Breed Specific News & Updates
Be Aware of the Bills and Ordinances they are trying to pass against specific dog breeds.
Please Click Links to find the source news article
04/07/08
Florida
Cross Post this to Spread the word !!
I received an alert that HB101, the bill that allows for Breed
Specific Legislation despite Florida's constitutional ban on BSL,
will be attached to one of two other animal related bills. HB1227
prohibits sexual activities with animals, sponsored by Bill Heller, a
Democrat from Pinellas County. SB744 is the identical Senate
Companion Bill and is sponsored by Nan Rich, a Democrat from
Broward/Miami-
As soon as I have the contact info, I will post it on the first page
of my rescue's website www.phoenixanimalre
the legislators and their assistants to STOP this attachment. If
HB101 is attached, and the bill it is attached to passes, HB101
passes. Not too many people will want to stop passage of a bill that
prohibits sexual activities with animals, so it is VERY LIKELY that
HB101 will just sneak through. This will set a DANGEROUS PRECEDENT
for other municipalities in FL to override the State's ban on BSL.
Please take the time to forward this information to everyone you can
think of. This requires IMMEDIATE action to STOP THE ATTACHMENT OF
HB101 to any other bill.
Thank you for all you do for animals,
Michelle
bsl[1]JSD
BTCA Legislative Liaison, Chair: chevalierbts@
BSLWorkshop, Vice President: BSLWorkshop@
RDOWS, Assistant to the Chair, Director at Large:
rdowsdirectoratlarg
UAOA, Assistant to the Chair: Chevalier@chevalier
Director
BullyDomain.
Positivepitbull-
| Related Link: | http://www.angelfire.com/biz6/dogholocaust/ |
| Subscribe: | DogHolocaust-subscribe@yahoogroups.com |
Florida
Should Pits Be Banned ?
The "Yes" votes are winning!
Don't Let them Ban our Dogs
PLEASE VOTE !!
<http://www.firstcoastnews.com/pollmentor/pollmentor2.asp?sid=122>
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/pollmentor/pollmentor2.asp?sid=122
____________
Should pit bulls be banned in your community?
Yes
<http://www.firstcoastnews.com/pollmentor/bar.gif>
(57.4 %)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No
<http://www.firstcoastnews.com/pollmentor/bar.gif>
(42.6 %)
Cross Posted
Cross Posted on Sat, Mar. 08, 2008
Florida
Florida HB 101 stirs debate --- PETA supports the bill (no big surprise)
State proposal to allow dangerous-dog ban stirs debate
A BILL TO BAN DANGEROUS BREEDS IS GOING THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE, BUT EXPERTS
DISAGREE ON ITS NECESSITY
By ROBERTO SANTIAGO
mail to: rsantiago@MiamiHera
A new bill making its way through the Legislature that would allow cities to
ban any breed of dog they deem dangerous to their communities has two of the
nation's largest animal rights groups taking opposite sides.
The bill, sponsored by Perry Thurston, D-Plantation, would give cities the
right to ban breeds responsible for a large number of attacks, just as pit
bulls have been banned in Miami-Dade for the past 20 years.
HB 101 would amend the state's existing ''Damage by Dogs'' statute, which
limits municipalities from banning specific breeds, but holds owners liable
for injuries and damage caused by their dogs.
''My primary concern is for the safety of other people and their pets, who
have to deal with dangerous dogs on the streets, in dog parks, and even
outside of their own homes,'' Thurston said.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals supports the bill, which if
approved by the Legislature, could go into effect July 1.
Stephanie Bell, senior cruelty caseworker for PETA, said the bill would help
keep breeds of dogs out of the hands of dog owners who deliberately raise
their dog to be vicious for home defense or blood sports.
But The Humane Society of the United States, the Florida Animal Control
Association and the American Veterinary Association say that an individual
dog's behavior -- not the breed -- is the real issue to tackle.
''You know what the problem is? We have effective dangerous dog laws on the
books that are not being enforced -- that is the real problem,'' said
Jennifer Hobgood, Florida state director for The Humane Society of the
United States.
Hobgood said banning breeds does not work and she points to Miami-Dade
County as an example.
''All banning does is create a great deal of suffering among responsible dog
owners who have to give up their well-behaved pets,'' Hobgood said.
Adam Goldfarb, issue specialist for The Humane Society of the United States,
said that although Miami-Dade has a ban, the county cannot provide
statistical evidence that there are fewer pit bull bites as a result.
Counties in South Florida have only recently started to keep track of dog
attacks. Dr. Sara Pizano, director of Miami-Dade Animal Services, said it's
not known whether the county's 20-year pit bull ban has been successful
because the department has been compiling bite statistics only since 2005.
In Broward, 616 dog bites were reported to county animal control in 2007. In
Miami-Dade, that number was 992. Terrier mixes are the No. 1 dangerous dog,
and pit bulls (which include the American pit bull terrier, American
Staffordshire terrier, and the Staffordshire terrier) were the top dangerous
dog in Broward.
Thurston believes the bill has a good chance of passing. And even if it is
defeated, he believes the dialogue generated will result in a some
middle-ground solution.
''In situations where targeting the individual owner is not enough to ensure
public safety, individual cities should have the right to target certain
problem breeds,'' said Thurston, who says a ban should be a last resort
after leash and muzzling laws, fines, and even arrests, have proved futile.
Adam Goldberg, who was attacked and bitten by a Labrador retriever last
September, said more needs to be done to enforce laws against dangerous dogs
and the owners who can't control them.
The Labrador attacked Goldberg's leg, turning it into a bloody mess that
became infected.
It took Goldberg seven weeks to walk without feeling any pain.
What's worse, weeks later, one of his girlfriend's two bichons required 10
stitches after it was mauled by a bull terrier.
''There are some breeds of dogs that are inherently dangerous -- bred for
hunting, security, and illegal fighting -- that are owned by people who
cannot control and socialize them,'' said Goldberg, of Hollywood.
Goldberg contacted police and animal services after the dog attacks, and
said both agencies did nothing beyond issuing verbal warnings to the owners.
''If there are no serious penalties -- heavy fines, jail time, there won't
be any change,'' said Robin Frydman, Goldberg's girlfriend.
But a number of animal rights organizations, which oppose the bill, say the
bill skirts the real issue: making irresponsible dog owners accountable for
their actions.
''Banning a breed does nothing to solve dangerous-dog problems. All it does
is target well-behaved dogs owned by good dog owners -- who lose their pets
due to this kind of
legislation,
Association, the statewide organization that deals with dangerous dogs.
He added that enforcing such a ban would be ineffective and would take away
from more important resources, such as neutering and medical care for
animals.
It would also require the county to add another expense: DNA testing to
prove that a targeted dog is indeed that banned breed. Agnew, a
veterinarian, said breed cannot be determined by appearance alone.
Pizano said that if Thurston's bill passed, conceiveably terriers,
Labradors, or shepherd mixes could be banned if Miami-Dade County approved
such a measure.
Capt. Dave Walesky, field operations manager, Palm Beach County Animal Care
and Control, said shepherd mix, Lab mix, and chow mix breeds are the No. 1
dangerous dogs in Palm Beach.
His department is compiling 2007 statistics.
''Pit bulls are not a problem here, and most of their attacks are against
another dog. They only bite humans who are trying to defend their dog,''
said Walesky, who opposes the bill.
Weston resident Linda Blair knows firsthand about such dangers.
Last December, Beauty, her beloved greyhound, was attacked and nearly killed
by a pit bull when she took Beauty to Barkham at Markham dog park in
Sunrise.
As a dog owner, Blair is undecided when it comes to supporting Thurston's
bill, but agrees something has to be done to protect the public and other
pets from dangerous dogs.
''I am not a big believer in banning, but in this case, I don't know,''
Blair said.
Edna Elijah, president of the Lauderdale Manors Homeowners Association, who
has worked with Thurston in promoting the bill, said there would not be a
dangerous dog problem if people were simply responsible.
''Things are getting worse. Something has to be done -- and now. What are we
going to do? Wait till a child is killed by a dog? Is that what it is going
to take?'' she said.
Miami Herald staff writer Laura Figueroa, in Tallahassee, contributed to
this report.
<http://www.miamiher
http://www.miamiher
Feb 08 - 08
Florida ALERT
Cross Posted
[BullTerriersUncensored] Read what Joe wrote. Keep burying your heads.
More information. Gets scary when you know the real agendas:
Recently there has been a rash of Mandatory Spay Neuter laws proposed
and in some cases passed across the country. In CA, they are trying
to take out the entire state. In Texas and Florida, they are doing it
city by city. Several people have written to me asking how this could
be happening. Below is an excellent article that explains quite well
exactly what is going on......
Permission to crosspost, but please note submission to the Alaskan
Malamute Club of America Newsletter._ _
A thousand snakes in the grass.
By Margaret Anne Cleek
"Better the dragon you see than a thousand snakes in the grass." This
Chinese Proverb should be recognized and heeded by pet owners and
fanciers.
Currently anyone who breeds animals is the target of animal rights
activists who wish to abolish the purpose breeding of pets, and in
some cases pet ownership in general. While we are made aware of
federal and state legislation threatening our ownership of our
animals, for example PAWs and the Animal Welfare Act at the federal
level and CA's AB 1634, mandatory S/N bill, and broad-based
opposition is launched, I believe that the greatest threat is from
local legislation enacted as quietly as possible. The threat is
greatest at the local level because a small special-interest group of
animal right activists is following a quiet plan to rob us of control
over our pets and their reproductive capacity and enacting this plan
community by community.
Programs on how to enact legislation have been developed by special
interest animal rights organizations. Action steps are outlined on
websites with literature, sample wording, canned letters, and a plan
showing how to proceed. They are told not to reveal that a new
ordinance is the objective, but rather to form a taskforce to address
animal welfare or to decrease shelter euthanasia. Also the advice is
given to remain informal as this keeps you from being subject
to "sunshine laws" which may exist to assure open and public process
and to lay the groundwork and assure support from staff before going
public.
Thus the public is not aware that behind closed doors special
interest groups are drafting an ordinance to suit their agenda. A
group is formed and under the guise of being a coalition which
includes all "stakeholders" participants further their plan. Some
participants are well-meaning, some know precisely what the real
agenda is. In any case, the MSN or `pay or spay" ordinance is drafted
with city or county staff co-opted as a participating member. Senior
staff, legal, and council or board members are now inundated with
information in private one-on-one sessions. The perception of a
crisis is cultivated and the only solution is to enact legislation
forcing people to pay huge fees to own intact animals or criminalize
the ownership of intact animals. Data is provided which is either
false or misleading about the success of mandatory S/N legislation.
They may show a decline in euthanasia, but fail to note that greater
declines were achieved in communities without such an ordinance. They
may show an increase in licensing with coercive legislation, but fail
to mention that enforcement costs exceed revenue. In my municipality
I found that success was even claimed in a community that had no such
legislation.
(For a comprehensive article on MSN legislation'
Do mandatory spay/neuter laws reduce shelter intake and euthanasia?
by Laura Allen http://www.ab1634.
http://www.ab1634.
Breeders are vilified as being responsible for the deaths in shelters
under the simply appealing but logically false premise that the birth
of a wanted pet causes the death of a shelter animal. Breeders are
pimps, heartlessly exploiting animals for money, causing the death of
wonderful shelter animals and costing the municipality tremendously
in animal control costs. A huge number is manufactured and becomes
the lost revenue to the county because all breeders are tax evaders
making tens of thousands of dollars and costing the community in
animal control costs for the surplus animals they produce.
Apparently someone failed Econ 101 as there can either be a crisis of
surplus desirable animals OR breeders selling pets for thousands of
dollars. You cannot have both. There is rampant emotional
manipulation. Pictures will be shown of darling puppies. Then the
numbers of animals killed in the shelter will be given. This leads
the targets of the message to believe that these darling puppies are
killed. In fact, the number presented includes wildlife injured and
brought in, small animals, reptiles, owner surrender for euthanasia
because of age or illness, feral cats and unweaned kittens, and
dangerous dogs. They present as if the community is killing huge
numbers of adoptable animals, but when the data is examined, the
numbers of adoptable animals is revealed to be very low. Many
shelters cannot meet the demand for puppies and smaller dogs and only
have large mixed breed, often pit type available in any numbers for
adoption.
Anyone who gathers this data is dismissed, because now the numbers,
which were once touted as so compelling, are "not important". The
council members or supervisors are sold "the big lie." The Big Lie is
a propaganda technique. It was defined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925
autobiography Mein Kampf . It is a lie so "colossal" that no one
would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the
truth so infamously".
In the case of pet overpopulation the Big Lie is promoted over and
over to city officials and the public, to the point of where they no
longer can process logical arguments against the lie and accept it as
fact without question. They come to fully believe that there is a
crisis of pet overpopulation, that the public has not responded to
education and the problem is getting worse and worse and we must
enact coercive and draconian legislation because all else has failed.
Breeders are unethical and unregulated and need to be controlled.
Intact animals bite and run at large while altered ones do not. Every
intact animal is a ticking time bomb and a single female cat can
produce 470 thousand cats in seven years and a single female dog 65
thousand dogs-everyone knows this to be true!
In fact, there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of pets
euthanized. The most reliable data available indicates between 3 and
4 million animals were euthanized in shelters last year. This
includes feral cats, ill and infirm animals, dangerous animals, and
owner turn in for euthanasia. These numbers are a far cry from the 25
million estimated 30 years ago and these numbers have decreased in
spite of an increase in the number of total pets and a doubling of
the expected lifespan of dogs in homes (mostly due to leash laws). It
is estimated that voluntary S/N rates for cats are around 90% and 75%
for dogs (numbers from HSUS, American Pet Products Manufacturer'
Association and Animal People). Spay/neuter for pets is an easy sell
and represents one of the most successful social change efforts of
this generation.
Before dog and cat fanciers are aware that such legislation is even
being considered, senior staff and legislators have been
indoctrinated to believe that there is a crisis so great and so
intractable that extreme coercive and punitive action must be taken,
that breeders are the scum of the earth, that a single intact animal
is a threat to the community and thus vets must report animals not
neutered by 4 months to animal control, that the community supports
this draconian legislation, and that it has been hugely successful
every where enacted. Any evidence to the contrary is dismissed as
false information from breeders who are trying to protect
their "business". Anyone who opposes the ordinance is demeaned as a
selfish and heartless "special interest" while the so-called
coalition is presented as representing the interests of the larger
community and the animals.
The legislation is then presented to the municipal legislative body
by staff as the extensive work of a "taskforce", all
"stakeholders"
have been involved, and it is specially designed to meet the needs of
the community. In fact, the legislation is the "canned" product of an
animal rights group and these taskforces are rigged, and anyone who
does not agree with the agenda is not invited to the private
meetings, or if initially involved but not with the
program, "chilled" out of the proceedings by the dominant group.
The real kicker in all of this is that the agenda and legislative
lobby work of a special interest group (possibly with a 501c3 status
which means they should not be political) is presented to the council
members or supervisors as a recommendation of staff. This makes
passing it a knee jerk as councils or boards rubber stamp just about
anything staff recommends in virtually every community. In some cases
a MSN ordinance is not even presented to the public and is attempted
to be snuck through on a consent calendar (Sacramento City August
2007).
It is my belief that the greatest threat to the ownership of pets
lies in the stealth enactment of these ordinances in our communities.
And this is not just happening in California, the land of fruits and
nuts. Hendersonville, NC, Palm Beach, FL, Little Rock, AR, San
Antonio, TX, Albuquerque, NM are some of the communities considering
or enacting extreme AC ordinances
January 18th, 08 Northern California
The Truth About Pits
Hi everyone,
My name is Jen, I'm 26, I live in Northern California with my husband and our
'daughter,' a 3 year old pit/maybe/maybe not lab mix. She's a rescue dog - got
a pretty wild story too - so I'm not sure of her lineage. She looks just like
pit/lab mixes I've seen pictures of, she's built like a pit, but she's tall,
skinny and her ears are a bit more Dumbo-esque than a typical pit. We call her
a "girlie pit." :) People ask what kind of dog she is, we shrug and
ask, "what
kind of human are you?"
I've had dogs off and on all my life, but Clover is my first pit. I'm
permanently disabled, have been for...let's see...twelve years, and when I
finally decided that I needed a service dog, I decided that I wanted a dog with
an imposing presence, a dog people wouldn't mess with. Before you call me a
hypocrite for using the "evil dog" rep to my advantage, hear me out.
As a
disabled woman, I make an easy target for mugging, rape, and all sorts of nasty
stuff; a fact that I'm acutely aware of, and because I'm so independent, I
wanted a companion that would make people with bad intentions think twice before
approaching. The more research I did, the better pits looked: intelligent,
loyal, affectionate, hard-working, people pleasing dogs. One of the best things
was that they've been selectively bred for centuries NOT to be agressive to
humans. It quickly and repeatedly got drilled into my skull that these dogs
were/are unfairly labeled. Call me a nerd, but being of an oft-mislabeled
minority myself, I feel a certain kinship with the breed.
With family and friends doubting me and telling me that I'd never be able to
train or have a pit trained to be a service dog, I adopted a 13 week old puppy.
Today, I have an eager, devoted and loving helper. :) Clover opens and closes
doors, cabinets, and drawers for me, she'll pick up anything I ask her to and
put it in my lap. When I fall, she sits by my side until help comes, she cheers
me up when I'm depressed, and she'll do anything to make me laugh. :) She's
really a great dog, will (and has) put every other service dog we've met to
shame, and not to toot my own horn here, but my husband and I have done most of
her training ourselves. Neither of us has trained a dog before, but Clover made
it easy. She's very smart, energetic, and has a passion for learning new
things. She's quick too, we taught her to turn the bedroom light off in less
than a week! Before I got Clover, pretty much my entire family believed the BS
they'd heard about pits, and the only one most of them knew of was the one that
attacked and nearly killed my stepmom's mutt when I was a kid. Clover has
changed everyone's minds. She's not 'just a pet' to anyone, she's a
well-behaved, much loved member of the family.
She's been itching to learn new things lately, and I think I'm going to try to
get her to walk either beside me or in front of me, pulling my wheelchair. I'm
not sure how to start training this one though...any ideas???
Thanks in advance,
Jen
POSTED: January 17, 2008 Warren, Ohio
Warren may give vicious dog law more
bite
By STEPHEN ORAVECZ Tribune Chronicle
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
New legislation deigned to get pit bulls off the streets of Warren may not
be needed, several city officials said Wednesday.
City ordinances already define pit bulls as vicious dogs
and require owners
to have insurance and register the animals. But not one pit bull has been
registered since the law was passed in 2006.
Deputy Health Commissioner Robert Pinti said he has received several
application to register vicious dogs, but none have had the required
insurance certification, so they were rejected.
Yet, Councilman Robert Dean, D-at large, said, there are dozens of
incidents, including one last week when two pit bulls ''literally ate up a
Chihuahua on Belmont Street N.E.''
His plan is different from Youngstown's ban. Following a Garfield Heights
law, Dean would add a definition of all varieties of pit bull into the law
and place full responsibility for their behavior on the owners.
The law would ''take them off the streets of Warren'' before a child is
hurt, Dean said.
Other officials are not sure Warren needs to alter its vicious dog
ordinance.
''You have a good vicious dog law. It needs to be enforced,'' said Barb
Busko, director of the Animal Welfare League of Trumbull County.
At a council committee meeting, Councilman Andy Barkley, D-3rd Ward, said
banning pit bulls would lead irresponsible dog owners to move to another
breed.
Others defended pit bulls, saying bad owners train them to be vicious. They
said other breeds also can be trained to be dangerous.
Council President Robert Marchese said three things need to be done to
address Warren's dog problem:
The city dog warden needs a larger vehicle so he can nab more than one dog
at a time;
Warren should consider placing the warden under the Health Department
instead of the Police Department, since bites and other problems are heath
issues;
The hours the warden works should be examined since he finishes his day by
mid-afternoon.
Safety Service Director Doug Franklin said Warren only has one person to
cover the entire city, and Busko said the city needs one more person.
http://www.tribune-
Other News
October 8, 2007
Meet a pit bull that's trained to assist
Jeff Hayman’s pit bull Bob Marley is being certified
as a hearing dog, a move not endorsed by some canine organizations.
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=134184&ran=142465&tref=y
Gotta see this One
Odd News Story
Not Pit Bull related - but very Interesting
The Incredible Hulk of Hounds - you have to see this one for yourself to believe it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=467985&in_page_id=1770
Jeff
(904) -762 - 8308
