Massachusetts Alert: 15 Bills to be Heard on Tuesday, July 14th!
From AKC
[Thursday, July 09, 2009]
The Massachusetts legislature’s Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government has scheduled consideration of 14 dog-related bills at its meeting on Tuesday, July 14th. Another bill of importance, HB 344 (see info, below) will be heard concurrently by the Joint Judiciary Committee. The American Kennel Club (AKC) and its Massachusetts federation, the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners (MassFed), encourage all responsible dog breeders and owners in Massachusetts to take action: attend Tuesday’s committee hearings, and/or contact the committee members and your elected officials in Massachusetts and let them know whether you support or oppose the bills (as highlighted below) they will consider on Tuesday.
Bills of concern to be heard by the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government (Tuesday, July 14; 10AM, Room A-2 of the State House in Boston):
The AKC and MassFed both support HB 1977, which seeks to strengthen Massachusetts’ dangerous dog laws. Its provisions include:
•Allowing dogs previously declared to be “at risk” to have the designation removed if the dog does not exhibit “at risk” behavior within 24 months after being designated as “at risk”
•Providing for duties of local animal control when a dog is declared “at risk”.
•Providing for duties of local animal control when a dog is declared as “dangerous”.
•Includes due process protections for dog owners.
The AKC and MassFed both oppose HB 1997, which seeks to impose many controversial new dog laws, including:
•Requiring that dog owners with intact dogs acquire an intact animal permit along with a health certificate (which will require state-prescribed vaccination protocols) while in compliance with all other licensing laws. Municipalities are to set the fees for intact animal permits by rule.
•Allowing municipalities to ban or further regulate specific breeds of dogs.
•Deeming certain commonplace acts as nuisance behaviors, the punishment for which could result in euthanization of the animal.
•Severely limiting the means by which an owner may humanely restrain their dog.
The AKC and MassFed both also oppose SB 774, which seeks to severely restrict the rights and operations of most responsible dog breeders in Massachusetts, including:
•Requiring anyone with four or more dogs to obtain a kennel license.
•Limiting the number of intact dogs six months of age or older a person may own to 25.
•Restricting the breeding of dogs to those between the ages of 18 months and eight years of age.
•Imposing strict, hard-to-comply-with, and expensive engineering standards for kennels.
•Allowing inspections of kennels, including private residences, without notice and at any time.
•Mandating strict exercise requirements for dogs kept in a kennel.
Other bills which will be considered by the Joint Municipalities Committee include HB 3704 (animal shelters), SB 763 (dangerous dog registry), SB 778 (spay/neuter fund), HB 1968 (dangerous dogs), HB 1969 (seizure/impoundment), HB 1975 (cat sterilization), HB 2008 (vicious dogs), HB 2015 (vicious dogs), HB 2016 (vicious dogs), HB 3589 (veterinary technicians), and SB 784 (rabies vaccinations). Click here to read MassFed’s positions.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
It is imperative that all concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in Massachusetts contact the members of the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government listed below. Let them know that you support HB 1977, and oppose both HB 1997 and SB 774.
Senator James B. Eldridge, Chair
Room 213-A
State House
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1120
Fax: (617) 722-1089
James.Eldridge@state.ma.us
Senator Patricia D. Jehlen, Vice-Chair
Room 513
State House
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-1578
Fax:617-722-1117
Patricia.Jehlen@state.ma.us
Senator Susan C. Fargo
State House
Room 504
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1572
Susan.Fargo@state.ma.us
Senator Anthony D. Galluccio
State House
Room 218
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1650
Anthony.Galluccio@state.ma.us
Senator Thomas P. Kennedy
State House
Room 109-E
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1200
Thomas.P.Kennedy@state.ma.us
Senator Richard R. Tisei
State House
Room 308
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1206
Fax: (617) 722-1063
Richard.Tisei@state.ma.us
Representative Paul J. Donato
State House
Room 540
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2090
Fax: 617-722-2848
Rep.PaulDonato@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Joyce A. Spiliotis
State House
Room 236
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2430
Rep.JoyceSpiliotis@hou.state.ma.us
Representative David B. Sullivan
State House
Room 279
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone:617-722-2230
Fax: 617-722-2821
Rep.DavidSullivan@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Sean Curran
State House
Room 473B
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2263
Rep.SeanCurran@Hou.State.MA.US
Representative Angelo J. Puppolo, Jr.
State House
Room 146
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2011
Fax: 617-722-2238
Rep.AngeloPuppolo@Hou.State.MA.US
Representative Pam Richardson
State House
Room 448
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2582
Fax: 617-722-2879
Rep.PamRichardson@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Katherine Clark
State House
Room 252
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2220
Fax: 617-722-2850
Rep.KatherineClark@HOU.State.MA.US
Representative Brian M. Ashe
State House
Room 540
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2090
Fax: 617-722-2848
Rep.BrianAshe@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Timothy R. Madden
State House
Room 167
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2810
Fax: 617-722-2846
Rep.TimothyMadden@hou.state.ma.us
Representative F. Jay Barrows
State House
Room 542
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2488
Fax: 617-722-2390
Rep.FJayBarrows@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Robert S. Hargraves
State House
Room 237
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2305
Fax: 617-722-2598
Rep.RobertHargraves@hou.state.ma.us
At Noon on July 14th, a different committee, the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, will consider House Bill 344, which seeks to:
•Make it illegal to debark a dog in Massachusetts in most circumstances.
•Impose unreasonable penalties, including imprisonment of up to five years and/or a fine of not more than $2,500, for those found in violation of the bill.
The AKC believes that much misinformation exists about debarking of dogs. When performed by a veterinarian, debarking is an acceptable medical procedure that is often done as a "last resort" when all other methods of modifying a dog's behavior have failed. For many responsible dog owners, debarking is the only alternative to euthanizing or surrendering their canine companion to a local shelter when their pet's noisy behavior continually disturbs the community. The decision to debark a dog is one that is best left to the dog owner and his veterinarian.
Both the AKC and MassFed oppose House Bill 344.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
All concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in Massachusetts are strongly encouraged to attend Tuesday’s hearing in opposition to HB 344 (Gardner Auditorium, State House, Boston); and/or to contact the members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary and let them know that you oppose HB 344, and encourage them to do the same.
Senator Cynthia Stone Creem, Chair
State House
Room 416-B
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1639
Cynthia.Creem@state.ma.us
Senator Steven A. Baddour, Vice-Chair
State House
Room 208
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1604
Steven.Baddour@state.ma.us
Senator Gale D. Candaras
State House
Room 213B
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-1291
Fax: 617-722-1014
Gale.Candaras@State.MA.US
Senator Jack Hart
State House
Room 109-C
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1150
John.Hart@state.ma.us
Senator Thomas M. McGee
State House
Room 112
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1350
Thomas.McGee@state.ma.us
Senator Bruce E. Tarr
State House
Room 313-A
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1600
Bruce.Tarr@state.ma.us
Representative Eugene L. O’Flaherty
State House
Room 136
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2396
Fax: 617-722-2819
Rep.GeneOFlaherty@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Christopher N. Speranzo
State House
Room 136
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2396
Rep.ChristopherSperanzo@Hou.State.MA.US
Representative James H. Fagan
State House
Room 236
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2430
Fax: 617-722-2346
Rep.JamesFagan@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Colleen M. Garry
State House
Room 238
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2380
Fax: 617-722-2847
Rep.ColleenGarry@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Marie P. St. Fleur
State House
Room 43
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2030
Rep.MarieSt.Fleur@hou.state.ma.us
Representative John V. Fernandes
State House
Room 136
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2396
Fax: 617-722-2215
Rep.JohnFernandes@Hou.State.MA.US
Representative Katherine Clark
State House
Room 252
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2220
Fax: 617-722-2850
Rep.KatherineClark@HOU.State.MA.US
Representative James J. Dwyer
State House
Room 39
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2014
Fax: 617-626-0831
Rep.JamesJDwyer@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Danielle W. Gregoire
State House
Room 26
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2080
Rep.DanielleGregoire@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Lewis G. Evangelidis
State House
Room 473B
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2263
Rep.LewisEvangelidis@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Daniel K. Webster
State House
Room 542
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2487
Rep.DanielWebster@hou.state.ma.us
For more information, contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org; or contact the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Owners at www.massfeddogs.org.
Friday, July 10, 2009
OH- City of Fairborn to enforce the ban on pit bulls
Fairborn Enforces No Pit Bull Ordinance
The ordinance banning pit bulls from the city of Fairborn passed in May 2008 and now city officials have decided to enforce it. In an interview posted on the WHIOTV.com website, City Manager Deborah McDonnell said, "We are asking residents to move the dogs to other locations and find other homes for them."
The city plans to begin the enforcement process by mailing letters to residents who own pit bulls letting them know about the ordinance.
The ordinance defines a pit bull as:
A. an American Pet Bull Terrier;
B. an American Staffordshire Terrier;
C. is an Staffordshire Bull Terrier;
D. displays the majority of physical traits of any one (1) or more of the above breeds;
E. is of mixed breed or of other breed than listed above which breed or mixed breed is know as A pit bull, pit bull dog or pit bull terrier; or
F. exhibits those distinguishing charachterists which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club for pit bull dogs or pit bull teriiers.
This same city ordinance (#1171.06, I) states that 5 dogs or cats constitues a kennel and shall be regulated as permitted within the zoning districts specified. This is not 5 INTACT dogs or cats- this is 5 total!!
The ordinance banning pit bulls from the city of Fairborn passed in May 2008 and now city officials have decided to enforce it. In an interview posted on the WHIOTV.com website, City Manager Deborah McDonnell said, "We are asking residents to move the dogs to other locations and find other homes for them."
The city plans to begin the enforcement process by mailing letters to residents who own pit bulls letting them know about the ordinance.
The ordinance defines a pit bull as:
A. an American Pet Bull Terrier;
B. an American Staffordshire Terrier;
C. is an Staffordshire Bull Terrier;
D. displays the majority of physical traits of any one (1) or more of the above breeds;
E. is of mixed breed or of other breed than listed above which breed or mixed breed is know as A pit bull, pit bull dog or pit bull terrier; or
F. exhibits those distinguishing charachterists which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club for pit bull dogs or pit bull teriiers.
This same city ordinance (#1171.06, I) states that 5 dogs or cats constitues a kennel and shall be regulated as permitted within the zoning districts specified. This is not 5 INTACT dogs or cats- this is 5 total!!
Thursday, July 9, 2009
TX- Couple working for a national ban on pit bulls
UPDATE: Leash Law Approved for Portions of Rusk County
By BETTY WATERS
Staff Waters
HENDERSON — Rusk County Commissioners this morning adopted a leash law for portions of the county.
The meeting was packed with people calling for the county to take a tougher stance against pit bull dogs.
Last month a 10-year-old Justin Clinton was mauled to death by pit bull dogs near Leverett’s Chapel School.
Before the meeting, 60 to 70 people gathered on the steps of the Rusk County Courthouse calling for the banning of pit bull dogs.
They hope what would be called “Justin’s Law” would outlaw ownership of pit bull dogs across the nation.
Among those attending the protest was Cynthia Kent, a Tyler attorney who served for several years as a district judge in Tyler.
Serena Clinton and Kevin Clinton, parents of Justin Clinton, speak during an interview this morning in front of the Rusk County Courthouse.
Mrs. Kent called the death a “senseless and preventable tragedy.”
She and others vowed to take the fight to ban pit bull dogs to the national level. Mrs. Kent said she would speak with U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert of Tyler about the prospect of national legislation.
Commissioner adopted the leash law for the Elderville and Airport Garden areas. A public hearing on enacting restrictions had previously been held for those communities. The court agreed to look at expanding the leash law to other areas.
The court also adopted a resolution calling for the banning of pit bulls throughout the nation.
Michael Jimerson, county and district attorney, said the county is limited to what it can do to prevent pit bull dog attacks.
In another action, the court accepted $15.78 million as the maximum cost for expansion of the county jail.
Updated Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 12:20 p.m. CDT
By BETTY WATERS
Staff Waters
HENDERSON — Rusk County Commissioners this morning adopted a leash law for portions of the county.
The meeting was packed with people calling for the county to take a tougher stance against pit bull dogs.
Last month a 10-year-old Justin Clinton was mauled to death by pit bull dogs near Leverett’s Chapel School.
Before the meeting, 60 to 70 people gathered on the steps of the Rusk County Courthouse calling for the banning of pit bull dogs.
They hope what would be called “Justin’s Law” would outlaw ownership of pit bull dogs across the nation.
Among those attending the protest was Cynthia Kent, a Tyler attorney who served for several years as a district judge in Tyler.
Serena Clinton and Kevin Clinton, parents of Justin Clinton, speak during an interview this morning in front of the Rusk County Courthouse.
Mrs. Kent called the death a “senseless and preventable tragedy.”
She and others vowed to take the fight to ban pit bull dogs to the national level. Mrs. Kent said she would speak with U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert of Tyler about the prospect of national legislation.
Commissioner adopted the leash law for the Elderville and Airport Garden areas. A public hearing on enacting restrictions had previously been held for those communities. The court agreed to look at expanding the leash law to other areas.
The court also adopted a resolution calling for the banning of pit bulls throughout the nation.
Michael Jimerson, county and district attorney, said the county is limited to what it can do to prevent pit bull dog attacks.
In another action, the court accepted $15.78 million as the maximum cost for expansion of the county jail.
Updated Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 12:20 p.m. CDT
RI - Council panel to review Providence Animal Control Center
Council panel to review Providence Animal Control Center
By Philip Marcelo
Journal Staff Writer
PROVIDENCE — The dog pound is being investigated by the City Council after questions were raised about the quality of care it provided to animals and the adequacy of its management staff.
In recent months, the state Department of Environmental Management’s Division of Agriculture, which licenses and inspects animal shelters, kennels, municipal pounds and pet stores, received a complaint of animal cruelty at the Animal Control Center that was ultimately dismissed, and the director of animal control, Peter M. Brown, stepped down in March amid accusations that he sexually harassed a volunteer worker and others at the dog pound, according to members of the City Council.
“The City Council needs to hear from other people what is happening down there so that they can make the right decision. These animals don’t get hurt in their kennels by themselves,” says Dennis Tabella, director of Defenders of Animals, an animal rights group.
Councilman John J. Lombardi, who submitted the resolution calling for the commission, said that the center, which is under the jurisdiction of the Police Department, would benefit from a review of management practices in light of recent events. “As far as I know, there are no policies and procedures in place for how animals are cared for once they are captured,” said Lombardi.
Lombardi’s resolution, which was approved by the council Thursday, calls for the formation of a five-member panel consisting of two council members and representatives of the Defenders of Animals, the Humane Society of Northwestern Rhode Island and the Warwick Animal Shelter.
Maj. Steven Melaragno, head of the Police Department’s Administrative Division, said the department welcomes the oversight, but questioned the validity of the concerns being raised. “The animals are being well cared for. The facilities are clean,” Melaragno said.
The DEM came to a similar conclusion when it inspected the city pound in February 2008, noting in a report that the “animals appear healthy and content” and the “facility [was] clean, free of odor and in excellent repair.”
Then came a complaint in March 2009 from employees at Big Daddy Taxi. Coty, a Great Dane that became a sort of office mascot for the city taxi service, was picked up by a city animal control officer after he ran away.
According to company employees, the otherwise healthy dog came back from a 13-day stay at the pound (all captured dogs are quarantined as a precaution) seriously ill.
“I was alarmed due to his appearance of major weight loss to the point that I was able to see his ribs and spine, his eyes were red, was coughing, and when I took him out to the bathroom I noticed that he was having a nosebleed,” said Suzanne M. Burns in a letter to the state DEM.
Coty had apparently developed an infection as a result of an injury sustained at the pound and spent two days at an animal hospital to recover, according to documents from the DEM.
Still, an investigation into the matter by state Veterinarian Scott Marshall, who works under the Division of Agriculture, said there was no evidence that the dog’s condition was the result of negligence or cruelty by pound workers.
“It’s not unheard of for a dog to develop a cough or an illness after being in a pound. It’s a stressful situation for the animals. With Providence Animal Control, we have not received an inordinate amount of complaints, in fact very few, considering the volume of animals that they handle,” said Marshall. The veterinarian’s office urged the pound to better document the condition of animals prior to their impoundment and the care the animals receive from the staff.
Animal Control is housed in a low-slung concrete bunker on the city’s industrial waterfront on Allens Avenue. It’s well kept, with spotless floors, brightly painted walls and clean kennels. But it’s also clearly dated and awkwardly placed right in the center of the Narragansett Bay Commission’s wastewater treatment complex.
It’s for these reasons that the shelter will soon be getting a new home, fully paid for by the Bay Commission, which has taken the shelter by eminent domain to build a new administrative office building, according Melaragno.
The $1-million shelter will be built on vacant NBC land about a block away on Terminal Road, where the Port of Providence is situated. When it is finished, the facility will be a vast improvement over the existing one, with expanded areas for cats, more dog kennels, including some larger dog kennels for larger breeds, according to Richard Souza, a longtime animal control officer.
Meanwhile, the Police Department is looking for a replacement for Brown, who served for five years as director. Police Inspector Luis Del Rio, who managed the department’s mounted division, has been temporarily placed in charge.
Tabella, of the Defenders of Animals, suggested that the commission look into the possibility of placing the pound under the watch of another city department or an outside agency. “The Police Department,” says Tabella, “has enough to do with real crime.” Shelter numbers
•Number of dogs taken in annually: 1,000
•Number of cats taken in annually: 700
•Annual budget: $400,000
•Full-time staff: 10
pmarcelo@projo.com
By Philip Marcelo
Journal Staff Writer
PROVIDENCE — The dog pound is being investigated by the City Council after questions were raised about the quality of care it provided to animals and the adequacy of its management staff.
In recent months, the state Department of Environmental Management’s Division of Agriculture, which licenses and inspects animal shelters, kennels, municipal pounds and pet stores, received a complaint of animal cruelty at the Animal Control Center that was ultimately dismissed, and the director of animal control, Peter M. Brown, stepped down in March amid accusations that he sexually harassed a volunteer worker and others at the dog pound, according to members of the City Council.
“The City Council needs to hear from other people what is happening down there so that they can make the right decision. These animals don’t get hurt in their kennels by themselves,” says Dennis Tabella, director of Defenders of Animals, an animal rights group.
Councilman John J. Lombardi, who submitted the resolution calling for the commission, said that the center, which is under the jurisdiction of the Police Department, would benefit from a review of management practices in light of recent events. “As far as I know, there are no policies and procedures in place for how animals are cared for once they are captured,” said Lombardi.
Lombardi’s resolution, which was approved by the council Thursday, calls for the formation of a five-member panel consisting of two council members and representatives of the Defenders of Animals, the Humane Society of Northwestern Rhode Island and the Warwick Animal Shelter.
Maj. Steven Melaragno, head of the Police Department’s Administrative Division, said the department welcomes the oversight, but questioned the validity of the concerns being raised. “The animals are being well cared for. The facilities are clean,” Melaragno said.
The DEM came to a similar conclusion when it inspected the city pound in February 2008, noting in a report that the “animals appear healthy and content” and the “facility [was] clean, free of odor and in excellent repair.”
Then came a complaint in March 2009 from employees at Big Daddy Taxi. Coty, a Great Dane that became a sort of office mascot for the city taxi service, was picked up by a city animal control officer after he ran away.
According to company employees, the otherwise healthy dog came back from a 13-day stay at the pound (all captured dogs are quarantined as a precaution) seriously ill.
“I was alarmed due to his appearance of major weight loss to the point that I was able to see his ribs and spine, his eyes were red, was coughing, and when I took him out to the bathroom I noticed that he was having a nosebleed,” said Suzanne M. Burns in a letter to the state DEM.
Coty had apparently developed an infection as a result of an injury sustained at the pound and spent two days at an animal hospital to recover, according to documents from the DEM.
Still, an investigation into the matter by state Veterinarian Scott Marshall, who works under the Division of Agriculture, said there was no evidence that the dog’s condition was the result of negligence or cruelty by pound workers.
“It’s not unheard of for a dog to develop a cough or an illness after being in a pound. It’s a stressful situation for the animals. With Providence Animal Control, we have not received an inordinate amount of complaints, in fact very few, considering the volume of animals that they handle,” said Marshall. The veterinarian’s office urged the pound to better document the condition of animals prior to their impoundment and the care the animals receive from the staff.
Animal Control is housed in a low-slung concrete bunker on the city’s industrial waterfront on Allens Avenue. It’s well kept, with spotless floors, brightly painted walls and clean kennels. But it’s also clearly dated and awkwardly placed right in the center of the Narragansett Bay Commission’s wastewater treatment complex.
It’s for these reasons that the shelter will soon be getting a new home, fully paid for by the Bay Commission, which has taken the shelter by eminent domain to build a new administrative office building, according Melaragno.
The $1-million shelter will be built on vacant NBC land about a block away on Terminal Road, where the Port of Providence is situated. When it is finished, the facility will be a vast improvement over the existing one, with expanded areas for cats, more dog kennels, including some larger dog kennels for larger breeds, according to Richard Souza, a longtime animal control officer.
Meanwhile, the Police Department is looking for a replacement for Brown, who served for five years as director. Police Inspector Luis Del Rio, who managed the department’s mounted division, has been temporarily placed in charge.
Tabella, of the Defenders of Animals, suggested that the commission look into the possibility of placing the pound under the watch of another city department or an outside agency. “The Police Department,” says Tabella, “has enough to do with real crime.” Shelter numbers
•Number of dogs taken in annually: 1,000
•Number of cats taken in annually: 700
•Annual budget: $400,000
•Full-time staff: 10
pmarcelo@projo.com
ID - Are pit bulls getting a bad rap?
Are pit bulls getting a bad rap?By Mike Murad
Video
BOISE - Pit bulls can divide people, just like abortion, politics and religion.
There's been a string of reported attacks locally, including when an Ada County Sheriff's deputy had to shoot a pit bull last week when they say it was attacking a Meridian Police officer and a K9. The pit bull died from the gunshot.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, an average of 12 people are killed by dog attacks each year nationwide, including three from pit bulls.
But even though you're still about 20 times more likely to be killed from a lighting strike than a pit bull attack, people still have strong feelings about the breed.
Two years ago, Peter Olson told CBS 2 he was simply outside his home picking up the mail, when two pit bulls appeared from nowhere, and attacked him.
"I knew they were going to kill me," Olson said. "I knew it was a fight for my life. As soon as I looked up they came charging and they didn't stop."
According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, about 800,000 people seek medical treatment each year for a dog bite. But, are your chances of getting bitten by a pit bull greater than any other dog?
The answer is no, said Dr. Dianne Soule, a Boise veterinarian. In her 24 years of experience, Soule says she's been bitten by just about every breed, except a pit bull.
"When I talk to other veterinarians about what dogs you see that are most aggressive, pit bull is not in the top 10," she says.
It's Rottweiler, and Chows, and Chihuahuas and Daschunds.
And the science would seem to back that up. A recent study conducted by the University of Pennsylvania indicates you have a much better chance of suffering a snap at the mouth of a Dachshund, Chihuahua, or Jack Russell terrier.
But, where the pit bull did score higher was in aggression toward other dogs, a trait that may have been fostered by their history of being forced to fight, both dogs and other animals.
CBS 2 recently observed dog activity and dog owners at a Meridian dog park, and couldn't find anyone who expressed a bias against the breed in general.
"I'd be a little scared if they were a pit bull that had been in dog fighting or aggressive," said Stephanie Griswold, who owns a German shepherd, "But as a puppy, if you raise it right, I wouldn't have any trouble with it."
Over the last three decades, the American Temperament Test Society has evaluated more than 29,000 dogs. And, of the 14 most tested breeds, only the Labrador retriever scored higher than a pit bull.
ATTS awards a pass or fail to each dog coming through their program. The test is based on the animal's shyness, aggressiveness and friendliness. Since 1977, ATTS has been keeping a running tally, and in terms of overall disposition, when it comes to the most tested dogs, only labs top pit bulls.
Lisa Kauffman is the Idaho director of the Humane Society of the United States. Two years ago, she became a first time pit bull owner when she adopted Barkley, who she brings to the dog park on a regular basis.
"People ask, 'is that a pit bull?' And I say 'yes.' He plays nice, and doesn't cause problems," says Kauffman, "So I think by me taking him places he's a good ambassador for the breed itself."
A pit bull is also the pet of choice for Treasure Valley dog trainer Sandra Sartorius.
"Give them a chance," says Sartorius. "If you've never met one, give them a chance, and you won't go back to any dog," she says.
In 2000, the CDC published a special report spanning 20 years on the breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States. Pit Bulls topped the list, averaging about three deaths a year, followed by Rottweilers at two, and German shepherds at one.
"Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bulls and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates," the CDC said in its report.
But, even if other breeds tend to bite more overall, why do pit bulls instill such fear in some people?
"They look tough," says Dr. Soule. "They are a big, beefy dog."
Sartorius says overcoming preconceived notions is the hardest part when explaining the breed to people. "I've met people, and I can't change their mind," says Sartorius. "It's 'oh, pit bulls are bad, and they're going to kill you and your dogs and everything else,' and I can't change people like that."
Kauffman says the problem comes back to any breed's owner. "It's the dogs left tethered on chains 24-7, dogs that aren't made a part of the family, that have no obedience training."
Soule believes owners can bring out the best, or worst, in pit bulls. "I do think pet owners have a big influence on a dog's behavior," she says. "If you want an aggressive dog, and encourage their tendency, that's what you will get. But if you want a dog that's gentle, that's what we see, and they're great."
Last year, the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association published a study from Multnomah County, Oregon. The number of overall dog bites was analyzed, and the study found lower income neighborhoods produced more biting dogs of all breeds, and fewer dogs that were neutered, which is considered to be a biting risk factor.
The study concluded: "Dog bites continue to be a source of preventable injury. Prevention programs should target owners of sexually intact male and purebred dogs and owners who live in lower income neighborhoods."
Video
BOISE - Pit bulls can divide people, just like abortion, politics and religion.
There's been a string of reported attacks locally, including when an Ada County Sheriff's deputy had to shoot a pit bull last week when they say it was attacking a Meridian Police officer and a K9. The pit bull died from the gunshot.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, an average of 12 people are killed by dog attacks each year nationwide, including three from pit bulls.
But even though you're still about 20 times more likely to be killed from a lighting strike than a pit bull attack, people still have strong feelings about the breed.
Two years ago, Peter Olson told CBS 2 he was simply outside his home picking up the mail, when two pit bulls appeared from nowhere, and attacked him.
"I knew they were going to kill me," Olson said. "I knew it was a fight for my life. As soon as I looked up they came charging and they didn't stop."
According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, about 800,000 people seek medical treatment each year for a dog bite. But, are your chances of getting bitten by a pit bull greater than any other dog?
The answer is no, said Dr. Dianne Soule, a Boise veterinarian. In her 24 years of experience, Soule says she's been bitten by just about every breed, except a pit bull.
"When I talk to other veterinarians about what dogs you see that are most aggressive, pit bull is not in the top 10," she says.
It's Rottweiler, and Chows, and Chihuahuas and Daschunds.
And the science would seem to back that up. A recent study conducted by the University of Pennsylvania indicates you have a much better chance of suffering a snap at the mouth of a Dachshund, Chihuahua, or Jack Russell terrier.
But, where the pit bull did score higher was in aggression toward other dogs, a trait that may have been fostered by their history of being forced to fight, both dogs and other animals.
CBS 2 recently observed dog activity and dog owners at a Meridian dog park, and couldn't find anyone who expressed a bias against the breed in general.
"I'd be a little scared if they were a pit bull that had been in dog fighting or aggressive," said Stephanie Griswold, who owns a German shepherd, "But as a puppy, if you raise it right, I wouldn't have any trouble with it."
Over the last three decades, the American Temperament Test Society has evaluated more than 29,000 dogs. And, of the 14 most tested breeds, only the Labrador retriever scored higher than a pit bull.
ATTS awards a pass or fail to each dog coming through their program. The test is based on the animal's shyness, aggressiveness and friendliness. Since 1977, ATTS has been keeping a running tally, and in terms of overall disposition, when it comes to the most tested dogs, only labs top pit bulls.
Lisa Kauffman is the Idaho director of the Humane Society of the United States. Two years ago, she became a first time pit bull owner when she adopted Barkley, who she brings to the dog park on a regular basis.
"People ask, 'is that a pit bull?' And I say 'yes.' He plays nice, and doesn't cause problems," says Kauffman, "So I think by me taking him places he's a good ambassador for the breed itself."
A pit bull is also the pet of choice for Treasure Valley dog trainer Sandra Sartorius.
"Give them a chance," says Sartorius. "If you've never met one, give them a chance, and you won't go back to any dog," she says.
In 2000, the CDC published a special report spanning 20 years on the breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States. Pit Bulls topped the list, averaging about three deaths a year, followed by Rottweilers at two, and German shepherds at one.
"Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bulls and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates," the CDC said in its report.
But, even if other breeds tend to bite more overall, why do pit bulls instill such fear in some people?
"They look tough," says Dr. Soule. "They are a big, beefy dog."
Sartorius says overcoming preconceived notions is the hardest part when explaining the breed to people. "I've met people, and I can't change their mind," says Sartorius. "It's 'oh, pit bulls are bad, and they're going to kill you and your dogs and everything else,' and I can't change people like that."
Kauffman says the problem comes back to any breed's owner. "It's the dogs left tethered on chains 24-7, dogs that aren't made a part of the family, that have no obedience training."
Soule believes owners can bring out the best, or worst, in pit bulls. "I do think pet owners have a big influence on a dog's behavior," she says. "If you want an aggressive dog, and encourage their tendency, that's what you will get. But if you want a dog that's gentle, that's what we see, and they're great."
Last year, the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association published a study from Multnomah County, Oregon. The number of overall dog bites was analyzed, and the study found lower income neighborhoods produced more biting dogs of all breeds, and fewer dogs that were neutered, which is considered to be a biting risk factor.
The study concluded: "Dog bites continue to be a source of preventable injury. Prevention programs should target owners of sexually intact male and purebred dogs and owners who live in lower income neighborhoods."
VA Two-day trial challenges County's Policy on Euthanizing Pit Bulss
http://loudounextra.washingtonpost.com/news/2009/may/06/pitbulls/By Derek Kravitz
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
By all accounts, the three-month-old pit bull puppy at Loudoun County's animal shelter was a happy, social and gentle dog. Unlike the vicious and aggressive image that often accompanies his breed, the brown-and-white puppy regularly jumped up on shelter employees' laps, tossed around rawhide toys and loved to play. In evaluations, workers described him as "silly," "wiggly" and "very lovey."
He didn't have a name except for his county-issued identification number, 43063. And, unfortunately for him, he made a few key mistakes in two required behavioral assessments in July 2007. Most puppies would have been able to survive the gaffes, several animal rescue groups allege. But this puppy was a pit bull in Loudoun County, the only Northern Virginia jurisdiction that prohibits public adoptions of the breed. So he was euthanized.
The county's decision to put that dog to sleep, along with 213 others since January 2006, was at the center of a two-day civil trial in Loudoun County Circuit Court about whether Loudoun County violated state and local laws that give people the right to adopt the dog of their choice from a publicly funded shelter. Arguments in the case concluded yesterday.
Loudoun residents and their dogs turned out for a demonstration in front of the courthouse to protest the county's adoption policy that they say discriminates against the pit bull breed. (Erica Garman)
Owners and their dogs protest the Loudoun County adoption policy that they say leads to the euthanasia of more pit bulls and pit bull mixes than that of other breeds.
Chewy, a four-month-old pit bull mix, belongs to Lacy Warner of Middleburg.
Loudoun euthanized all abandoned pit bulls for years before changing its policy in 2007, allowing the animals to be transferred to rescue groups or shelters in other jurisdictions - so long as the dogs passed a temperament test. The change came soon after former Attorney General Robert F. McDonnell (R) issued a nonbinding opinion saying that pit bulls taken to public pounds could not be euthanized based solely on their breed.
After McDonnell's opinion came out, Montgomery, Prince William and Arlington counties approved allowing pit bulls to be adopted after they had been evaluated, joining the District and Fairfax County. Nearby Prince George's County maintains one of the strictest policies in the nation, banning pit bulls unless they were acquired before 1997.
In May 2007, after the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors rejected a proposal to allow the public to adopt pit bulls cleared by animal behavior specialists, Animal Rescue of Tidewater, a Norfolk-based animal rights group, and Ronald Litz, a Great Falls computer security consultant who inquired about adopting a pit bull from the Loudoun County shelter, filed the lawsuit.
During Tuesday's arguments, attorneys for the plaintiffs described the county shelter as a mismanaged agency that unfairly euthanizes pit bulls that could have found loving homes. Attorneys played an audio recording of Loudoun County Supervisor Jim Burton (I-Blue Ridge), who said during a November 2007 county meeting that he had a "particular problem" with pit bulls because he had "seen them in action."
"There's an absolute clear bias based on breed," said Anthony F. Troy, a lawyer for the two parties suing the county.
Loudoun County officials argue that there is no "breed bias" but a "characteristic bias" against pit bulls, a term used for a number of different breeds that have long been associated with dogfights, gangs and deadly attacks. Assistant County Attorney Zaida Thompson said shelter staffers were doing the "best job they can" to make all adoptable dogs available to Loudoun residents.
Still, the case has presented problems for the Loudoun shelter, which operates on a 13-acre property in the affluent western part of the county. For years, officials there have been navigating a fine line between following the county Board of Supervisor's rulings on the pit bull issue and openly working with other regional public pounds to develop adoption policies for the breed.
"We're moving toward placing more dogs with rescue groups but a lot of them are full," said Tom Koenig, director of Loudoun County Animal Care and Control, in an interview shortly after the trial ended yesterday afternoon. "I follow the policy direction of the county administrator and the Board of Supervisors. I have to go with their decision. Would I like it to be different? It doesn't really matter because we are consistent with county policy."
Since the county's new transfer policy started, 122 pit bulls have been euthanized at the Waterford shelter. Data culled from evidence presented at this week's trial indicates the county euthanizes 84 percent of all pit bulls, compared to 48 percent of all other dogs.
As expected, the two-day trial featured some passionate displays, including a morning protest outside the county courthouse on Tuesday and a giant photo of a three-month-old pit bull puppy, similar to the one euthanized in 2007, being shown inside the courtroom.
Despite the emotions surrounding the case, the final ruling from Judge Burke F. McCahill, which is expected in coming days, might hinge on a technical, legal issue: whether a nonbinding opinion from an attorney general is enough to dictate county law.
"Unless that [attorney general's] opinion holds water," McCahill said during closing arguments, the county "might be free" to euthanize.
But for Litz, the plaintiff who owns a pit bull named Drew, it's simpler: "I don't understand the legal arguments, really," he said. "But I do understand dogs. And dogs are being killed."
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
By all accounts, the three-month-old pit bull puppy at Loudoun County's animal shelter was a happy, social and gentle dog. Unlike the vicious and aggressive image that often accompanies his breed, the brown-and-white puppy regularly jumped up on shelter employees' laps, tossed around rawhide toys and loved to play. In evaluations, workers described him as "silly," "wiggly" and "very lovey."
He didn't have a name except for his county-issued identification number, 43063. And, unfortunately for him, he made a few key mistakes in two required behavioral assessments in July 2007. Most puppies would have been able to survive the gaffes, several animal rescue groups allege. But this puppy was a pit bull in Loudoun County, the only Northern Virginia jurisdiction that prohibits public adoptions of the breed. So he was euthanized.
The county's decision to put that dog to sleep, along with 213 others since January 2006, was at the center of a two-day civil trial in Loudoun County Circuit Court about whether Loudoun County violated state and local laws that give people the right to adopt the dog of their choice from a publicly funded shelter. Arguments in the case concluded yesterday.
Loudoun residents and their dogs turned out for a demonstration in front of the courthouse to protest the county's adoption policy that they say discriminates against the pit bull breed. (Erica Garman)
Owners and their dogs protest the Loudoun County adoption policy that they say leads to the euthanasia of more pit bulls and pit bull mixes than that of other breeds.
Chewy, a four-month-old pit bull mix, belongs to Lacy Warner of Middleburg.
Loudoun euthanized all abandoned pit bulls for years before changing its policy in 2007, allowing the animals to be transferred to rescue groups or shelters in other jurisdictions - so long as the dogs passed a temperament test. The change came soon after former Attorney General Robert F. McDonnell (R) issued a nonbinding opinion saying that pit bulls taken to public pounds could not be euthanized based solely on their breed.
After McDonnell's opinion came out, Montgomery, Prince William and Arlington counties approved allowing pit bulls to be adopted after they had been evaluated, joining the District and Fairfax County. Nearby Prince George's County maintains one of the strictest policies in the nation, banning pit bulls unless they were acquired before 1997.
In May 2007, after the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors rejected a proposal to allow the public to adopt pit bulls cleared by animal behavior specialists, Animal Rescue of Tidewater, a Norfolk-based animal rights group, and Ronald Litz, a Great Falls computer security consultant who inquired about adopting a pit bull from the Loudoun County shelter, filed the lawsuit.
During Tuesday's arguments, attorneys for the plaintiffs described the county shelter as a mismanaged agency that unfairly euthanizes pit bulls that could have found loving homes. Attorneys played an audio recording of Loudoun County Supervisor Jim Burton (I-Blue Ridge), who said during a November 2007 county meeting that he had a "particular problem" with pit bulls because he had "seen them in action."
"There's an absolute clear bias based on breed," said Anthony F. Troy, a lawyer for the two parties suing the county.
Loudoun County officials argue that there is no "breed bias" but a "characteristic bias" against pit bulls, a term used for a number of different breeds that have long been associated with dogfights, gangs and deadly attacks. Assistant County Attorney Zaida Thompson said shelter staffers were doing the "best job they can" to make all adoptable dogs available to Loudoun residents.
Still, the case has presented problems for the Loudoun shelter, which operates on a 13-acre property in the affluent western part of the county. For years, officials there have been navigating a fine line between following the county Board of Supervisor's rulings on the pit bull issue and openly working with other regional public pounds to develop adoption policies for the breed.
"We're moving toward placing more dogs with rescue groups but a lot of them are full," said Tom Koenig, director of Loudoun County Animal Care and Control, in an interview shortly after the trial ended yesterday afternoon. "I follow the policy direction of the county administrator and the Board of Supervisors. I have to go with their decision. Would I like it to be different? It doesn't really matter because we are consistent with county policy."
Since the county's new transfer policy started, 122 pit bulls have been euthanized at the Waterford shelter. Data culled from evidence presented at this week's trial indicates the county euthanizes 84 percent of all pit bulls, compared to 48 percent of all other dogs.
As expected, the two-day trial featured some passionate displays, including a morning protest outside the county courthouse on Tuesday and a giant photo of a three-month-old pit bull puppy, similar to the one euthanized in 2007, being shown inside the courtroom.
Despite the emotions surrounding the case, the final ruling from Judge Burke F. McCahill, which is expected in coming days, might hinge on a technical, legal issue: whether a nonbinding opinion from an attorney general is enough to dictate county law.
"Unless that [attorney general's] opinion holds water," McCahill said during closing arguments, the county "might be free" to euthanize.
But for Litz, the plaintiff who owns a pit bull named Drew, it's simpler: "I don't understand the legal arguments, really," he said. "But I do understand dogs. And dogs are being killed."
All Bark and Fiscal Bite- Are Breed-Discriminatory Laws Effective?
This article originally appeared in Vol. 18, No. 2 (Winter 2009) of PASS IT ON
All Bark and Fiscal Bite—Are Breed-Discriminatory Laws Effective?
by Ledy VanKavage A dog attacks, and city-council members want the city attorney to react—sometimes by drafting an ordinance that restricts or outlaws a specific breed of dog, most often the maligned pit bull.1 After such an ordinance is passed, authorities must then ferret out and kill any dog that slightly resembles a pit bull. Prince George’s County Maryland spends approximately $560,000 every two years enforcing its ban. Miami-Dade County impounds and kills around 800 pit bulls a year, despite a ban dating back to the 1980s, resulting in a significant fiscal impact.2
Given the tremendous costs associated with breed-discriminatory laws, are they a prudent approach to community safety or a costly red herring? With passage of such ordinances comes a host of questions such as: How do you prove in court the identity of a mixed-breed dog? What sort of training do your animal-control or law-enforcement officers have regarding breed identification? If they aren’t trained in breed identification, is a veterinarian employed to determine whether a dog is a certain breed? Now that DNA testing is available, are courts going to require the government to pay for such testing before confiscating and destroying citizens’ property (i.e., their dogs)?
Missing the Mark by Targeting Pit Bulls
Effective public lawyers counsel their clients to make decisions based on research and valid statistics, not emotion. So why the modern-day witch hunt concerning pit bulls? Karen Delise, author of “Fatal Dog Attacks” and “The Pit Bull Placebo,” examined news stories regarding dog attacks that occurred during four days in August 2007. The results are telling:
· On Aug. 18, 2007: A Labrador mix attacked a 70-year-old man, sending him to the hospital in critical condition. Police officers arrived at the scene, and the dog was shot after charging the officers. This incident was reported in one article and only in the local paper.
· On Aug. 19, 2007: A 16-month-old child received fatal head and neck injuries after being attacked by a mixed-breed dog. This attack was reported two times by the local paper.
· On Aug. 20, 2007: A 6-year-old boy was hospitalized after having his ear torn off and receiving severe bites to the head by a medium-sized mixed-breed dog. This attack was reported in one article and only in the local paper.
· On Aug. 21, 2007: A 59-year-old woman was attacked in her home while trying to break up a dog fight involving her neighbor’s Jack Russell terrier and two pit bulls. The pit bulls had broken off their chains and followed her neighbor’s Jack Russell terrier in through her dog door. She was hospitalized with severe injuries. Her dog was not injured. This attack was reported in more than 230 articles in national and international newspapers and on major television news networks, including CNN, MSNBC, and Fox.
Thus, during those four days, four dog attacks made the news—including a fatality involving a mixed-breed dog—but only the incident involving the pit bulls captured national attention.
Given the hype, it isn’t a surprise that public lawyers may be asked to research and draft ordinances to help stop dog attacks, with the focus frequently on banning pit bulls. However, a smarter approach is to examine the statistics in the community, seek citizen input and weigh the factors involved in the attacks.
Read the full story on the American Bar Association site.
All Bark and Fiscal Bite—Are Breed-Discriminatory Laws Effective?
by Ledy VanKavage A dog attacks, and city-council members want the city attorney to react—sometimes by drafting an ordinance that restricts or outlaws a specific breed of dog, most often the maligned pit bull.1 After such an ordinance is passed, authorities must then ferret out and kill any dog that slightly resembles a pit bull. Prince George’s County Maryland spends approximately $560,000 every two years enforcing its ban. Miami-Dade County impounds and kills around 800 pit bulls a year, despite a ban dating back to the 1980s, resulting in a significant fiscal impact.2
Given the tremendous costs associated with breed-discriminatory laws, are they a prudent approach to community safety or a costly red herring? With passage of such ordinances comes a host of questions such as: How do you prove in court the identity of a mixed-breed dog? What sort of training do your animal-control or law-enforcement officers have regarding breed identification? If they aren’t trained in breed identification, is a veterinarian employed to determine whether a dog is a certain breed? Now that DNA testing is available, are courts going to require the government to pay for such testing before confiscating and destroying citizens’ property (i.e., their dogs)?
Missing the Mark by Targeting Pit Bulls
Effective public lawyers counsel their clients to make decisions based on research and valid statistics, not emotion. So why the modern-day witch hunt concerning pit bulls? Karen Delise, author of “Fatal Dog Attacks” and “The Pit Bull Placebo,” examined news stories regarding dog attacks that occurred during four days in August 2007. The results are telling:
· On Aug. 18, 2007: A Labrador mix attacked a 70-year-old man, sending him to the hospital in critical condition. Police officers arrived at the scene, and the dog was shot after charging the officers. This incident was reported in one article and only in the local paper.
· On Aug. 19, 2007: A 16-month-old child received fatal head and neck injuries after being attacked by a mixed-breed dog. This attack was reported two times by the local paper.
· On Aug. 20, 2007: A 6-year-old boy was hospitalized after having his ear torn off and receiving severe bites to the head by a medium-sized mixed-breed dog. This attack was reported in one article and only in the local paper.
· On Aug. 21, 2007: A 59-year-old woman was attacked in her home while trying to break up a dog fight involving her neighbor’s Jack Russell terrier and two pit bulls. The pit bulls had broken off their chains and followed her neighbor’s Jack Russell terrier in through her dog door. She was hospitalized with severe injuries. Her dog was not injured. This attack was reported in more than 230 articles in national and international newspapers and on major television news networks, including CNN, MSNBC, and Fox.
Thus, during those four days, four dog attacks made the news—including a fatality involving a mixed-breed dog—but only the incident involving the pit bulls captured national attention.
Given the hype, it isn’t a surprise that public lawyers may be asked to research and draft ordinances to help stop dog attacks, with the focus frequently on banning pit bulls. However, a smarter approach is to examine the statistics in the community, seek citizen input and weigh the factors involved in the attacks.
Read the full story on the American Bar Association site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)