September 8, 2008 at 7:40 am
· Filed under Licensing, Constitutional Rights
Editor’s note: This bill would require biometric info (fingerprints) and a background check with the FBI for a mere pet sellers license! This is Big Brother at its worst! As pet owners, breeders, and fanciers, hell, as Americans, we should not tolerate this egregious violation of our privacy. Please write those on the Michigan House Agriculture Committee and express your outrage today!
From the AKC:
[September 3, 2008] Representative Bill Caul of Mt. Pleasant introduced Michigan House Bill 6395, which proposes to strictly regulate virtually all responsible dog breeders. It is imperative that all concerned responsible dog breeders in Michigan contact the members of the House Agriculture Committee, which currently has cognizance of the bill, and their elected Representatives and express their vehement opposition to this bill. (more…)
September 5, 2008 at 12:51 am
· Filed under Negative Press
Editor’s note: The following letter is an excellent reply to one of the most awful, lacking-in-research op-eds I’ve yet to read about “pit bulls.” The author of the following letter kindly agreed to let me publish his letter, and it’s just so good I had to share it with all of you. Enjoy! (I know I did!)
Dear sir,
For about twenty years, I owned and operated a pet boarding, grooming, and dog training business just off FM1960 near Kuykendahl. I obtained my first American (pit) Bull Terrier in 1960 and have been a breeder of American Staffordshire Terriers for 48 years. I think I know a thing or two about Texans and pitbulls and even have some knowledge about writers, as I have done some of that too, including serving as the AKC Gazette Breed Columnist representing the Staffordshire Terrier Club of America for about twenty years. My experiences also include years of involvement with opposing unconstitutional dog laws. (more…)
September 3, 2008 at 6:32 pm
· Filed under Differential Licensing, Breeder Restrictions, Dangerous Dog Law, Mandatory Microchipping, Constitutional Rights
Editor’s note: Please cross-post this ordinance (see below) as widely as possible before the next Spartanburg City Council meeting on Sept. 8 at 5:30 because this ordinance is bad. It doesn’t just include mandatory multiple animal/breeders licenses which means warrantless inspections (which is unreasonable search and seizure) and the negation of due process, it also includes an exotics ban, a wolf-hybrid ban (which can be interpreted to mean all domesticated dogs since all domestic dogs are descended from wolves), a mandatory microchipping provision for impounded dogs, licensure for all cats/dogs, defines dangerous/vicious animals as either dogs trained to fight (which after the Vick debacle, we know that a majority of dogs trained to fight can be rehabilitated) or animals that “unprovoked” attack humans and other domesticated animals, and differential licensing for altered v. unaltered animals. (more…)
September 3, 2008 at 5:31 pm
· Filed under Breed-Specific Legislation, Constitutional Rights
From the Herald-Mail:
“Mayor Peggy Smith told Charles Town City Council members Tuesday night she has observed several pit bull dogs in the city and said she is concerned for residents, particularly children.
Smith said the city has a law prohibiting dangerous and vicious animals but the law has weaknesses, including a lack of penalties for keeping such animals. (more…)
September 3, 2008 at 3:19 pm
· Filed under Breed-Specific Legislation, Constitutional Rights
From WishTV8:
“The city of Kokomo is taking a tougher look at its laws and pet owners after a police officer shot and killed two pit bulls after a terror rampage in a city park.
Several people including a young woman who the dogs attacked and city officials want tougher dog laws.
…the pit bulls weren’t wearing collars or leashes and their owner was nowhere in sight. The dogs also attacked an 11-year-old boy who reportedly needed stitches. (more…)
September 1, 2008 at 3:46 pm
· Filed under Breed-Specific Legislation, Constitutional Rights
From the NewsStar.com:
“…’We are also getting a lot of complaints dealing with pit bulls or pit bull-type dogs that are tethered with a leash or a chain in a yard,’ [animal shelter director Hack] Tull said. ‘We want to make the owner build a pen to secure that animal so it can’t break loose and chase someone.’
While complaints about poorly leashed pit bulls come from all over the parish, Tull said most come from southern Monroe and Bawcomville.
‘If we do see an animal that’s not properly penned, we’re going to give the owner 30 days to try to correct the situation,’ Tull said. ‘At the end of that 30 days, animal control will check, and if they deem the pen unsatisfactory, we’ll pick up the dog and the owner will have seven days to construct the pen properly. (more…)
August 28, 2008 at 3:03 pm
· Filed under Breed-Specific Legislation, Constitutional Rights
From the West Liberty Index:
“Recent incidents involving pit bulls have spurred West Liberty law enforcement to recommend an ordinance banning them within city limits to the West Liberty City Council. At last Tuesday’s regular meeting of the West Liberty City Council, Police Chief P.J. Brewer approached the council with his concerns. (more…)
August 27, 2008 at 2:48 pm
· Filed under Pet Limits
Editor’s note: Here’s what happens when you jump through all the hoops the city wants you to — registering your dogs, licensing, etc. They take your pet anyway. Pet limits are in theory meant to crack down on animal hoarders, but animal hoarding is an as yet not understood psychological disorder which is probably a symptom of obsessive-compulsive or some other disorder. Pet limit laws WILL NOT stop animal hoarders because they require professional psychiatric help. Still, look at how the psycho-pathology of animal hoarding is being used as a pretext to take people’s pets away! (And as an aside, isn’t it lovely that National Night Out is being used as an excuse for law enforcement to snoop in people’s yards.) Folks, time to get wise and educate yourself about the greater agenda here.
From Fox News in the Twin Cities:
“JORDAN, Minn.—The City of Jordan is forcing a family to get rid of one of their three dogs due to a recently changed ordinance. (more…)
August 27, 2008 at 2:14 pm
· Filed under Breed-Specific Legislation, Constitutional Rights
To:
Mayor Mike Hobart
Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Rixner
Councilman Aaron Rochester
Councilman Dave Ferris
Councilman Brent Hoffman
Dear Mayor Hobart, Mayor Pro-Tem Rixner, and Esteemed Members of the Sioux City City Council:
It is quite alarming that Sioux City is prepared to go ahead with a breed-specific ordinance when it has been so vehemently opposed by so many Sioux City residents. (more…)
August 27, 2008 at 1:54 pm
· Filed under Breed-Specific Legislation, Constitutional Rights
Editor’s note: We always warn people that it may not be your breed of choice this time, but it will be soon enough. “Pit bull” bans started out being three breeds — American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and Staffordshire Bull Terriers — but in recent years, we’ve seen breed-specific legislation use the vague term “pit bull” as an excuse to tack on any breed they wanted to ban or restrict. Does it not follow, however, that if you can name 5-10 breeds and their mixes (which could be a very large grouping of dogs) that statistics on “pit bulls” are skewed since instead of “pit bull” being one breed, it is a conglomeration of breeds??? And all it takes is some Nazi neighborhood association to use the why-won’t-anyone-think-of-the-children argument (with bogus stats and specious reasoning) and next thing you know, your breed of choice is banned or restricted too. It’s an all out assault on pet ownership folks. If you don’t understand the agenda, you better get wise quick.
From CantonRep.com:
“American bulldogs may be added to the city’s list of vicious animals.
The proposed amendment to the city ordinance regulating dangerous or vicious animals received its first reading at Monday’s City Council meeting. (more…)
August 27, 2008 at 1:36 pm
· Filed under Breed-Specific Legislation
From The Mercury News:
“Dogs aren’t the problem. People are.
That was the conclusion of the Watsonville City Council on Tuesday, when they rejected enacting regulations targeting specific breeds of dogs. (more…)
August 25, 2008 at 1:30 pm
· Filed under Breed-Specific Legislation, Constitutional Rights
From The Birmingham News:
“Brookside officials are considering an ordinance with constrictions for pit bull owners in the town. (more…)
August 21, 2008 at 3:49 pm
· Filed under Tethering
From The Herald Online:
“The debate over dog chaining reached a new height Monday night as tethering opponents and proponents packed the York County Council meeting.
…At issue is whether county leaders should outlaw chaining dogs. (more…)
August 21, 2008 at 3:12 pm
· Filed under Tethering, Mandatory Spay/Neuter
From KAIT channel 8 in Jonesboro:
“[Jonesboro is considering an ordinance that] would prohibit dogs from being chained up. (more…)
August 21, 2008 at 12:08 pm
· Filed under Breed-Specific Legislation, Constitutional Rights
From CandGNews.com:
“City Council last week approved the first version of an ordinance that aims to regulate the ownership of dangerous animals, specifically pit bulls.
The ordinance would require that anyone that owns a Staffordshire bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier or American pit bull terrier must register the animal with the city and meet certain criteria to house the animals. (more…)
August 21, 2008 at 11:55 am
· Filed under Breed-Specific Legislation, Constitutional Rights
To the Editor:
I am writing in response to the opinion editorial “Note to cities: Sic ‘em” which appeared in the Tuesday, August 19, 2008 edition of the Daily Herald.
Remember how during the 1992 presidential campaign James Carville quipped, “It’s the economy stupid”? Well here I just can’t resist saying to you: It’s the Constitution stupid. I will never understand those who prostrate themselves before their government — federal, state, county, or municipal — and say “Take my constitutional rights, please” which is in effect what this op ed was saying by asserting that breed bans aren’t “about constitutional rights or discrimination” but “about public safety.” After all, the government must know best right? They wouldn’t ask you to give up fundamental inalienable rights (that’s inalienable, as in “not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated”) without a good reason like safety, right? And of course everyone knows that breed bans indemnify the public against attacks from all other dogs, right? Oh wait, no they don’t. Breed bans can’t even indemnify against attacks from the breeds banned! (more…)
August 19, 2008 at 4:47 pm
· Filed under Breed-Specific Legislation, Pet Limits, Constitutional Rights
From The News-Gazette:
“A Rantoul village board member wants to ban pit bulls, Rottweilers and Doberman pinschers from the village and set limits on the number of other dogs residents will be allowed to have. (more…)
August 18, 2008 at 10:42 am
· Filed under Breed-Specific Legislation, Constitutional Rights
According to the Manteca Bulletin the Manteca, California City Council will today consider,
“a municipal ordinance that would make spaying and neutering of pit bull breeds mandatory in the City of Manteca with one exception - for breeding under strict conditions that require a city issued permit… (more…)
August 15, 2008 at 10:58 am
· Filed under Breed-Specific Legislation, Constitutional Rights
From candgnews.com:
“The city became the fifth in the state to ban pit bull ownership after the Southfield City Council gave the go-ahead Aug. 11.
The item came before council because the city has been without an animal control officer for four years. City Attorney John Beras brought the recommendation that the city hire a new officer and discuss the issue of placing restrictions on the ownership of “dangerous dogs,” or banning them outright. (more…)
August 15, 2008 at 10:39 am
· Filed under Breed-Specific Legislation, Constitutional Rights
From WALB TV:
“One South Georgia City is considering an ordinance that would ban pit bulls from city limits.
The ban has been a hot topic in Homerville for about a month.
Mayor Carol Chambers wouldn’t talk to us about why city leaders think the ban may be necessary.” (more…)
« Previous entries
