Dog Stuff
Update:
We received a letter on the 21st giving us till the 26th to remove BOTH our dogs (they "heard" that our other dog, Moses was part pit bull. We have no clue, he is a rescue dog), or be "subject to civil and criminal action".
I tried to get a hold of them to see if we could get it extended till this weekend, to allow time for me to drive Buffy to New Mexico..but they never returned a phone call or where their when I walked down there. (Nice Police Station huh?)
Anyway, on the afternoon of the 26th Jim got a hold of them by flagging the officer down as he was driving. He showed him a picture of moses, and cleared him as not being a pit bull. He spoke to the police officer, who is supposed to bring us an extension yesterday or today. Haven't gotten anything yet, and I'm not going to feel ok untill I do.
Also, we (I) wrote a letter to the mayor, I should get in on the next city council meeting to see if I can get them to change the law.
We are working with http://americancaninefoudationlaw.com. They are currently fighting a law in Auburn, have gotten one over turned in Tacoma and are bringing these bans before the senate to have them declared unconstitutional. The argument is that they violate our right to "due process" which was granted to animal owners in 1920.
Jim's blanket e-mail to our representatives also resulted in a personal call to him from the state senate majority leader, offering his, and the GOPs support.
April 26, 2006
Rosalia WA,
Dear Mayor,
I understand your concern and desire to protect citizens from the awful tragedy a dangerous dog can cause. You, I am sure, intend to do so with the ordinance 6.04.050.B, specifically a ban on "pit bull breed" dogs. However, this ordinance as it stands is ineffective, un-enforceable, costly, and un-fair. This law is motivated by fear and lack of relevant knowledge, and does nothing to protect Rosalia's citizens from dangerous dogs.
Ineffective:
Well behaved and socialized dogs will be removed from their families. Irresponsible owners could care less. They will keep their dogs till they are removed, and then get another un-banned breed and raise it to be aggressive. History shows that when one breed becomes too difficult or costly to own and raise, these people will simply switch to another breed. Communities with breed specific laws are then forced to add more and more breeds to their ban, making enforcement more difficult, time consuming and costly.
Any dog can be dangerous. Any breed can be made aggressive though irresponsible training, abuse, and neglect. Even normally passive family pets, when left off a leash can become frightened and aggressive. Banning a well behaved dog because it may become dangerous, dose nothing to protect citizens from dogs that are actually aggressive. Ironically, Rosalia's current laws allow a dog that has been proven to be aggressive, is "potentially dangerous" (6.04.010.E), and has actually bitten someone, to remain in the city limits, while an obedient and responsibly cared for family pet cannot, because of a belief that they might bite someone.
Un-enforceable
Identification of a "pit bull" dog is difficult to impossible. Typically "Pit Bull" is used to classify the breeds American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. What about American Bulls Dogs, Bull Terriers, Boxers, or English Bull Dogs? This law includes "and mixes". This allows any dog with a wide head, broad chest and short fur, to be classified as a "pit bull" and removed from its home. How does banning dogs based on appearance alone protect the citizens? Do we really believe that all short, stocky dogs are vicious and likely to bite?
Costly
The pit bull ban adds another law that must be enforced. It takes up the police and courts time, tracing down and prosecuting often responsible law abiding pet owners, based on something that "might" happen. Time that could be better spent enforcing other animal control laws that would actually protect residents, like leash laws.
Pit Bulls, if not removed will have to be impounded. Add all the dogs that look like pit bulls, and you are dealing with the cost of food and shelter for many impounded dogs.
These laws put the burden on pet owners to prove their dog is not a pit bull. Aside from being nearly impossible, this presumes guilt...and prompts lawsuits from pet owners due to miss-identification or violated constitutional rights. Even proponents of BSL identify these lawsuits as a difficult consequence of this type of legislation. Breed specific bans are being fought in Auburn and have been overturned in Tacoma. A bill declaring Breed Specific legislation unconstitutional goes before the state senate soon.
Un-fair
Popular opinion is that this breed is vicious and should be prohibited. However, this breed as a whole has proven it's stability and good canine citizenry. The Official U.K.C. Breed Standard for American Pit Bull Terrier calls them "eager to please and brimming over with enthusiasm. APBTs make excellent family companions and have always been noted for their love of children. …the APBT is not the best choice for a guard dog since they are extremely friendly, even with strangers. Aggressive behavior toward humans is uncharacteristic of the breed and highly undesirable." Pit Bull dogs perform better than other breeds on the tests administered by the American Temperament Test Society.
Pit Bulls work as Search & Rescue dogs, Therapy dogs inside hospitals, professional Herding dogs and family companions. Several Pit Bulls rescued from other areas enforcing BSL (breed specific legislation) are now working for the Washington State Patrol as bomb or drug detection dogs.
In light of this information, I urge you to take the following actions:
1. Remove the current ordinance, which is contrary to fact and distracts from the real issue, that of responsible ownership.
2. Enact legislation that would render owners liable for the actions of their pets, such as a good non-breed specific dangerous dog law.
I feel that the appropriate policy should be "blame the owner, not the dog." Owners can and should take responsibility for their pets.
Bottom line: the ordinance as it stands is unfair to responsible citizens and it addresses the wrong problem. Leaving this as it stands only harms the law abiding responsible dog owner.
Respectfully,
James and Katrina Miller
Also, I found this: http://understand-a-bull.com/Findthebull/findpitbull_v3.html
Really hits home about how you tell what breed a dog is!
We received a letter on the 21st giving us till the 26th to remove BOTH our dogs (they "heard" that our other dog, Moses was part pit bull. We have no clue, he is a rescue dog), or be "subject to civil and criminal action".
I tried to get a hold of them to see if we could get it extended till this weekend, to allow time for me to drive Buffy to New Mexico..but they never returned a phone call or where their when I walked down there. (Nice Police Station huh?)
Anyway, on the afternoon of the 26th Jim got a hold of them by flagging the officer down as he was driving. He showed him a picture of moses, and cleared him as not being a pit bull. He spoke to the police officer, who is supposed to bring us an extension yesterday or today. Haven't gotten anything yet, and I'm not going to feel ok untill I do.
Also, we (I) wrote a letter to the mayor, I should get in on the next city council meeting to see if I can get them to change the law.
We are working with http://americancaninefoudationlaw.com. They are currently fighting a law in Auburn, have gotten one over turned in Tacoma and are bringing these bans before the senate to have them declared unconstitutional. The argument is that they violate our right to "due process" which was granted to animal owners in 1920.
Jim's blanket e-mail to our representatives also resulted in a personal call to him from the state senate majority leader, offering his, and the GOPs support.
April 26, 2006
Rosalia WA,
Dear Mayor,
I understand your concern and desire to protect citizens from the awful tragedy a dangerous dog can cause. You, I am sure, intend to do so with the ordinance 6.04.050.B, specifically a ban on "pit bull breed" dogs. However, this ordinance as it stands is ineffective, un-enforceable, costly, and un-fair. This law is motivated by fear and lack of relevant knowledge, and does nothing to protect Rosalia's citizens from dangerous dogs.
Ineffective:
Well behaved and socialized dogs will be removed from their families. Irresponsible owners could care less. They will keep their dogs till they are removed, and then get another un-banned breed and raise it to be aggressive. History shows that when one breed becomes too difficult or costly to own and raise, these people will simply switch to another breed. Communities with breed specific laws are then forced to add more and more breeds to their ban, making enforcement more difficult, time consuming and costly.
Any dog can be dangerous. Any breed can be made aggressive though irresponsible training, abuse, and neglect. Even normally passive family pets, when left off a leash can become frightened and aggressive. Banning a well behaved dog because it may become dangerous, dose nothing to protect citizens from dogs that are actually aggressive. Ironically, Rosalia's current laws allow a dog that has been proven to be aggressive, is "potentially dangerous" (6.04.010.E), and has actually bitten someone, to remain in the city limits, while an obedient and responsibly cared for family pet cannot, because of a belief that they might bite someone.
Un-enforceable
Identification of a "pit bull" dog is difficult to impossible. Typically "Pit Bull" is used to classify the breeds American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. What about American Bulls Dogs, Bull Terriers, Boxers, or English Bull Dogs? This law includes "and mixes". This allows any dog with a wide head, broad chest and short fur, to be classified as a "pit bull" and removed from its home. How does banning dogs based on appearance alone protect the citizens? Do we really believe that all short, stocky dogs are vicious and likely to bite?
Costly
The pit bull ban adds another law that must be enforced. It takes up the police and courts time, tracing down and prosecuting often responsible law abiding pet owners, based on something that "might" happen. Time that could be better spent enforcing other animal control laws that would actually protect residents, like leash laws.
Pit Bulls, if not removed will have to be impounded. Add all the dogs that look like pit bulls, and you are dealing with the cost of food and shelter for many impounded dogs.
These laws put the burden on pet owners to prove their dog is not a pit bull. Aside from being nearly impossible, this presumes guilt...and prompts lawsuits from pet owners due to miss-identification or violated constitutional rights. Even proponents of BSL identify these lawsuits as a difficult consequence of this type of legislation. Breed specific bans are being fought in Auburn and have been overturned in Tacoma. A bill declaring Breed Specific legislation unconstitutional goes before the state senate soon.
Un-fair
Popular opinion is that this breed is vicious and should be prohibited. However, this breed as a whole has proven it's stability and good canine citizenry. The Official U.K.C. Breed Standard for American Pit Bull Terrier calls them "eager to please and brimming over with enthusiasm. APBTs make excellent family companions and have always been noted for their love of children. …the APBT is not the best choice for a guard dog since they are extremely friendly, even with strangers. Aggressive behavior toward humans is uncharacteristic of the breed and highly undesirable." Pit Bull dogs perform better than other breeds on the tests administered by the American Temperament Test Society.
Pit Bulls work as Search & Rescue dogs, Therapy dogs inside hospitals, professional Herding dogs and family companions. Several Pit Bulls rescued from other areas enforcing BSL (breed specific legislation) are now working for the Washington State Patrol as bomb or drug detection dogs.
In light of this information, I urge you to take the following actions:
1. Remove the current ordinance, which is contrary to fact and distracts from the real issue, that of responsible ownership.
2. Enact legislation that would render owners liable for the actions of their pets, such as a good non-breed specific dangerous dog law.
I feel that the appropriate policy should be "blame the owner, not the dog." Owners can and should take responsibility for their pets.
Bottom line: the ordinance as it stands is unfair to responsible citizens and it addresses the wrong problem. Leaving this as it stands only harms the law abiding responsible dog owner.
Respectfully,
James and Katrina Miller
Also, I found this: http://understand-a-bull.com/Findthebull/findpitbull_v3.html
Really hits home about how you tell what breed a dog is!