30 replies to this topic

[brownsmom]

I know very little about this group, but Saginaw residents may want to check them out - they are having a meeting at teh Tri-Cities Dog Training Club in Saginaw. They are meeting Sunday at 12pm.

2425 Whitemore Pl · Saginaw · (989) 790-5898

[brownsmom]

This is at NOON on Sunday.

[Arda]

Here's another bunch of information for you guys:

Two websites of interest to those of you fighting the breed ban in Saginaw: If you have friends, adopters or family members in Saginaw, please pass this on. http://argostar.com/saginaw.htm - Commission meetings, agendas, copy of the Personal Appearance request that must be submitted by 1pm the day of a commission meeting for anyone who wants to speak. Links to articles and resource materials on BSL. Lots of good information here and a complete collection of the local news stories chronicling this issue in Saginaw and articles from other sources that offer a wealth of information, statistics and research you will find useful in writing letters to the commissioners or preparing to speak at a commission meeting. And there is also a link to the videos of past city commission meetings as well as the minutes of those meetings. Save Saginaw Dogs on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Save-Saginaw-Dogs/135663496496272?v=wall This is the Facebook page for a group of Saginaw residents who are fighting against the proposed ordinance by trying to promote a non breed specific model ordinance. Those of you in Saginaw should plug into this group. You will need a unified front come Feb 21st. No one, as yet, has seen final wording of this ordinance as I understand it, yet they plan to vote on it on Feb 21st ? Get the word out to Saginaw residents. Dog owners or not. I really doesn’t matter. This is bad government. It offers residents of Saginaw no genuine public safety whatsoever, punishes responsible pet owners and accomplishes nothing but chaos and confusion. Laurel

[Arda]

Sunday Miles, countrywoods@voyager.net [voyager.net] is with the Save Saginaw Dogs committee. If you want to get involved, contact them. There is a role for everyone, residents and non residents alike. Particularly if you’re close enough to be a warm body at a meeting. Think about anyone you know from that area, make sure they get plugged in. Members of your agility club or fly ball team, your vet and their staff, your relatives, friends, adopters, people you know from the dog shows____ this proposal in Saginaw is the very worst kind of BSL. Not that there is a good version, but this one is so comprehensive that everyone either is or could be effected. they start with ten dog breeds and then where does it go from there ? And care must be taken that the commission does not look at the size of the opposition and then decide to whittle the ordinance down to just a couple of breeds in an effort to diffuse the opposition. BSL of any type is unacceptable, ineffective and does more harm than it ever could do good. Laurel

[doberpagegirl]

I sent him an email with my info. I had to work last Sunday so I missed the meeting they had too. Thanks Arda.

[Arda]

Public hearing set to garner input on proposal that would require owners of dangerous dogs to buy insurance

Published: Monday, February 07, 2011, 3:15 PM Updated: Monday, February 07, 2011, 4:42 PM
By Holly Klaft | Jackson Citizen Patriot
Follow Share3 5 Share close Google Buzz Digg Stumble Upon Fark Share Email Print
Jackson County residents will have another chance to voice their opinions on changes to the county’s animal control ordinance, one of which would require owners of vicious or potentially dangerous animals to carry insurance on their pets.

A public hearing on changes to the ordinance will be held next week. The county board accepted a first reading of the ordinance in January.

“This is to promote responsible dog ownership,” said Commissioner David Elwell, chairman of the county Policy Committee, which continued to discuss the ordinance on Monday. “I think it’s a step in the right direction.”

Commissioners debated whether the ordinance should include the stipulation that pet owners must carry a minimum of $100,000 in liability insurance if the court determines their animal is vicious or potentially dangerous.

Commissioner Phil Duckham said the insurance requirement does not adequately address problems with dangerous dogs.

“I don’t feel it solves anything at all,” Duckham told fellow members of the county Policy Committee. “This is not fixing the problem. We need to find a way to prevent these attacks.”

Duckham suggested categorizing dangerous dogs and making their owners pay a higher licensing fee. Though he doesn’t support the change to the ordinance, Duckham said he voted to send it to the full county Board of Commissioners out of respect for other board members so there could be more discussion.

Elwell said only a handful of pet owners a year could be forced to purchase insurance.

“If they’re responsible dog owners, they won’t be in this position at all,” Elwell said.

Board Chairman Steve Shotwell said the penalties are focused on habitual offenders and the ordinance gives owners the opportunity in court to prove their animal is not dangerous.

“This is for people who break the rules,” Shotwell said. “We’re making people take self responsibility here.”

An animal could be considered potentially dangerous if it is found frequently running loose, exhibiting aggressive behavior, damaging property or has indirectly injured a person or domestic animal, or has bitten or scratched a person in a less than dangerous manner.

The ordinance classifies dangerous and potentially dangerous animals in nine levels, with the most severe being an animal that kills or seriously injures a person or another domestic animal.

The provision is among a series of amendments to the ordinance, which also includes the requirement that animals deemed dangerous must be housed in structures not accessible to children.

The changes come in response to a series of dog attacks in 2010.

Other revisions address the restructuring of animal control operations that placed animal control officers under the management of county Sheriff Dan Heyns and shelter operations with the county Health Department.

“This is not about forcing people to get insurance,” said Commissioner Carl Rice Jr. “This ordinance is to serve the public and protect the public and even protect animals. Everyone involved will do what is necessary to keep people safe and I believe this ordinance does that.”

he Jackson County Board of Commissioners will meet at 7 p.m. Feb. 15 in the board chambers of the Jackson County Tower Building, 120 W. Michigan Ave.

[Cheri]

This doesn't make any sense. I know, what a surprise, eh? They're saying they're going to force people to purchase a liability insurance policy to cover their vicious or dangerous dogs? Good luck with that. I'm pretty sure I know what my insurance company would say if I called them with such a request.

If you have a homeowner's or renter's insurance policy, you already have liability insurance. $100,000 would be considered a minimal amount these days. Read your policy and/or call your insurance agent, but I'm pretty sure liability for your dog is covered, unless there is a specific exclusion to that effect. There's also something called a personal liability umbrella policy, which, back in the day, used to cover just about anything under the sun, but I'm sure the times have caught up and there are many exclusions in those, too.

Edited by Cheri, 08 February 2011 - 04:50 PM.

[doberpagegirl]

http://www.wnem.com/...085/detail.html

So City Hall is changing their tune a little...we'll see where this goes.

[Cheri]

Good. It sounds like those opposed to this ordinance are making their voices heard (okay, barking, I guess LOL). It still infuriates me that the city is saying they're going to charge you an extra $50 a year just based on their version of what a dangerous dog might be, i.e., this inaccurate and misleading list they got from the CDC. But at least it's not an outright ban. And I sure hope they get rid of that muzzle provision they were talking about.

[Arda]

Seems like everyone is trying to get another dime out of people who are very basically broke. You know they will be taxing air in a few years.

[Annie Moon]

Sounds like they are back peddling now.... Good job those who wrote letters.
Questions:
Is the 50.00 per dog or per owner?
What about dogs who are half "dangerous dog"? Like my Boon who is half Shepherd half Beagle.
Who will pay for DNA tests to prove a dog is a "dangerous" breed?

[Arda]

This just another FYI from another list that might be good to ingest with all the information that is coming in..........


The committee hearing for HB 14, the bill that would remove Pit Bulls as viscous dogs from the law, is today.

By removing the phrase "Pit Bull" from the law all dogs in Ohio will have to be proven vicious, and not just deemed viscous because of their breed.

So say a prayer, send good vibes, think positive.

Last year in Montgomery County (Dayton Area) the County shelter euthenized almost 4000 animals, 2900 of those were never evaluated, considered for adoption or permitted to go to rescues for no reason other than they were "Pit Bulls".

I have spent a lot of time there. I have seen well behaved, social, friendly dogs that never got a chance. I saw a litter of 3 week old pups and their mother the day they were put down, simply because they looked a certain way. I was there one day and saw them empty the freezer they kept the bodies of the animals that had been put down. I watched as they filled a 6 foot by 18 foot dumpster with the bodies of hundreds of dogs, 90% of them Pit Bulls.

If I had not just started a new job I would be in Columbus today to show my support for this bill.

He is your friend, Your partner, Your defender, Your dog.
You are his life, his love, his leader.
He will be yours, faithfull and true to the last beat of his heart.
You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotion.

[doberpagegirl]

Annie, it is $50 per dog meaning $150 for me, plus the normal $36($12 per unsexed dog) that's $186 to license my dogs. As for your mix it would be up to the AC officer to decide, which is another thing against it, they aren't trained in breed identification.

[doberpagegirl]

The "Save Saginaw Dogs" is having a meeting Saturday at 2PM at the Saginaw Training Club. J & I are going.

[Karen A]

Good job Sarah.....you guys will be a great voice for the voiceless

[doberpagegirl]

The meeting is Monday.

http://www.mlive.com...ance_propo.html

[doberpagegirl]

People got up, people talked, the council didn't say much. About 6 or 7 people got up and spoke though. I guess it's more "wait and see". One really good thing, they are considering adding an anti-tethering law.

[Arda]

Were there a lot of people there or just a few? Did the speakers make sense? Did they have their facts together? What was the expressions of the board? Details, please.

[doberpagegirl]

There was about 12 people there and 6 or 7 spoke. There was a few very good speakers. Topics covered included the difficulty in breed identification by a vet, Dr. Winters (I think). Alicia who is heading "Save Saginaw Dogs" spoke on giving the community a chance to have a seat on the committee to decide this law, such as a trainer or vet who would have more dog experience than they do. She did a good job, asked them to work with us so we can feel the law is fair. She also asked when will we actually see a draft of this law in writing instead of just rumors. A lady named Angela spoke very well about the limit number. She said how a person cares for their dog is more important than the number of dogs, since some people have 6 responsibly, and some cannot be responsible with one. (I'm guessing she has more than 3 dogs, as she said they will be ripping apart families if they limit people to 3.) J talked about how they could raise more revenue with tethering laws and leash law enforcement than with the $50 fee for dangerous dogs.

The council is 9 people. Four of them said they haven't seen anything in writing yet, so they really can't comment yet, but would once they see the draft. One of them spoke about how this law is suppose to go after irresponsible owners, not responsible ones. He also spoke against tethering saying it made a dog get "meaner and meaner" and he would like to see an ordinance against it. That was Virliglio (sp). Then Dennis Browning spoke agreeing that the ordinance needed to be shown to the council members and that he hoped it would be given to the public before it goes to a vote. He also asked if he could get a copy of the some of the papers that Angela used in her speech. I liked them both, they seemed fair and open minded. Fitzpatrick said he couldn't really comment as he is head of the committee and that he would be presenting the rough draft to the Council tonight, which he did later in the meeting. Schraffe said nothing good. None of the other Council members commented.

After the meeting Alicia told me she would email me about the next meeting, and that she hopes to get a copy of the draft.

[Joaquin]

Scharffe tried to justify the $50 fee by stating that Saginaw had incorporated a $50 fee for having a security system, some may not know because they aren't pursuing people for just having a security system and not paying the fee. They are more going after people who have repeat false alarms with their system, the fee covers 911 resources that respond to false alarms.

So basically he is saying they messed up that ordinance too by not putting the fee on the offenders (repeat false alarms) but instead put the fee on EVERYONE that has a security system and this allows them to pick and choose who they go after for the fee. Pretty much their plans for the dog ordinance too unfortunately.

My thinking is that they are being purposefully vague and secretive about what is in the new draft of the ordinance so the people speaking out don't know what to "complain" about and so hopefully media pressure will die down and they'll be able to pass whatever they feel like. Other than the few members that Sarah mentioned seemed interested in the people's outcry, the rest seemed like they had already decided, even a couple snide remarks on the issue.