinement requirements" of the ordinance must also be submitted to the Leflore County Humane Society.
- At the time of registration, owners must provide certification of rabies vaccination. All pit bulls must be neutered or spayed with certification provided to the Humane Society.
- Only those 21 years and older may own or harbor pit bulls or walk them on leashes. Each dog must wear a collar with the registration tag at all times.
- When outside the home or pen, the dog must be muzzled. Walking pit bulls within 50 feet of a public school, park or church while in session is prohibited.
- A household is limited to three pit bulls.
DogsBite.org applauds the actions of Greenwood City Council, the Leflore County Board of Supervisors and the Leflore County Humane Society.
Related articles:
07/29/08: Leflore County Passes Pit Bull Ordinance
07/28/08: 1,600 Stitches for Pit Bull Attack Victim, Dog Snaps Chain to AttackLabels: pit bull ordinance
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
4 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Snip the Pit Ordinance in Manteca Being Considered
Pit Bull Law Adopted
UPDATE 09/03/08: Manteca city officials passed the mandatory pit bull sterilization law. Pit bull owners have another month to have their dogs spayed or neutered before they face fines and possible jail time under the new ordinance. The law, similar to the one passed in Ripon in 2006, requires pit bull breeds to be altered by the time they are eight weeks old.
08/19/08: 1st Reading Passes City Council
The Manteca City Council adopted the first reading of a municipal ordinance that would make spaying and neutering of pit bull breeds mandatory in the City of Manteca with one exception -- for breeding under strict conditions that require a city issued permit. If a second reading passes in two weeks, the law will go into effect in mid-October.
08/18/08: Can't Trust Owners to Act Responsibly
Manteca, CA - Following in the footsteps of San Francisco and Ripon, Manteca is debating a pit bull sterilization law. This ought to delight the organization called Chako that sued the City of San Francisco and lost after the city passed its pit bull ordinance. Chako held the opinion that the law was breed racist and that it violated the rights of people with disabilities. The judge disagreed.
California law still prohibits local ordinances from placing a ban on specific breeds. But it does allow breeds to be regulated, including requiring them to be sterilized. The result in Manteca's ordinance is an 8-page essay that that lays out how the city can demand the sterilization of pit bulls. City Attorney John Brinton has reviewed the measure and approved its language.
- Pit bull refers to any dog that is a Bull Terrier, Miniature Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, or any other dog displaying the physical traits of any one or more of the previously mentioned breeds...
- The only reasons a person may have a pit bull that isn't fixed include the pit bull being under eight weeks of age, if there is a high degree of suffering serious bodily harm or death due a physical abnormality based on a veterinarian certification who must also say...
- The first violation may result in the department impounding the pit bull and disposing of the pit bull in accordance with municipal ordinances or the owner may reclaim it by paying fees including the department's cost of having a veterinarian spay or neuter the dog...
- The second violation is a misdemeanor publishable by imprisonment in county jail for a period not to exceed six months or a fine not exceeding $1,000 or both. The second violation may result in impounding and destroying the pit bull.
Related articles:
06/23/08: CHAKO vs. The City and County of San Francisco
03/28/08: Pasadena Newspaper Supports Mandatory Pit Bull Sterilization
02/12/08: Pit Bull Attacks Prompt Concern in MantecaLabels: pit bull ordinance, spay/neuter
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
2 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Councilwoman's Dogs Attacked; 1 Killed by Loose Pit Bulls
Pit Bull Ban is Suggested
Allen Park, MI - After two pit bull type dogs attacked and killed a councilwoman's two dogs, the councilwoman is suggesting a pit bull ban. Beverly Kelley's two Shih Tzus were the targets of a deadly attack July 12th by two pit bulls that broke through a gate to her yard. One of Kelley's dogs was killed in the attack and the other was severely wounded.
Several members of the council offered support for the resolution, including Mayor Gary Burtka. He said, "It is a very serious safety issue. I think the committee should move quickly on this matter." Kelley said her dogs were in her fenced back yard when the pit bulls approached. She said all four dogs were barking at each other and the pit bulls jumped on the fence until it gave way.
"They broke right through my fence, and I couldn't do anything to stop them because I was afraid for myself," Kelley said. Kelley said that the larger dogs (described as rottweiler pit bull-mix and a Labrador pit bull-mix) quickly had her Shih Tzus by their throats. Her husband, Byron, used a cane to force the release of their pet, Boss, from the bigger animal's jaws, but their other pet, Cujo, already was dead. Boss was taken to the veterinarian, where he has received about $1,000 in medical so far.
If the council adopts an ordinance banning pit bulls, Allen Park will not be the first city to do so. There are bans on pit bulls in Ecorse and Melvindale, and Southgate has restrictions.
Related articles:
07/23/08: 10-Year Old's Arm Amputated After Family Pit Bull Attack
05/20/08: Fatal Livingston Maulings Spawn Modest RulesLabels: dog law, pit bull ordinance
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
3 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Leflore County Passes Pit Bull Ordinance
New Pit Bull Law
Leflore County, MS - Leflore County, Mississippi (population about 38,000) contains the city of Itta Bena. Yesterday, the Board of Supervisors of Leflore County passed a pit bull ordinance, citing as motivation recent cases in which pit bulls mauled an Itta Bena woman and killed a 3-year-old boy in Jackson. The new law requires pit bull owners to:
- Secure dog in a four-sided pen, 6-feet high with a top and concrete floors
- Post a "Dangerous Dog" sign
- Muzzle and leash the dog when outside of the cage
- Spay or neuter the dog
- Be at least 21 years of age
- Register the dog with the Leflore County Humane Society
- Carry a $100,000 liability insurance policy or post a $100,000 cash surety
Penalties for failing to comply range from $100 to $500 and increase with each offense. Pit bulls will be confiscated until the conditions of the law are met. After three offenses, the dog is permanently confiscated. Reasons cited for the ordinance include: the pit bull's heritage as fighting dogs, a powerful set of jaws, their unique insensitivity to pain and their aggressive temperament.
Aubrey Whittington, president of the Leflore County Humane Society, praised the board for passing the ordinance. "You have shown that you care about the welfare and safety of the Leflore County citizens and their children," she said. "You have taken a giant step in the right direction, and I hope the other counties and the cities will follow your fine example."
Some animal advocacy groups agree with DogsBite.org. Whittington said the Humane Society will work with the county to enforce the ordinance. "This is unacceptable behavior with these pit bulls, and it has got to stop," she said. Last week the county built secure cages at the Humane Society that can hold vicious dogs. The pit bull that attacked the Itta Bena woman escaped from a non-secure pen and has still not been caught.
DogsBite.org applauds the Leflore County Board of Supervisors and Humane Society for creating an ordinance that protects its citizens and pets from pit bull dogs and forces pit bull owners to truly take responsibility for their animals.
Related articles:
07/28/08: 1,600 Stitches for Pit Bull Attack Victim, Dog Snaps Chain to Attack
07/25/08: Fatality 2008: Mississippi Boy's Mother Discusses Fatal Dog AttackLabels: dog law, pit bull ordinance
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
5 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
FAQ: What is a Breed-Specific Law (BSL)?
DogsBite.org - We've recently updated our FAQ sheet about breed-specific law, which is located in the Legislating Dogs section. The FAQ sheet can be read online and is also available as a downloadable PDF file. The document covers the nuts and bolts of breed-specific law, including: What is a breed-specific law and does my city need one? The document also covers the most common types of breed-specific law, as well as enforcement issues.
We encourage you to send the FAQ sheet to your city council, particularly if they are considering stonger dangerous dog laws.
Download the DogsBite.org BSL FAQ Sheet
The FAQ sheet answers the commonly asked question, "Why not just enforce the laws we already have?" The document states, "Most cities have laws that take effect after a person has been bitten, in some instances, only after a second person has been bitten. In these cities, a pit bull can attack two separate victims, leaving each with severe injury before substantial penalties are triggered. Such laws were designed for a 'common' dog bite, not a pit bull bite that often results in lifelong damage."
Regarding enforcement issues, the FAQ sheet uses examples found in the cities of San Francisco (pit bull sterilization), Council Bluffs (pit bull ban) and Aurora (fighting breed ban). Each city operates on the "enforce as you go" model. This means that authorities take action as they become aware of infractions. The paper discusses how higher registration fees for restricted breeds help pay for enforcement as do lower shelter occupancy rates that result after the restrictions are in place.
The document also addresses the question: "I own a German shepherd; will my dog be regulated next?" The FAQ sheet states that breed-specific laws were designed for pit bull type dogs. A tiny percentage of cities have expanded these laws to include "fighting breeds," but these instances are rare. The document adds, "The rational basis of regulating pit bulls, as opposed to any other breed, is that selective breeding has produced a dog with bite and attack traits unlike any other dog."
Lastly, the document addresses the constitutionality of breed-specific laws. It states that 11 U.S. State Supreme Courts have upheld the constitutionality of breed-specific law including: Washington, Colorado, Ohio, New Mexico, Florida, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Kentucky. The document adds that U.S. District Courts and the United States Supreme Court have also weighed in on breed-specific laws."In February of 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from the Ohio State Supreme Court's decision in the Toledo vs. Tellings case. Pit bull advocates had argued that the law was unconstitutional on several grounds, all of which the Ohio State Supreme Court rejected. By refusing the appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court declared Toledo's breed-specific law constitutional, and the case cannot be appealed further." Download the DogsBite.org BSL FAQ Sheet
Related article:
06/23/08: Report: Dog Attacks on Livestock and Horses January - May 2008Labels: dog law, pit bull ordinance
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
3 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Two More Nebraska Cities Considering Pit Bull Laws
Omaha Officials Report on Meeting
Omaha, NE - Several cities in Nebraska are considering pit bull regulations in addition to Omaha. These cities include Hastings and Holdredge. Back in June, the city of Osceola, Nebraska had the foresight to pass a pit bull regulation before a serious attack. DogsBite.org applauds the proactive stance of Osceola and we hope more Nebraska cities follow.
Currently, the City of Omaha is still reviewing various options. Committee members met earlier in the week and called their meeting "extremely productive." Mayor Fahey, city council members, and the Nebraska Humane Society met and discussed ideas. They said all options are still on the table, including an all out ban of the breed.
The overall goal is to improve public safety. Yet, the Nebraska Humane Society, who will end up enforcing public safety if the chosen method is a pit bull regulation is dangling. Judy Varner of the Nebraska Humane Society, as well as Mark Langan do not agree with breed-specific law and therefore do not agree with any type of city policy that directly targets the "pit bull" problem in Omaha.
We remind you that it was Langan that blamed the cloth leash on the attack that ripped off Charlotte's scalp instead of genetic pit bull traits. Langan knows all too well that the pit bull "slipped" out of his collar only to slowly and curiously approach the two mothers and children. With most dog breeds, similar actions would not cause immediate alarm.
But this was a pit bull. As soon as it reached the children -- without a bark, growl or other indication of attack -- it latched on to the child's scalp and ripped it off. This was not a fluke, this was just another instance of "101" pit bull genetics: an attack with no warning signs and the deadly pit bull "bite." Both Langan and Varner are fully aware of these genetic traits.
Related articles:
06/28/08: Coverage of the Omaha Pit Bull Attack - DogsBite.orgLabels: omaha, pit bull ordinance
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
2 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Madisonville, Texas Scraps Pit Bull Ordinance
City Council Members Fold
Madisonville, TX - Madisonville City Council members voted to lift the 6-month old pit bull ordinance that prohibited new pit bulls and placed restrictions on current owners. Council members scrapped all of Article I and did so despite the fact that Texas is the pit bull killing capital of the nation. Town members are now left with a law that deems a pit bull vicious after a violent or deadly attack and after a new Tanner Monk or Pablo Lopez has been created.
In the instance of Madisonville, it's clear that pit bull advocates did their work well. The only response given about the repealed law was that "it penalized responsible dog owners," according to interim city manager Paul Feazelle.
Related articles:
05/19/08: Roll Call: Texans Killed by Pit Bulls in 2007
05/23/08: Roll Call: Texans Killed by Pit Bulls in 2006
03/13/08: Pro-Pit Bull Advocates Flock to Madisonville Meeting
02/21/08: Madisonville to Stand its Ground on Pit Bull Ordinance
02/17/08: Pit Bulls Banned in Madisonville, TexasLabels: dog law, pit bull ordinance, texas dog law
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
6 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Osceola, Nebraska Passes Pit Bull Ban
Ban Wins Unanimous Approval
Osceola, NE - City Council unanimously passed its proposed ban on dog breeds designated as vicious. The breeds include: Staffordshire bull terriers, American pit bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, chows, Dobermans, rottweilers, American bandogge mastiffs and neopolitan mastiffs. The policy change came after the third official reading of the proposed ordinance.
Ban at a glance:
City Attorney Brian Beckner said the city’s breed ban ordinance is effective immediately upon publication in the newspaper of record in Polk county. At that time the city’s animal control officer will submit an affidavit to the police department who will in turn serve notice to the owner of any dog listed as a vicious dog in the ordinance.
- Once notice is received the dog owner will have 10 days to inform the police department in writing whether they believe their dog falls under the provisions of the ordinance.
- If the owner fails to respond within the 10 day period the dog will be presumed to be a vicious dog as defined and the owner will be cited.
- If the owner claims the dog does not fall under the provisions of the ordinance they will be ordered to bring the dog to a veterinarian who has the option to draw blood for the DNA test.
- If the veterinarian determines the dog to be a vicious dog, the owner will be cited, ordered to pay for the cost of veterinarian services and any DNA test performed.
- The police department will issue a 48 hour notice to remove the dog from the city limits.
- If the owner fails to remove the dog, the police department will impound the dog until trial on the citation is held.
- If the owner, convicted of the ordinance, continues to keep the animal in the city limits they will be subject to charges of contempt of court.
- Each day the dog is kept within the city limits will be deemed a separate offense.
Related articles:
05/11/08: Osceola Being Proactive; Ban Before a BiteLabels: dog law, pit bull ordinance
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
0 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Standing Firm on Pit Bull Ban: Councilman Powers Responds to Critics
Councilman Powers Stands by Pit Bull Ban
Lakewood, OH - Councilman Brian Powers responds to non-constituent critics about Lakewood City Council's efforts to make their city a safer place to live.When I agreed to serve as a member of Lakewood City Council, I vowed to strive to do the right thing for our residents, not necessarily the popular thing. Since introducing legislation to ban those dogs know as “pit bulls” from Lakewood, all members of Council have been deluged with e-mails arguing against such a ban, mostly from out-of-towners. Sadly, the pit bull ban is receiving an inordinate amount of public attention, even though it is but a small part of the broader effort by the Mayor and Council to make Lakewood a safer place to live. We should be focusing on the recent decision to add four new full-time and ten part-time police officers, but we are instead flooded with advice from out-of-state special interest groups about dogs.
In the past few weeks, I’ve personally been called a “hysterical demagogue” by out-of-town blogger Charles Brettell and have been labeled a “canine racist” by pit bull enthusiasts. Let’s get this straight: dogs are dogs and people are people. It is absurd to say that a pit bull ban is a form of racism. To compare human racial minorities to a breed of dogs is an insult and a trivialization of the very real issue of human racism.
Pit bull rescue groups are pledged to the protect pit bulls, so it is understandable that they do not like our proposed law. But members of Council have vowed to protect the people of Lakewood. Pit Bull Rescue Central argues that I have taken language out of context from their Web site. Yet, I quoted full sentences and whole paragraphs. The fact is that even pit bull supporters cannot deny that these dogs are different, as a result of very specific breeding practices. Here is further material from Pit Bull Rescue Central:
"It is unfortunate that one of the original purposes of the APBT [American Pit Bull Terrier] was (and still is) dog-to-dog combat, but it's a fact that can't be denied or ignored. It's important that every potential pit bull owner understand the selective breeding process that took place to make the dogs of today. …The American Pit Bull Terrier has been ‘selectively’ bred for hundreds of years to fight other dogs. This is the sad ‘work’ these dogs were created for. In the same way that Labradors were bred to retrieve birds, APBTs were bred to face other dogs in mortal combat. Even in dogs that are not recently bred from fighting lines, the urge to fight can arise at any time. Not to strongly emphasize this fact would be negligent….Training may help the owner control his/her dog, but it will not eliminate the risk for fights. In the case of a fighting breed, the urge to fight is often the result of genetic heritage. Remember that there is no magic cure to remove an inherited behavior selectively bred into a dog." (from PBRC.net)
Thus, it is clear that pit bulls ARE very different from other dogs. Some pit bull enthusiasts point to studies allegedly showing that golden retrievers and even poodles have a worse “temperament” than pit bulls. But the fact remains that, between 1982 and 2006, poodles killed no humans, while one person was strangled when a golden retriever accidentally tugged on a scarf, but pit bulls accounted for at least 110 deaths.
For the above reasons and for safety of our residents, I remain in support of the proposed “pit bull” ban.
Respectfully,
Brian Powers Related articles:
06/01/08: Pit Bull Ban FAQ by Councilman Brian PowersLabels: council member editorial, letter to the editor, pit bull ban, pit bull ordinance
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
4 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Pit Bull Regulation Sends Owner into Semi-Rural Area
Dillion Turns up the Heat on Pit Bulls
Dillion, SC - Folks who live in Dillon city limits and own a pit bull now have to register their dog and keep it confined. The new ordinance demands a 6ft tall, 100 square ft fence. City councilman Randolph Gurley spearheaded the effort. He said he's sick of hearing about people getting hurt. He said if people cannot afford to build a fence:"Well then they only have one choice, get rid of the dog." Stephen Litwin has been raising Pit bulls for 11 years. They are like family to him, regardless of their dangerous reputation. He keeps one pit bull on a chain, one inside the house, and a mom and her puppies inside a fence. Because of the ordinance, Litwin plans to send his pit bulls to live with family in the country where they can roam freely.Pit bulls "roaming freely" in the county equals injured and killed livestock. Horse and livestock owners, look out! A pit bull owner that believes semi-rural areas are "free for his dogs to roam" is enemy number one for livestock owners. The alarming spike in pit bull attacks in these areas is devastating. A pit bull does not attack one animal within a herd. If immediate human intervention does not occur, the dog may take down the whole herd, leaving the livestock owner in ruins.
Related article:
05/10/08: Pit Bull Attacks Three Horses Killing One (Possibly Two)
05/01/08: Roaming Pit Bulls Destroyed After Killing 7 Pet Goats
04/08/08: Pit Bulls Massacre 34 Pet DeerLabels: pit bull ordinance, roaming dogs
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
3 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Mosinee City Council Votes on Pit Bull Ban
 Ban Inspired by a Law Breakin' Pit Bull Owner
Mosinee, WI - Pit bulls and any mixed breed dog that contains a portion of pit bull could be banned by the City Council tonight (May 12). City staff members have revised the city's animal ordinance to include the prohibition of any pit bull terrier, including American pit bull terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier or pit bull mix.
In recent months, the city has received complaints about pit bulls being kept at a single family home. Complaints included unlicensed dogs, too many dogs on the property, loose dogs, barking dogs and personal safety concerns of pit bulls.Good catch Mosinee; stop this future pit bull breeder and send a message to others: No pit bull farms wanted in town. Last month, Mosinee police were called to the house three times for a report of three pit bull-type dogs being kept at the residence, according to a police report. The current city ordinances allow no more than two dogs at a home. The resident was warned. Since the last police visit, the pit bull owner's phone number has been disconnected.
The proposed ordinance allows existing pit bulls to remain in the city as long as they are licensed and the owners follow specific conditions that include providing a color photograph of the dog to the city clerk and providing proof of liability insurance of at least $100,000. There currently are 225 licensed dogs in the city; five are some sort of pit bull breed.
Labels: dog law, pit bull ordinance
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
1 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Osceola Being Proactive; Ban Before a Bite
 Second Reading of New Dangerous Dog Ordinance
Osceola, NE - The City of Osceola is about to hold a second reading of a proposed ordinance to ban pit bulls and seven other dog breeds. The current ordinance is restrictive. The new ordinance, if it passes, will actually ban possession of dog breeds listed as vicious.
Willie Dotson-Monroe owns Maggie, a 2-year old pit bull. Maggie is the only dog in Osceola known to be listed in the city’s current dangerous dog ordinance. Dotson-Monroe and his dog live across the street from Renee and Kent Johansen and their three children. The Johansens are leading the move for the ban. Mayor Lindsley says:"We are trying to be proactive and do what’s right before something happens that forces us to take some reactive action." Maggie's owners are distressed. They bought the $100,000 dollar liability insurance that the current ordinance demands. They also bought a "stake" that could not be pulled out of the ground and shortened Maggie's chain. Later they even bought a kennel for the dog. They claim they spent a $1,000 to adhere to the current ordinance.The family across the street (with three children) is still looking at a staked, chained pit bull; a recipe for disaster. Renee Johansen admits that Maggie has not done anything yet. But apparently a different potentially dangerous dog did, which is why she and other town members support banning a group of breeds from their neighborhoods. The article mentions 7 breeds, in addition to pit bulls, but does not list their names. The third and final reading of the new ordinance occurs June 10th.
Some cities (and countries) ban all "fighting-breeds." An example is Aurora, Colorado's ban which includes: Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Bulldog, Canary Dog (Presa Canario), Cane Corso, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro (Brazilian Mastiff), Presa Mall orquin, Tosa (Tosa Inu). Labels: dog law, pit bull ordinance
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
1 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Lancaster County Seeks Tougher Dangerous Dog Ordinance
Officials Want a Breed Specific Law
Lancaster County, SC - The Lancaster County Council is cracking down on three breeds of dogs: pit bulls, American bulldogs and canary dogs. The proposal comes just days after two 10-year-old cousins were sent to the hospital after a family pit bull attacked them. Officials say the proposed ordinance was in the works long before that attack, but was prompted by past dog attacks.
Under the proposed law, owners of the three dangerous breeds would be required to: keep their dogs in a pen with an 8-foot fence, or a secure top; wear a bright yellow or orange collar that identifies them as dangerous; register them yearly at animal control and notify officials if they move or sell the dog; and most importantly -- for reasons of victim recourse -- hold liability insurance.
County leaders said they want to be reasonable, and are willing to work to dog owners to find a balance. But they're concerned about recent and past attacks, and preventing future ones.“If you're going to have a vicious animal, you're going to have to have certain regulations you have to live to," Lancaster County administrator Steve Willis said. Labels: pit bull ordinance
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
2 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Whitehall Ohio Talks Pit Bull Ban
Another Ohio Town Talks Pit Bull Ban
Whitehall, OH - Whitehall is a city in Franklin County, Ohio. Last year, pit bulls accounted for one-third of the dog bites reported to the Franklin County dog pound, although they represent only 1 percent of licensed dogs. Councilwoman Jacquelyn Thompson supports banning pit bulls. She says there are people in the community who live in fear of going outside.
Mayor John Wolfe said he expects a proposal before the council in the next few months. Pit bulls run loose in some Whitehall neighborhoods. Residents are afraid and owners say they have a right to keep them. "These dogs are like our children," said Emily Lowe, whose boyfriend, Roy Bryson, was charged last year with failing to properly confine their three American bulldogs, which the state classifies as pit bulls.
Bryson pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charges and paid for insurance, licenses and shots. He built a 6-foot wooden fence in his backyard to replace the 3-foot wire fence that was no challenge for his dogs to clear. One of them hopped the lower fence one afternoon into the neighbor's backyard. Lowe said she and her boyfriend have since worked with the dogs to make sure they're good around people.
Neighbors are likely not convinced.Labels: pit bull ordinance
|
|
posted by karen | permalink |
5 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
Pit Bull Ban Proposed in Plymouth
Pit Bull Ban Proposed in Plymouth
Plymouth, MI - Plymouth is considering either banning or restricting pit bulls. The Plymouth City Commission recently received a 100-signature petition proposing an ordinance that would ban pit bulls or animals bred for fighting. A second petition would not ban the dogs outright, but would force them to take precautions like fencing.
If they take the latter route, we can only hope they mandate 8 foot high fences.Labels: pit bull ban, pit bull ordinance
|
|
posted by karen | permalink |
0 comments | email | start a discussion
|
|
|
|
|
|
| recent posts |
|
 |
|
|
| join the list |
|
 |
|
|
|
