BSL Updates

  
(Page 3 of 32: Viewing entries 21 to 30)  
[First 10 entry] Page Links:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  [Last 10 entry]  
Shadow NPC,- MDM

Ban the Deed - Not the Breed
 
 
Barked: Sat Nov 15, '08 7:40am PST 
[BSL-UPDATES] **ALERT** Jackson, Mississippi

The Jackson, Mississippi city council will be discussing at its next regular council meeting on Tuesday, November 18, 2008, a dangerous and potentially dangerous dog ordinance that would ban specific breeds from the city of Jackson. The ordinance was proposed by City Councilman Jeff Weill, and would ban "pit bulls" and "several related dogs."

Please send your polite and respectful opposition to breed specific legislation to the city officials listed below.

Jeff Weill
jweill@city.jackson.ms.us

Leslie McLemore
lmclemore@city.jackson.ms.us

Kenneth Stokes
kstokes@city.jackson.ms.us

Frank Bluntson
fbluntson@city.jackson.ms.us

Charles Tillman
tillmanc@city.jackson.ms.us

Marshand Crisler
mcrisler@city.jackson.ms.us

Margaret Barrett
mbarrett@city.jackson.ms.us

Mayor Frank Melton
P.O. Box 17
219 South President Street
Jackson, MS 39205-0017

(601) 960-1084
(601) 960-2193 - Fax



City Clerk Gail Green

219 South President Street
Post Office Box 17
Jackson, Mississippi 39205-0017
Phone (601) 960-1035

FAX (601) 960-1032


The proposed ordinance has been before the council's rules committee for review, and Weill states the ordinance grew out of concerns of his constituents and after a child was fatally killed by a dog in July 2008.
Shadow NPC,- MDM

Ban the Deed - Not the Breed
 
 
Barked: Sun Nov 16, '08 6:11am PST 
[BSL-UPDATES] **ALERT** Webster County, Kentucky

Please send your polite and respectful opposition to breed specific legislation to the Webster County officials via the County Clerk -

Contact Information
Webster County, Kentucky

P.O. Box 155
County Courthouse
Dixon, KY 42409-0155
Phone: (270) 639-5042




County Clerk

Valerie Fanklin

becky@kih.net



The second and FINAL reading on this ordinance that would regulate the ownership of "pit bulls" in Webster County is November 24, 2008.

Jodi Preis
Bless the Bullys
www.blessthebullys.com

Please join our efforts to fight
breed specific legislation!



Webster Co. wants stricter rules for pit bulls

Posted: Nov 14, 2008 04:24 PM CST

Updated: Nov 15, 2008 05:20 PM CST


By Alex Shabad - bio | email

PROVIDENCE, KY (WFIE) - Webster County officials are working on an updated dog ordinance, hoping to protect the public from so-called "vicious breeds." Specifically, they're proposing stricter regulations for pit bull owners.

But no matter what their reputation is, Michael Stone says his pit bull, Precious, wouldn't hurt a fly. "She just loves attention, she won't hurt nobody," Stone said. "People fighting them is what's given them a bad name because they've made them mean"

Rhat's why Stone says stricter regulations against pit bulls in Webster County aren't fair.
"Just because the dog is a pit bull, I don't think that's right just because of the breed of the dog."

But some county officials disagree. In fact they're trying to update the current county dog ordinance to specifically name pit bulls as a vicious breed.

"I think they're vicious dogs," said Providence Mayor Eddie Gooch. "I think they're dangerous and I think anyone who owns one is setting themselves up for a lawsuit"

This comes in response to an increase in dog complaints county-wide. The county attorney tells 14 News 60 percent of the problem stems from Providence.

Mayor Gooch says the town came up with it's own ordinance in 2007. "People would be out walking and dogs would bark at them or try to bite them and that's something you just can't have."

Under the proposed ordinance, owners of pit bulls or other dogs considered vicious would need an extra high insurance policy of at least $100,000 to cover potential damages.

"Just because you own a dog you gotta pay more money," said Stone. "That's not fair."

None of the county officials involved in the ordinance were available for interview but they did say the regulation is meant to keep dog owners more responsible.

"We've done a lot to reduce those numbers and we'll continue to contain their animals," said Mayor Gooch.

But those steps may come at a costly price for some pit bull owners, even if their dog is one of the gentle ones.

The second and final reading of the ordinance is scheduled for November 24th.


http://www.14wfie.com/Global/story.asp?S=9352750&nav=menu54_2
Shadow NPC,- MDM

Ban the Deed - Not the Breed
 
 
Barked: Mon Nov 17, '08 6:56am PST 
[BSL-UPDATES] POLL -- Should cities ban pit bulls?

Please Vote:
Poll out of the Colorado Springs Gazette. The poll is located at the very bottom right-hand corner of the homepage.
http://www.gazette.com/


Pit bulls
Should cities ban pit bulls?
Yes, they're a dangerous breed
No, it's the owners' fault




Poll results so far

Yes, they're a dangerous breed 57%

No, it's the owners' fault
43%

Shadow NPC,- MDM

Ban the Deed - Not the Breed
 
 
Barked: Mon Nov 17, '08 6:58am PST 
[BSL-UPDATES] City tightens animal controls (Wyandotte, MI)


WYANDOTTE: City tightens animal controls

Sunday, November 16, 2008 2:39 AM EST
By Jim Kasuba


WYANDOTTE — Pit bull owners can rest easier.

The city has reconsidered the idea of banning the breed.

However, City Council members are in the process of approving a new ordinance that deals with dangerous dogs of all breeds.

Several months ago, pit bull owners got wind that the council was considering an outright ban of their favorite breed of dog. However, such a measure was never brought to the table.

Instead, the council asked City Attorney William Look to research the issue further and to come back with something that would address city leaders’ concerns, but that would not target a single breed of dog.

Look said the ordinance, for which a first reading was approved Monday, is neutral as to dog breed, but does focus on behavior. The ordinance is concerned with two classifications of dogs: dangerous and potentially dangerous.

“This ordinance was drafted after review of the existing state law, city of Farmington Hills ordinance, information packet submitted from the American Kennel Club, and the model dangerous dog legislation from the Metropolian Washington Council of Governments,” Look said.

Here’s how it will work. If the animal control officer receives a complaint concerning a dangerous dog and he determines the dog to be dangerous, a recommendation is provided to the city prosecutor.

The prosecutor will then file a summons and complaint with the court. The dangerous dog must be surrendered to a proper dog-control authority at the owner’s expense until a court determination is made.

“This is an adoption of the current state law in Michigan,” Look said. “The court can order the dog destroyed or require the owner to take certain precautionary steps to protect the public.”

If a complaint is filed with the city and the animal control officer deems the dog to be potentially dangerous, a citation is issued and the court makes the final determination.

If the court agrees the dog is potentially dangerous, the dog must be registered with the city, a sign must be posted on the owner’s property, and the dog must be maintained in a proper and secure enclosure.

One resident questioned the council about what situations this new law would cover, or how it differs from what is currently in the ordinance books.

Mayor James DeSana said the major change is that this law gives the city the authority to declare a dog to be dangerous, and in certain cases even before it attacks a person.

DeSana said that in the past, one of the biggest problems has been dogs running loose. For the most part, the city would simply return the dog to the owner with an admonishment to keep it in the back yard.

Councilwoman Sheri Sutherby-Fricke said the new ordinance holds vicious dog owners more responsible then before, without picking one breed over another.

“I think it adds a greater level of clarity,” Councilman Todd Browning said.

Resident Cindy Groff, who told council members she wished there had been more notice given about this ordinance, in the end said she didn’t have a problem with it.

Groff and her husband, Don, own an English Staffordshire bull terrier and a pit bull terrier. She likes the idea that the ordinance is not breed specific.

“Any dog is a potentially dangerous dog,” Cindy Groff said. “Aggression doesn’t know any breeds.”

In reviewing the ordinance, Groff said it appears that it gives owners of dogs accused of being vicious a chance to state their case and, if necessary, to correct the situation.

Don Groff said he believes that dogs are only as good as owners teach them to be.

http://www.thenewsherald.com/articles/2008/11/16/news/doc491de1a7a adad196723188.txt
Shadow NPC,- MDM

Ban the Deed - Not the Breed
 
 
Barked: Mon Nov 17, '08 6:59am PST 
[BSL-UPDATES] Council curbs dangerous dog ordinance (Livonia, MI)

Council curbs dangerous dog ordinance
By Alex Lundberg • OBSERVER STAFF WRITER • November 16, 2008



The Livonia City Council may begin to look at increased regulation of dog owners, but did not act to pass a dangerous dog ordinance Monday.

The council decided to refer any deliberation on changing the city's posture toward dangerous dogs, or possibly all pets, to a future meeting of the Committee of the Whole.

The issue was brought to the council's attention by Diana Judge, a Livonia woman whose dog was killed by two pit bulls running free. She was also bit in the attack.



"I never meant for there to be a ban," she said. "Rather, I want a proactive move to identify a category of dangerous dogs. The owners would have to take a higher level of responsibility."



The council got an earful from dog lovers from inside and, in a few cases, far outside of Livonia's borders. Many of them said that a breed-specific ordinance isn't fair, because any dog can be dangerous.



"No such ordinance would be enforceable," said Tamra Green of the Livonia Kennel Club and the Terrier Club of Michigan. "The city needs better enforcement of dangerous dog ordinances."



Green said that no expression of a dog's aggression against humans is tolerable, and that "unstable" dogs are ones that are not properly trained or contained. Michael Davis, of the Great American Pit Bull Terrier Association, said there is a lot of information available about the proper care and maintenance of the breed.



Many in the audience brought their dogs to the meeting. Some of those who came to speak against a breed-specific ordinance were from other communities like Novi and Wyandotte. The opposition arguments ranged from attacks on the concept of breed-specific ordinances - likening them to racial profiling - to the concept that there are no inherently dangerous breeds, only poor socialization.



Proponents of a tighter set of dog ordinances also came to the meeting. Gene Scott wondered why the city council has missed so many opportunities to do anything about pet control in the city.



"We're talking about control of a dog by its owner, this is not ethereal, there's something you can do about it," he said. "Why has the council failed to act? Why doesn't the council require a leash law?"



Currently, the city's ordinances call for a dog to be "under control." Hilary Gross, his wife and dogs, were attacked by loose dogs just a few months ago.



"I was able to fend one of them off and get between my wife and the other one," he said.

"The owner came out and reprimanded me for waving my cane at the dogs. Animal control can't do anything unless someone gets bitten."



Councilman Don Knapp said something breed-specific isn't in order, but something needs to be done.



"We need to make sure owners are punished," he said. "The ordinances call for a dog to be under control but not on a leash, that makes no sense. We should tighten the ordinance we have in place."



alundberg@hometownlife.com ­ (734) 953-2109


http://www.freep.com/article/C5/20081116/NEWS10/811160506/1110/CFP 01
Shadow NPC,- MDM

Ban the Deed - Not the Breed
 
 
Barked: Mon Nov 17, '08 7:01am PST 
[BSL-UPDATES] Proposed ordinance targets 12 breeds (Monroe, WA)

Monroe may toughen rules for some dog breeds

By Debra Smith
Herald Writer


MONROE, WASHINGTON -- Christine Baker doesn't like to walk her dog alone anymore.

She also doesn't push her baby daughter in the stroller to the nearby park. And when it's time to get in her car, she looks first and moves quickly.

Two months ago, her neighbor's two pit bulls escaped through their backyard fence and attacked her fleecy white lap dog Bailey while she walked him outside her Chain Lake home.

"I saw them coming out of the corner of my eye," Baker said. "One went one way and one the other way."

Baker tried to pick up her dog, but the pit bulls got there first. One grabbed Bailey near his neck, and the other sunk its teeth into the smaller dog's hindquarters and started to shake.

"I was screaming bloody murder," she said. "It felt like a nightmare. I ended up on the ground wrestling and punching and kicking them."

Bailey lived but required $400 in vet care. The attack left Baker scraped and shaken.

This isn't the first incident with the pit bulls. Neighbors who feel terrorized by the dogs contacted city officials and demanded action.

The result is a proposal that would label certain breeds of dogs, including pit bulls, as potentially dangerous.

Strike one, strike two

Monroe, like most area cities, uses a two-strike approach. Dogs earn the label of potentially dangerous once they bite or act aggressively. If a second incident happens, the dogs are registered as dangerous. That forces owners to keep stricter control of their dogs.

The proposal would eliminate that first warning for certain breeds, essentially giving them no second chances.

"It's taking one step out of the process for dogs that are known to be bred for fighting," said Debbie Willis, Monroe police spokeswoman.

The city isn't banning the breeds. If someone owns one of these breeds and the dog doesn't cause problems, owners would have to take no additional measures, she said.

Potentially dangerous dogs with no history of seriously injuring people or other pets could earn their way off the city's bad dog list if they and their owners complete a program teaching responsible dog ownership, such as the American Kennel Club's Canine Good Citizen Program.

The Monroe City Council plans to hold a public hearing to discuss the proposed rules at its 7 p.m. Tuesday meeting at Monroe City Hall.

Breeds affected

The breeds on the proposed list are Akita, American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, bull terrier, cane corso, dogo Argentino, dogue de Bordeaux, Kuvasz, pit bull terrier, presa Canario, Staffordshire bull terrier and Tosa inu.

Dogs with a mix of one or more of these breeds would also be regulated.

Just the suggestion of treating some breeds differently than others has raised the hackles of plenty of dog lovers.

Dozens of angry e-mails have been sent from as far away as Texas and New York to City Councilman Mitch Ruth, arguing it's not fair to label an entire breed as bad.

Ruth has raised and trained Rottweilers for competition.

"I recognize most of the dogs on the list are powerful dogs with dominant genetic characteristics," he said.

That itself isn't problematic, he said. The problems are with the owners, not the dogs, and he encourages strict penalties for irresponsible dog owners.

Who's responsible?

The dogs on Monroe's list are no more likely to be aggressive than most other breeds, said Marvin Versteeg, a professional dog trainer who lives in Monroe. Versteeg owns a pit bull named Cowboy, and the dog is sweet and well-behaved, he said.

A dog's behavior has more to do with how it's treated than its pedigree, he said. A properly trained and socialized dog is happy and will defend itself only when threatened.

Certain breeds have gotten a bad rap partly because people who wanted a "tough" dog gravitated toward these breeds and then encouraged aggressive behavior or neglected the dogs, Versteeg said.

He suggested the city back a program for dog ownership that educates people on how to choose a breed that fits their lifestyle.

Other municipalities are grappling with what to do with dangerous dogs.

Two pit bulls in King County viciously attacked a 72-year-old SeaTac woman in September.

The Metropolitan King County Council is taking a closer look at banning dog owners from continuous chaining of their animals. Dogs chained for long periods of time are more likely to attack people or other dogs, according to the Humane Society of the United States. The council directed County Executive Ron Sims on Monday to report by Feb. 28 on the practicality of an ordinance.

Everett is the only city in Snohomish County that targets specific breeds as potentially dangerous.

Pit bulls, Staffordshire bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers and mixes of these breeds are considered "potentially dangerous" and Everett requires these dogs to be registered, licensed and fitted with a microchip.

No one answered the door at the Chain Lake house of the pit bulls' owners when a reporter attempted to seek comment.

Past incidents

The Baker family and their neighbors would like to see something done before a more serious incident happens.

Over the past few months, one of the three dogs bit three people, including a toddler being pulled in a wagon by her grandfather.

The owner of the dog opted to have it euthanized, and the two remaining dogs have been classified as potentially dangerous, according to animal control officers. There are several "Beware of Dog" signs around the owner's fenced back yard, and scrap wood is nailed along the bottom of his fence.

Neighbors say that's not enough to help them be safe. A school bus stop is directly in front of the man's house and the dogs have been seen running in the neighborhood without leashes or muzzles.

Neighbor Dawna Golden said she has seen the dogs running loose several times and supports the proposal. She's worried for her family, which includes three teenagers.

"I think there are (types of) dogs that are more dangerous," she said.



Reporter Debra Smith: 425-339-3197 or dsmith@heraldnet.com.

Hearing scheduled on one-strike rule

The Monroe City Council plans a public hearing on the proposed rules at its meeting 7 p.m. Tuesday at Monroe City Hall, 806 W. Main St.
Shadow NPC,- MDM

Ban the Deed - Not the Breed
 
 
Barked: Mon Nov 17, '08 7:02am PST 
[BSL-UPDATES] Aurora pit bull ban heads to court (Aurora, CO)

Pit-bull ban heads to court
Aurora on trial
By Felisa Cardona
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 11/16/2008 11:40hi50 PM MST
Florence Vianzon Sasek hopes she can take Isis outside for a walk through her Aurora neighborhood again without strapping a pink leather muzzle over the dog's mouth.

Isis, a 5-year-old American Staffordshire terrier mix, can't ride in the car without being enclosed in a locked crate and is not allowed to roam her backyard without supervision.

Today, Vianzon Sasek's lawsuit challenging the city of Aurora's pit-bull ban goes to trial in U.S. District Court in Denver before Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel.

The case was filed on her behalf by the American Canine Foundation, a Washington state-based group focused on protecting the rights of dog owners and promoting responsible dog ownership.

Vianzon Sasek's lawsuit says that Aurora's ban on the breeds is unconstitutional, that the ordinance is vague and that the law was passed unnecessarily.

Isis, who wears a pink rhinestone collar that matches her muzzle, has never bitten
anyone. Her most egregious offense is licking people's faces and walking away, Vianzon Sasek said.

"She's a great, sweet, gentle dog," she said.

In February 2006, the Aurora ban went into effect, targeting several breeds that are considered pit bulls or dogs that have the physical characteristics of pit bulls.

Vianzon Sasek owned Isis before the ban and is allowed to keep her dog if she complies with certain rules, such as erecting a 6-foot fence around her property and paying $200 a year in licensing fees.

Aurora's restricted-breed ordinance already has been challenged in state court and was upheld, said Aurora's City Attorney Charlie Richardson.

A similar legal challenge to Denver's pit-bull ban is pending before the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judges in Utah, New Mexico, Washington, Arkansas and most recently, Ohio, also have upheld pit-bull ordinances.

"I am very hesitant to comment on the merits of the ban on the eve of a federal trial," Richardson said. "However, we will, of course, provide evidence to the court that our restricted-breed ordinance was and is lawful."

Aurora passed the ban shortly after the city and county of Denver adopted their own ordinance after a series of attacks involving pit bulls.

The American Canine Foundation reviewed incident reports from Aurora in 2003 to 2005 that showed almost 2 percent of injuries from canines were attributed to dogs that were classified as pit bulls. The other 98 percent involved breeds ranging from Jack Russell terriers to a St. Bernard.

City statistics show that in 2006, there were eight restricted-breed attacks on humans, compared with 123 attacks by other dogs on humans.

Last year, there were 11 attacks by restricted breeds on humans and 150 attacks by other dogs.

Glen Bui, a co-founder of the foundation, believes the city should focus on behaviors of individual dogs rather than an entire breed. He also said that owners like Vianzon Sasek, who are most likely to comply with the ordinance, are not the problem.

"The law does nothing to target illegal activity like dog fighting," Bui said. "Because (some owners) are criminals, they are not going to follow a breed-specific law."

Vianzon Sasek says she didn't want to move out of Aurora because her son is attending a charter school that was tough to get into. She also didn't want to give up her beloved Isis and decided to do all she could to comply with the ordinance while she fights it.

"It's an emotional thing," Vianzon Sasek said, while petting Isis in her living room last week. "Who wants to touch a dog with a muzzle on?"

Felisa Cardona: 303-954-1219 or fcardona@denverpost.com

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11001153
Shadow NPC,- MDM

Ban the Deed - Not the Breed
 
 
Barked: Mon Nov 17, '08 1:37pm PST 
[BSL-UPDATES] Fw: ALERT: Poll on statewide ban - Please go vote NO
Permission to cross post!

The Aurora, CO federal case started this morning. Several local newspapers are carrying the story on this issue. One of them has a poll asking whether CO should implement a statewide ban. Please go vote NO on this poll!

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/17999479/detail.html?r ss=den&psp=news
Shadow NPC,- MDM

Ban the Deed - Not the Breed
 
 
Barked: Tue Nov 18, '08 11:34am PST 
[BSL-UPDATES] Fw: Ridgeland, MS: Pit bull discussion ensues at Ridgeland aldermen's meeting

Reminder: Ridgeland, MS to discuss BSL, Nov 18
Posted on November 17, 2008

BSL will be discussed at a board meeting at Ridgeland City Hall at 6:30 PM on November 18th. I have heard it is a closed-door meeting, but residents should call to confirm. Correction: There will be a closed-door meeting after the regular board meeting, due to legal concerns about the proposed ordinance. Residents may attend the regular board meeting.

The board has already met to discuss this issue. At that time, someone presented Merritt Clifton’s dog bite information. The board may need polite, persuasive, and accurate communications to counter the heavily biased Clifton data. See, for example, http://stopbsl.com/journalist-resources/scientific-studies/

Conta ct information for Mayor and Board of Alderman can be found here:
http://www.ridgelandms.org/aldermen/board-of-alderman.html

New article on the issue:

http://www.mcherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2008111 8/NEWS/81118001

Pit bull discussion ensues at Ridgeland aldermen’s meeting
By Leah Square
leah.square@mcherald.com
November 18, 2008

Ridgeland city leaders are expected to discuss a controversial proposal tonight that may call for the banning of certain dog breeds from the city.

Mayor Gene McGee said Monday that the Board of Aldermen and the city’s attorneys will review the proposal in a closed session tonight following the board’s regular meeting at 6:30 p.m. in Ridgeland City Hall.

The city first presented a proposed amendment to the animal control ordinance in September that called for the banning of pit bulls, Rottweilers, Staffordshire bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers and their offspring in Ridgeland. Public reaction was heated and emotional, prompting the board to delay the vote to gather more information about the practicality and legality of breed specific legislation.

“This is an ordinance that has a very high potential of litigation,” said Ridgeland City Attorney Jerry Mills, explaining the plans for a closed session.

A vote on any proposal is, however, unlikely tonight, McGee said.

Last month city leaders said they would have the final draft of the proposal ready for a vote this week, but it wasn’t complete in time.

Even so, more than a dozen Ridgeland residents showed up to the board’s work session Monday, anxious to comment on the proposed breed ban.

The mayor allowed them to speak and submit any letters, statistics or other materials for consideration.

Two people spoke in favor of a ban, but the comments from others that spoke out were overwhelmingly negative. One neighborhood association submitted a letter, which McGee read aloud, in support of a breed ban in Ridgeland.

Among those against a ban was Gloria Grantham, who along with her husband has been involved in a months-long battle with their next-door-neighbor over the couple’s pit bulls and Rottweiler.

“I’ve owned my Rottweiler six years, and he has not gotten out one time,” Grantham said. “It’s how you raise a dog.”

Several residents offered approving nods.

Ridgeland dog trainer and pediatric nurse Rebecca Bailey also spoke against banning specific breeds.

“When dogs are bred correctly, you’re not going to have any problems out of these breeds,” Bailey said. “I don’t recommend the ban.”

But Bailey also said she has witnessed firsthand during her nursing shifts the injuries that can result from dog attacks. She added that those injuries were caused by unsocialized, untrained dogs.

Another Ridgeland nurse said she has seen children that have been mauled severely by vicious dogs and supported a ban on certain breeds in Ridgeland.

Mike Smith of the Dinsmor Homeowners Association said he also supports a breed specific ban.

“I know I’m going to make some people mad,” Smith said before segueing into a prepared presentation that included a wealth of statistics on dog attacks. He had cited research by Animal People, an animal protection newspaper, and other like sources to bolster his argument that certain dog breeds are more apt to attack than others.

According to Animal People, pit bulls, Rottweilers and wolf hybrids have been responsible for 931 maulings and nearly 200 deaths in the United States and Canada between 1982 and 2007. Those breeds account for more than 70 percent of all dogs attacks resulting in death and 77 percent of all attacks resulting in maiming.

“The numbers are the numbers,” Smith said. “You have a bad day with one of these three breeds, somebody is maimed or somebody is killed. There are no second chances.”

Talk of a breed specific ban in Ridgeland comes after months of feuding between the Granthams of 615 Ralde Circle and their neighbor April Scott.

Scott, a single mother of two young girls, describes the Granthams’ two pit bulls and Rottweiler as a aggressive and dangerous.

The Granthams at one time kept two other pit bulls and a Jack Russell terrier in addition to the three they have now.

The city in May had granted the couple a special permit to keep six dogs despite a city ordinance allowing no more than three.

The board recently revoked that permit amid the neighbors’ heated feud.

Not fully satisfied with the revocation alone, Scott took the Granthams to court and asked for the removal of the remaining “dangerous dogs.”

A Ridgeland Municipal Court judge ruled last month the pets aren’t dangerous and ordered the neighbors to cease all contact.

The Granthams are currently in the process of building an 8-foot privacy fence to shield their dogs.

Original alert and article can be found here:

http://stopbsl.com/2008/10/30/ridgeland-ms-update-pit-bulls -spark-heated-court-battle-between-neighbors-bsl-proposed/
Shadow NPC,- MDM

Ban the Deed - Not the Breed
 
 
Barked: Wed Nov 19, '08 5:55am PST 
[BSL-UPDATES] **ALERT** Arkansas City, Kansas (8 Breeds)


Sorry guys...just getting this one. The city council meeting is tonight. According to the article, Arkansas City already bans "pit bulls." Now they are considering adding eight breeds to their list of banned breeds.

Jodi



City may ban one dog breed
City plans public forum
By JAMES JORDAN
Traveler Editor
news@arkcity.net

Arkansas City may ban the dog breed Presa Canario at its meeting tonight at 7, at City Hall.

The dog is large, aggressive and has been known to kill people, Mayor Mel Kuhn said.

There are eight dog breeds on a list the city is considering, and each of them are some variant of the Pit Bull, which the city has already banned.

They want to do this in order to reduce the number of vicious dog cases. City Attorney Tamara Niles said she gets about one a week in her office. If someone pays their fine in such a case, it would not reach her desk, she said, so there may be more.

Commissioners said they do not want to get into the banning of a lot of breeds of dogs, so they will likely ban this one and make the current laws about vicious dogs stronger.

Kuhn said he wants to be proactive in order to prevent people from being hurt by dogs.

"We don't want to overdo it, but we do want to protect people," he said.

Kuhn said that while some dogs are bred to be violent, often the problem is the owner and not the dog.

Niles said there are no dogs like the one in question in the city that she knows of, but she said it would prevent anyone from bringing one into town.

They also want to make the law stronger as people are now finding loopholes. Some people just keep paying their fines over and over.
Sometimes dogs are taken to the animal shelter. People go back and get them, promising to move them out into the country, but do not do so. Sometimes they get someone else to claim the animal, as another way of keeping their dog that has been cited for being vicious.

Commissioner Scott Margolius said it would be better to make the law tougher, or to enforce it more strictly.

Kuhn said it would be more important to make people more accountable for their animals.

City plans public forum

City commissioners have scheduled a meeting with the public for 7 p.m. Nov. 20 at the Arkansas City Senior Center.

The city hopes to have these meetings quarterly. It is a chance for people to talk with the commission about their concerns.
  (Page 3 of 32: Viewing entries 21 to 30)  
[First 10 entry] Page Links:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  [Last 10 entry]