2 pit bulls kill 10-year-old boy in Texas
- Thread starter uscitizen
- Start date
Epicurus
Reasonable
Actually there are lots of people who say that.
Whomever
uscitizen alternate login
That was the least funny thing I have read all day.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
When I said "anyone" I really meant "a reasonable person". I should've clarified.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Amen.
Socrtease
Verified User
This report contains no source information. It is contrary to almost every report by the Human Society and by reports to police. I have probably owned more pits than anyone you know. Also, reports in the paper are frequently inaccurate and my bet is you are likely to misidentify a dog as a pit bull. True enough, when pits with bad owners attack, they do much more damage, but over all in the US they are less likely to attack than Cockers. Breed specific legislation is rejected by the Human Society of the US and by the AVA.
Socrtease
Verified User
From the American Kennel Club which does not register American Pitbull Terriers.
California Considers Allowing Breed-Specific Laws
Print This Article
[Friday, June 24, 2005]
In response to a request from San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome, Senator Jackie Speier is sponsoring SB 861, a bill that will allow local governments to regulate dogs by breed as long as they do not ban specific breeds. Currently, California is one of 12 states that prohibits local governments from enacting breed-specific ordinances.
SB 861 has been assigned to the Assembly Local Government Committee. A hearing has been set for Wednesday, June 29th at 1:30 in Room 447 of the State Capitol.
California's existing dangerous dog law forces all dog owners to be responsible regardless of the breed they own. AKC believes that strong enforcement of leash laws, as well as clear guidelines for identifying and managing dangerous dogs, will promote responsible dog ownership and prevent tragedies from occurring. Simply placing restrictions on certain breeds will not improve public safety - it will only punish responsible dog owners.
The American Kennel Club strongly supports sound, enforceable, non-discriminatory legislation to govern dog ownership, and we appreciate legislators' desire to keep communities safe for both people and dogs. However, SB 861 will not address the root cause of dangerous dogs – irresponsible ownership. AKC opposes the changes made by SB 861 and encourages concerned dog owners to do the same.
What You Can Do:
*
Contact the bill sponsor and voice your opposition to SB 861. Ask her to withdraw the bill from consideration.
The Honorable Jackie Speier
Phone: 916-651-4008, Fax 916-327-2186
Senator.Speier@sen.ca.gov
*
Contact the members of the Assembly Local Government Committee and explain why you are opposed to SB 861.
The Honorable Simon Salinas (D) [Chair]
Phone:916-319-2028, Fax 916-319-2128
Email: Assemblymember.Salinas@assembly.ca.gov
The Honorable Bill Emmerson (R) [Vice-Chair]
Phone: 916-319-2063, Fax 916-319-2163
Email: Assemblymember.Emmerson@assembly.ca.gov
The Honorable Hector De La Torre (D)
Phone: 916-319-2050, Fax 916-319-2150
Email: Assemblymember.DeLaTorre@assembly.ca.gov
The Honorable Guy S. Houston (R)
Phone: 916-319-2015, Fax 916-319-2115
Email: Assemblymember.Houston@assembly.ca.gov
The Honorable Sally Leiber (D)
Phone: 916-319-2022, Fax 916-319-2122
Email: Assemblymember.Leiber@assembly.ca.gov
The Honorable Joe Nation (D)
Phone: 916-319-2006, Fax 916-319-2106
Email: Assemblymember.Nation@assembly.ca.gov
The Honorable Lois Wolk (D)
Phone: 916-319-2008, Fax 916-319-2108
Email: Assemblymember.Wolk@assembly.ca.gov
*
Contact your local Assemblymember and State Senator and ask them to oppose SB 861. To find out who represents you in the California legislature, click here: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html. It is critical that legislators hear from their own constituents!
Points to Address:
*
Breed-specific laws are not the best way to protect communities. An owner intent on using his or her dogs for malicious purposes will simply be able to switch to another type of dog and continue to jeopardize public safety. The list of regulated breeds or types could grow every year without ever addressing responsible dog ownership. Deeds, not breeds, should be addressed.
*
Breed-specific laws are hard to enforce. Breed identification requires expert knowledge of the individual breeds, placing great burden on local officials.
*
Breed-specific laws are unfair to responsible owners.
*
Breed-specific laws increase costs for the community. Shelter costs for the community could rise as citizens abandon targeted breeds and adoptable dogs of the targeted breeds could be euthanized at the shelter.
*
Some communities have had their breed-specific laws overturned on constitutional grounds. Because proper identification of what dogs would be included is difficult or impossible, the law may be deemed unconstitutionally vague.
*
Strongly enforced animal control laws (such as leash laws), generic guidelines on dealing with dangerous dogs and increased public education efforts to promote responsible dog ownership are all better ways to protect communities from dangerous animals.
*
Breed-specific legislation is opposed by the AKC, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the National Animal Control Association, the ASPCA, and a host of national animal welfare organizations that have studied the issue and recognize that targeting breeds simply does not work.
http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=2543
California Considers Allowing Breed-Specific Laws
Print This Article
[Friday, June 24, 2005]
In response to a request from San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome, Senator Jackie Speier is sponsoring SB 861, a bill that will allow local governments to regulate dogs by breed as long as they do not ban specific breeds. Currently, California is one of 12 states that prohibits local governments from enacting breed-specific ordinances.
SB 861 has been assigned to the Assembly Local Government Committee. A hearing has been set for Wednesday, June 29th at 1:30 in Room 447 of the State Capitol.
California's existing dangerous dog law forces all dog owners to be responsible regardless of the breed they own. AKC believes that strong enforcement of leash laws, as well as clear guidelines for identifying and managing dangerous dogs, will promote responsible dog ownership and prevent tragedies from occurring. Simply placing restrictions on certain breeds will not improve public safety - it will only punish responsible dog owners.
The American Kennel Club strongly supports sound, enforceable, non-discriminatory legislation to govern dog ownership, and we appreciate legislators' desire to keep communities safe for both people and dogs. However, SB 861 will not address the root cause of dangerous dogs – irresponsible ownership. AKC opposes the changes made by SB 861 and encourages concerned dog owners to do the same.
What You Can Do:
*
Contact the bill sponsor and voice your opposition to SB 861. Ask her to withdraw the bill from consideration.
The Honorable Jackie Speier
Phone: 916-651-4008, Fax 916-327-2186
Senator.Speier@sen.ca.gov
*
Contact the members of the Assembly Local Government Committee and explain why you are opposed to SB 861.
The Honorable Simon Salinas (D) [Chair]
Phone:916-319-2028, Fax 916-319-2128
Email: Assemblymember.Salinas@assembly.ca.gov
The Honorable Bill Emmerson (R) [Vice-Chair]
Phone: 916-319-2063, Fax 916-319-2163
Email: Assemblymember.Emmerson@assembly.ca.gov
The Honorable Hector De La Torre (D)
Phone: 916-319-2050, Fax 916-319-2150
Email: Assemblymember.DeLaTorre@assembly.ca.gov
The Honorable Guy S. Houston (R)
Phone: 916-319-2015, Fax 916-319-2115
Email: Assemblymember.Houston@assembly.ca.gov
The Honorable Sally Leiber (D)
Phone: 916-319-2022, Fax 916-319-2122
Email: Assemblymember.Leiber@assembly.ca.gov
The Honorable Joe Nation (D)
Phone: 916-319-2006, Fax 916-319-2106
Email: Assemblymember.Nation@assembly.ca.gov
The Honorable Lois Wolk (D)
Phone: 916-319-2008, Fax 916-319-2108
Email: Assemblymember.Wolk@assembly.ca.gov
*
Contact your local Assemblymember and State Senator and ask them to oppose SB 861. To find out who represents you in the California legislature, click here: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html. It is critical that legislators hear from their own constituents!
Points to Address:
*
Breed-specific laws are not the best way to protect communities. An owner intent on using his or her dogs for malicious purposes will simply be able to switch to another type of dog and continue to jeopardize public safety. The list of regulated breeds or types could grow every year without ever addressing responsible dog ownership. Deeds, not breeds, should be addressed.
*
Breed-specific laws are hard to enforce. Breed identification requires expert knowledge of the individual breeds, placing great burden on local officials.
*
Breed-specific laws are unfair to responsible owners.
*
Breed-specific laws increase costs for the community. Shelter costs for the community could rise as citizens abandon targeted breeds and adoptable dogs of the targeted breeds could be euthanized at the shelter.
*
Some communities have had their breed-specific laws overturned on constitutional grounds. Because proper identification of what dogs would be included is difficult or impossible, the law may be deemed unconstitutionally vague.
*
Strongly enforced animal control laws (such as leash laws), generic guidelines on dealing with dangerous dogs and increased public education efforts to promote responsible dog ownership are all better ways to protect communities from dangerous animals.
*
Breed-specific legislation is opposed by the AKC, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the National Animal Control Association, the ASPCA, and a host of national animal welfare organizations that have studied the issue and recognize that targeting breeds simply does not work.
http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=2543
Socrtease
Verified User
This
Thorn
Member
That is the law in Texas.
P.S. Be careful about accepting too many of the statements made by the HSUS. Contrary to the impression that they attempt to convey, they are not affiliated with your local Humane Societies and they do not support them financially. They seem to have been infiltrated by PETA and one of their top officials has said publicly that he hopes for the day when no dog or cat is born in the U.S.
Support the efforts of your local rescue organizations and shelters; they need your help.
Thorn
Member
Amen!
They register the American Staffordshire Terrier. It's the same thing. Many owners will try to pass it off as a "cousin" but it is simply a pit bull or "pit dog" as they were sold in England before they were brought here and accepted by the AKC.
http://www.akc.org/breeds/american_staffordshire_terrier/index.cfm
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
WTF? How does that promote the "ethical threatment of animals? My God, do I loathe PETA! Those are the kind of motherfuckers they used to warn us about at the fair (my parents own Pygmy Goats) that might come and try to let the animals out of their cages. This would merely have gotten the critters run over by vehicles on the nearby highway, but the intentions were clearly there...
Thorn
Member
I know, they make me sick. Also, they have a documented history of manufacturing that "evidence" that they tout to snag the emotions of potential supporters. They are revolting.
We also have to be very concerned about their interference at dog shows and performance events. I never, ever leave my dog unattended, even in his locked crate.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
PETA represents the worst side of the animal rights and environmentalist movement. No rationality, just emotion.
Socrtease
Verified User
With all due respect Damo, there is a world of difference between the Am Staff and the APT. The dogs were split years ago and the AmStaff has been bred entirely for physical qualities and MY PROBLEM is that the AmStaff will get caught up in this fervor and be unfairly persecuted. This is no different than the gun fraidy cats pointing at gun deaths and saying that guns are no good,