54 replies to this topic

[keporter]

Arda, as I am typing this my printer is working overtime printing copies for the meet and greet.
Kevin

[Arda]

Oh Thank You, Kevin.

[keporter]

I must admit, My father found the link and e-mailed it to me.
Thank You Dad!!!!!!

[KellyB]

I signed it however I dont remember my number.

[ella]

Thank you Kevin and your dad

Ella

[twodognite]

If you have the time, send an email to the Denver visitor bureau telling them you could never visit because of their breed ban law. email address visitorinfo@mcvb.org Here is what I sent
Sirs;
Your breed specific dog legislation makes it impossible for me to visit such a narrow minded city. We in our household hope you come to your senses before you murder any more helpless pets. Judge the deed NOT the breed.. We have but a small voice, but we will use to spread the word on Denver DON'T VISIT !!!!!!!

Kevin's Dad

Edited by twodognite, 12 May 2005 - 08:36 PM.

[Arda]

We can make that a fourdognite very easily. Thank you so very much. Arda, the swamp mama When you are up to your bum in alligators, it's hard to remind yourself that the initial goal was to drain the swamp.

[dobeluvr]

Here is the announcement on the Denver website.

http://www.denvergov...cle.asp?id=8538

[keporter]

The 2000 study found that pit bulls and Rottweilers accounted for more than half of the deaths. But other breeds were also responsible for killing people, the study found—including dachshunds, a Yorkshire terrier, and a Labrador retriever.

May 2004: That's what pet owners in Caraway, Arkansas, were recently ordered to do after the city council passed an ordinance in May that bans pit bulls, Dobermans and Rottweilers from being kept in the city.


Very good letter and perspective:
http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/ban.htm


Excellant site. This lady is on target!
http://www.westwindd....html#allbreeds




BREED BAN IQ TEST



1. If you were the sheriff in your town and you learned that Toyotas were disproportionally involved in more accidents than any other model, would you

(a) ban Toyotas and confiscate the Toyota of anyone caught driving one, or

( arrest the drivers responsible for those accidents?



2. Which course of action in Question 1 do you think would

(a) inconvenience the fewest number of people,

( be the more efficient use of taxpayer dollars,

© be more effective in preventing future accidents involving Toyotas?



3. If your answer to Question 1 was

(a) -- ban Toyotas -- and the sheriff's department learned that, by a statistical quirk, drivers of confiscated Toyotas were perpetrating further accidents by driving, say, Hondas, would you then ban Hondas?

If not, why not?



4. If your answer to Question 3 was, "Ban Hondas, too, dammit, something HAS to be done," then would you propose a ban on ALL car models with names ending in "a," such as Kias and Mazdas, reasoning that all these brands are pretty much made for the same purpose?

If not, why not?

If so, how would you deal with car brands that end in the SOUND of "a" such as Chevrolet?



5. Are you beginning to understand

(a) that because most of the tens of millions of pet dogs are NOT registered, "breed" cannot be defined in a meaningful way;

( that miscreants employ pit bulls, German shepherds, Rottweilers, Dobermans, Akitas, Great Danes -- that is, whichever dog is handy as personal tools of terrorism;

© that law enforcement authorities could waste inordinate amounts of time (and, therefore, taxpayer dollars) policing a breed ban, adding to their jobs a task perhaps even more meaningless than enforcing jaywalking laws;

(d) that the people most likely affected by a breed ban -- that is, thoseinconvenienced, harassed and likely to suffer damage -- are the 99.9% majority of utterly innocent dogs and people; and

(e), most important, that breed bans do ESSENTIALLY NOTHING to address the real problem: Human scumbags who abuse animals?



Key: If your answer to any part of Question 5 is

"no," I'm afraid you have flunked. Please go back and reconsider your responses.

Hint: The answer to the question, "What shall we do about the bank robber who got away on a bicycle?" is not: Ban bicycles.

Real answer: If your dog hurts someone, you -- not the dog -- should be responsible. Anti-cruelty and anti-dog-fighting laws already exist. Tell your mayor, and city or county or provincial council to up the current penalties, and insist that judges enforce those penalties against lawbreakers.



BREED BAN IQ TEST



1. If you were the sheriff in your town and you learned that Toyotas were disproportionally involved in more accidents than any other model, would you

(a) ban Toyotas and confiscate the Toyota of anyone caught driving one, or

( arrest the drivers responsible for those accidents?



2. Which course of action in Question 1 do you think would

(a) inconvenience the fewest number of people,

( be the more efficient use of taxpayer dollars,

© be more effective in preventing future accidents involving Toyotas?



3. If your answer to Question 1 was

(a) -- ban Toyotas -- and the sheriff's department learned that, by a statistical quirk, drivers of confiscated Toyotas were perpetrating further accidents by driving, say, Hondas, would you then ban Hondas?

If not, why not?



4. If your answer to Question 3 was, "Ban Hondas, too, dammit, something HAS to be done," then would you propose a ban on ALL car models with names ending in "a," such as Kias and Mazdas, reasoning that all these brands are pretty much made for the same purpose?

If not, why not?

If so, how would you deal with car brands that end in the SOUND of "a" such as Chevrolet?



5. Are you beginning to understand

(a) that because most of the tens of millions of pet dogs are NOT registered, "breed" cannot be defined in a meaningful way;

( that miscreants employ pit bulls, German shepherds, Rottweilers, Dobermans, Akitas, Great Danes -- that is, whichever dog is handy as personal tools of terrorism;

© that law enforcement authorities could waste inordinate amounts of time (and, therefore, taxpayer dollars) policing a breed ban, adding to their jobs a task perhaps even more meaningless than enforcing jaywalking laws;

(d) that the people most likely affected by a breed ban -- that is, thoseinconvenienced, harassed and likely to suffer damage -- are the 99.9% majority of utterly innocent dogs and people; and

(e), most important, that breed bans do ESSENTIALLY NOTHING to address the real problem: Human scumbags who abuse animals?



Key: If your answer to any part of Question 5 is

"no," I'm afraid you have flunked. Please go back and reconsider your responses.

Hint: The answer to the question, "What shall we do about the bank robber who got away on a bicycle?" is not: Ban bicycles.

Real answer: If your dog hurts someone, you -- not the dog -- should be responsible. Anti-cruelty and anti-dog-fighting laws already exist. Tell your mayor, and city or county or provincial council to up the current penalties, and insist that judges enforce those penalties against lawbreakers.


Test created by Paul Glassner, SF/SPCA
http://www.dominodogs.org/iqtest.html

[keporter]

The Canine Companion

Breed Bans: Is There Another Way?

By Joan Hustace Walker
Several years ago, a young British couple moved to the United States with their children and two beloved dogs. They bought a house in Akron, Ohio, and settled in to their new home. Shortly after moving in, the mother was out walking the family pets when she was confronted by a neighbor, who immediately called animal control – among other authorities. The mother, perplexed and shaken, learned that Akron, Ohio, had a "breed ban" law that effectively forbids certain dog breeds and mixes (Staffordshire bull terrier, American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, and any mix thereof) to be kept within the city limits. By walking her two well-mannered Staffordshire bull terriers, she had broken a city ordinance and faced possible arrest, substantial fines, and the confiscation and "subsequent destruction" of her dogs.

"Basically, to keep the dogs, the family had to move out of town," says Cynthia Morse, vice-president of the Bull Terrier Welfare Foundation. Morse, an Ohio resident who is familiar with the case and personally familiar with the two dogs, says dog owners in Akron are now facing even stricter breed banning laws. "They're including ‘bull-type' dogs," she says, explaining that this definition includes any breed that was originally bred for the sport of bull baiting – or bred to bite a hunted animal and not let go. Akron recently amended its laws to add Canary dogs (Perro de Presa Canario), and American Bulldogs to the list of banned breeds.

Akron, however, is not alone in its quest for banning specific breeds. "If I put a Staffie or a Bull terrier in my car, I could not stop in Minot, North Dakota," says Morse. If she did, authorities could take her dogs – because they are on the city's banned breed list – regardless of the dogs' temperaments. In Cripple Creek, Colorado, the city recently banned pit bulls, which it defines as Bull terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, or "any dog which has the appearance of being predominantly one of these breeds."

At press time, Syracuse, New York, was considering a similar ban against pit bulls. In Port Deposit, Maryland, pit bulls aren't banned yet, but a new ordinance allows any unregistered pit bulls to be confiscated and owners fined.

The city ordinances and state laws banning specific breeds are not limited to bull-type breeds. In Iowa cities of Conrad, Des Moines, and Lake Mills, Rottweilers have been banned. Multiple cities in Indiana have banned Rottweilers, too. In South Carolina, Rottweilers, Chow Chows and Dobermans are banned in the cities of Columbia and Travelers Rest. Smithfield and North Salt Lake, Utah, have banned Shar-Peis.

Charles and Drake
A Bull Mastiff and his proud owner.

The Reasoning Behind the Laws
Dog bites are serious business. The occurrence of dog bite injuries has reached almost epidemic levels. According to a 1994 survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs annually. That's roughly 13,000 dog bite injuries every day – with an estimated 800,000 of these victims requiring emergency room treatment. Of those suffering from dog bites, the vast majority are children under the age of 10. In addition to inflicting physical pain, these dog bite injuries can hurt the pocketbook, too. The insurance industry estimates that each year more than $100 million in medical expenses result from dog bite injuries, and about $1 billion is paid in insurance liability claims each year.

Are There Any Breeds that are Inherently More Dangerous than Others?
This has been the heart of the debate on breed-specific bans. If a person looks at the statistics for deaths related to dog bite injuries, five breeds show significant numbers. Between 1979 and 1994, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) reports that one of every three deaths can be attributed to Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Siberian Huskies, and Alaskan Malamutes. Wolf-dog hybrids were also responsible for a significant number of deaths.

Deaths, however, were not limited to these breeds. In the list cited by HSUS, the remaining two-thirds of fatalities were caused by a variety of dog breeds and mixes. In a study published in the September 1989 Journal of the American Medical Association, breeds one wouldn't normally consider "dangerous," such as the Labrador Retriever, Great Dane, Saint Bernard, Cocker Spaniel, and English Sheepdog, were attributed with one or more fatalities from a period of 1979-1988. (A Yorkshire Terrier has even been attributed with a fatality!)

According to Alan Beck, Sc.D., director of the Center for the Human-Animal Bond at Purdue University's School of Veterinary Medicine, the common denominator of fatal dog attacks is not the breed of dog, but the owner. Beck, who served on a multi-disciplinary task force to study the causes of fatal dog attacks, says, "In every case of a fatal attack [initiated by the dog], the owner was socially a hermit-type. They were unattached and single-single with a vengeance. A sociopath in a mild way." The dog and its owner, says Beck, were living in virtual isolation. "The dogs looked at kids as prey."

Scary stuff, but an insight that sheds some light on the topic of breed bans.

Why Breed Bans Don't Work
"The problem with most breed specific bans is that they are either over-inclusive or under-inclusive," says Beck "The bans are over-inclusive because not every bull-type dog kills. The bans are under-inclusive because not only can a bull-type dog kill, but so can a German Shepherd dog or a Golden Retriever." Beck notes, however, that some breeds – such as Pit Bulls – have lower thresholds for biting, and that when these breeds bite, the injuries are far more serious. For this reason, Beck says he is not "terribly against" legislation targeting Pit Bulls; however, he feels a dangerous dog law serves a better purpose and doesn't allow vicious dogs to fall through the cracks of a breed ban law, and holds their owners accountable and liable.

Beck likens the responsibility of dog owners to automobiles: "In an accident, a big truck is going to cause more damage than a little car, and the truck driver's margin for error is smaller. [With a large or strong dog] the owner should be more experienced and committed to socializing the dog properly," he says. The dog should also be well-mannered, constantly under supervision when in public areas, and safely confined-with some added precautions to prevent innocent trespassers from coming in contact with the dog. "Kids do come onto property," heeds Beck, adding that young children cannot read "Beware of Dog" signs.

In California, for example, if a dog is reported to an animal control officer or law enforcement officer as being a threat to the neighborhood, the state's dangerous dog law requires the dog's owner to be notified and a hearing held to determine if the dog is potentially dangerous (could cause serious injury) or vicious (has caused serious injury). Dogs that are found to be potentially dangerous must be licensed, vaccinated, and kept indoors or in "securely fenced yard from which the dog cannot escape, and into which children cannot trespass." Dogs that are found to be vicious may be destroyed by the animal control department if the court finds that the release of the dog back into the owner's custody "would create a significant threat to the public health, safety and welfare." The California courts may also prevent an owner – who is found to own a vicious dog – from owning another dog for a period of up to three years.
To keep abreast of what is going on regarding breed banning and dangerous dog legislation in your area, the following organizations maintain legislative web-sites. Humane Society of the United States – The HSUS maintains a web-site devoted to dog bite prevention, education, and legislative issues at: http://www.nodogbites.org.

American Kennel Club – The AKC's Canine Legislation Department publishes a monthly newsletter, "Taking Command," that is available to the legislative chairperson of local, regional and national breed clubs. For the rest of us dog owners, an electronic version can be downloaded monthly from the AKC's web-site at http://www.akc.org. The AKC also offers a free packet of information on dangerous dog legislation for those who are trying to battle or prevent breed banning in their areas.

Rott-n-Chatter – This informative web-site is from the Rottweiler folks who maintain up-to-date legislative information on all breed bans for all states. It can be accessed at:

http://www.rott-n-chatter.com
/rottweilers/laws/breedspecific.htm


The HSUS supports dangerous dog laws and has supported the passage of several laws in various states. The HSUS places the responsibility of the rampant dog bite statistics and even dog bite fatalities squarely on the shoulders of the dog owner – not the type of dog. "Every dog owner must accept responsibility for preventing dog bites by spaying and neutering their pets, training and socializing them properly, and by ensuring that their dogs are safely confined," says Leslie Sinclair, DVM, HSUS's director of veterinary issues for companion animals. Pigeonholing a certain breed as dangerous and then banning it doesn't get rid of the problem, she notes, pointing out that dog owners who want a dangerous dog will simply turn to another breed. The Doberman Pinscher was the "scary" dog of the 1970s, the Pit Bull in the 1980s, and now the Rottweiler in the 1990s.

Sinclair clarifies, however, that the HSUS doesn't deny that certain breeds, such as the Pit Bull, have a history of being abused by humans and have been used – and are still being used illegally – for dog fighting in which the dog does not let go until it kills the other animal. With a good dangerous dog law, Sinclair says "The legislation focuses on the human who allowed the problem to develop, and who will "do it again" with another dog, if allowed to." She adds, "Good laws protect dogs and require better care for the dogs."

Watch Your Step
Currently, "watchdog" organizations that track breed banning legislation say that twelve states have adopted dangerous dog laws and have "outlawed" laws banning specific breeds. Other states are not regulated in this way. "People need to understand that dog ownership of certain breeds is getting tougher all the time," says Mickie Brown, legislative chairperson of the Bull Dog Club of America. She advises dog owners – particularly those of targeted breeds – to stay current on their local situation. Animal legislation may not hit the front page of the paper, so it is possible for a dog owner to suddenly be in a situation in which he or she must either give up the dogs, or move.

"Dog owners of breeds that are often singled out for breed banning have an added responsibility," Sinclair echoes. "They not only need to keep an eye on the issues, they also need to be model dog owners." Dogs that are highly-trained, well socialized, and properly cared for, she notes, help to counter random images of those that are abused, isolated, ill-kept, and poorly trained. They might also help to prevent legislators from taking the easy way out with a breed ban law, and perhaps consider more complex laws that are fairer to responsible owners and better for dogs as a whole.

http://www.pitbullso.../breedbans.html

[Jennymay]

I live in the WONDERFUL city of Windsor.
If there are any of you out there that DON'T know this about my city, let me be the first to inform you.
The city council of this fine reform, has decided to grandfather pit bulls out....and IF you have one, or had one BEFORE the by-law went into play, there are certain rules you have to follow to keep it, which, for some of them, just seems the natural thing to do if you have ANY breed of dog. BUT...the ONE thing that isn't fair about the by-law, is the insurance policy aspect.
What you must have in place to own and keep your pit in Windsor, Ontario
1. The dog must be muzzled and leashed whenever off the property.
2. The dog must be in an enclosed pen when outside, whether the property is fenced or not.
3. The dog must be spayed/neutered
4. The dog must be registered with the city,which costs pit bull owners $250.00/pit bull. (Which, by the way, for any OTHER dog other than a pit, it's $17.00 for a spayed/neutered dog)
and the pincher, the ONE reason why so many had to relinquish their dogs for euthanization......
5. ONE MILLION DOLLAR LIABILITY DOG BITE INSURANCE
I don't know if many of you know the insurance companies over here, but even the mere MENTION of having one of these dogs in your home can restrict your access to house insurance. That's the ONE thing that so many pit bull owners have had a hard time with, and aren't able to afford....it's a shame, and a pity.
I did read in our paper, though, that there are a few people that are suing the city, and are going to take them to court on grounds of discrimination. And I hope to God that the people win, and the courts slap the city in the face...
JMHO
~JennyMay~

[Javaluva]

#5793 here

[Kari]

Thankyou Kevin & Kevin's dad ! I'm # 5924

[CAB]

My signature # for this petition is 6364.

Breed bans fail to address the real problem - negligent and irresponsible pet owners/homes.

I'm sending this petition to a coworker in NY who owns two Pit Bulls.

Edited by CAB, 15 May 2005 - 12:12 PM.

[mihalik1413]

I tried to link the petition it but I think the website was down. I will try later. Thanks for all the useful information about what our government of ignorance is up to. I will say it again, it is sad what our country is turning into.

Larry

PS. Down with Denver!

[mihalik1413]

#7088 and proud
/finally got on!

Larry

[mihalik1413]

Shannon's #7094

[LStevens]

I'm number 6164. Let's hope this does some good This is a horrible phenomenon gripping this country. Think about it. With all this legislation, we can't even go on vacation and drive from state-to-state with our dogs, much less go to Canada. Like the poem Jane posted, it's akin to the Nazis all over again.

So much for the "land of the free." We are more restricted in all aspects of our life than we've ever been. I'm a Republican (okay, I'll admit it), but Government is huge, and invading every aspect of our lives.

Okay, I'm off my "soapbox" for tonight. Just makes my blood boil.


Linda

[twodognite]

Try the breed test. Can you find the pit bull ???

http://www.pitbullso...ll/findpit.html

[Arda]

There is more than one breed on that test that I don't want to meet in a dark alley. There is several I did not know what they were. I know Daisy got them all. But not old Arda. I stay away from scarey breeds.