Monthly Archives: February 2011

Sterling Heights, MI: Breed neutral dog ordinance adopted

Sterling Heights city council unanimously approved a breed-neutral dog ordinance during last night’s city council meeting.

Sterling Heights had been considering a breed-specific law since June 2010. One resident demanded a breed ban and told the council, “We have inner city people who bought homes here … They don’t need to bring their pit bulls here.” The city held a “Pit Bull Dog Workshop” in September, at which they used Merritt Clifton’s flawed dog bite survey to demonstrate the need for breed-specific laws. As recently as December 2010, the city still planned to proceed with BSL.

Community opposition was strong throughout, and the community provided council with breed-neutral alternatives. In January, the council began to discuss breed-neutral proposals, ultimately accepting a strong breed-neutral ordinance. The city officials who assembled the breed-neutral proposal observed that it avoided the controversy associated with breed-specific laws, while still enabling animal control to enforce public safety.

A huge thank you and congratulations to the citizens in and around Sterling Heights who worked together to create and encourage a breed-neutral proposal.

All alerts for Sterling Heights: http://stopbsl.com/?s=sterling+heights

Springfield, Manitoba, Canada: Pit bull ban proposal dropped

Amazing opposition from the community has put a halt to a proposed pit bull ban in the rural municipality of Springfield.

Pit bull ban shot down in Dugald

Last Updated: Friday, February 11, 2011 | 12:50 PM CST .CBC News

Vocal opposition from close to 200 people has forced the Rural Municipality of Springfield to drop a proposed ban on pitbull dogs.

The controversial ban was part of a number of changes to the animal control bylaw that were discussed at a public meeting in Dugald Thursday night.[...]

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2011/02/11/mb-pitbull-dogs-ban-opposed-manitoba.html#ixzz1DhUszDLt

All alerts for Springfield, Manitoba: http://stopbsl.com/?s=%22springfield%2C+manitoba%22

Bay County, MI: Opportunity to repeal BSL

Bay County, MI, already has BSL in place; their current animal control ordinance declares all “pit bulls” to be “vicious” dogs. See the current ordinance, breed specific portion, here.

Bay County is looking at revisions to their animal control ordinance. This is an opportunity for the public to urge the commissioners to move toward a breed-neutral ordinance.

Contact information for Bay County Board of Commissioners
Michael J. Duranczyk (D), baycounty1st@aol.com
Brandon Krause (D), brandondkrause@aol.com
Vaughn J. Begick (R), vaughnpac@aol.com
Joe Davis (R), joe@durussel.com
Ernie Krygier (D), elkrygier@chartermi.net
Kim Coonan (D), coonank@baycounty.net
Tom Ryder (D), tomryder50@yahoo.com
Christopher Rupp (R), ruppc@baycounty.net
Donald J. Tilley (D), tilleyd@baycounty.net

Email block for cut-and-paste
baycounty1st@aol.com; brandondkrause@aol.com; vaughnpac@aol.com; joe@durussel.com; elkrygier@chartermi.net; coonank@baycounty.net; tomryder50@yahoo.com; ruppc@baycounty.net; tilleyd@baycounty.net

Bay County officials looking to revamp animal ordinance following local pit bull attack

Published: Thursday, February 10, 2011, 9:00 AM
By Shannon Murphy | The Bay City Times

[...] In tweaking its ordinance, Martha Fitzhugh, Bay County’s Corporation Counsel, said county officials will review ordinances in other counties.

“We’re going to compare other ordinances and the law to determine if we can have an intervention for less (than an injury)” Fitzhugh said. “We want to determine whether our ordinance is sufficient in addressing a behavior of a dog before it is deemed vicious.”[...]

Fitzhugh said nothing has been put in writing and there is no timeline for when a proposed new ordinance could be brought to the Bay County Board of Commissioners.

Fitzhugh said, however, the intent is not to single out pit bulls.

“We don’t want to focus on a breed, just on the behavior,” she said.

Full article retrieved 2/10/11 from http://www.mlive.com/news/bay-city/index.ssf/2011/02/bay_county_officials_looking_t.html

Springfield, Manitoba, Canada: Pit bull ban to be debated, Feb 10

The rural municipality of Springfield, Manitoba, Canada, will be debating tonight whether to ban “pit bulls” from their community. This appears to be a residents’ meeting, hosted by the Reeve and Council.

Notice of Public Meeting Re: By-law 10-18 – Regulation and Control of Animals within the RM of Springfield

Copy of draft by-law

Thursday, February 10, 2011
7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Dugald Community Club, 544 Holland Street

Contact information for the Reeve and Council of Springfield
Reeve Jim McCarthy, jmccarthy@rmofspringfield.ca
Councillor Robert (Bob) Bodnaruk, bbod@mts.net
Councillor Karen Lalonde, klalonde@mymts.net
Councillor Mike Purtill, mpurtill@rmofspringfield.ca
Councillor Ken Lucko, klucko@rmofspringfield.ca
Councillor Garry Brown, gbrown@rmofspringfield.ca

Email block for cut-and-paste
jmccarthy@rmofspringfield.ca; bbod@mts.net; klalonde@mymts.net; mpurtill@rmofspringfield.ca; klucko@rmofspringfield.ca; gbrown@rmofspringfield.ca

West Virginia HB 3080 would create statewide BSL

Edit 4/10/11: This bill has died in committee.

Please read through this entire post to understand the strange situation presented by this bill that has been newly introduced in the West Virginia Legislature. Thanks to Jo for the heads up.

West Virgina HB 3080, as filed, declares all “pit bulls” to be “dangerous”; owners of “pit bulls” would therefore be subject to a number of proposed restrictions on dangerous dogs. However, due to a lack of careful editing, the bill as filed would also prohibit the labeling of dogs as dangerous based on their breed. Obviously, these two actions contradict each other.

HB 3080 as originally written would prohibit breed-specific legislation in West Virginia. Delegate Mark Hunt evidently inserted the pit bull-specific definition of dangerous dog at the request of a constituent. Unfortunately, due to this hasty insertion, the bill now conflicts with itself.

See if you can follow along. I have boldfaced the important text.

ARTICLE 20C. DANGEROUS DOG ACT.
§19-20C-1. Definitions.
For the purposes of this article, these terms are defined as follows:[...]

(c) “Dangerous dog” includes any dog that:

(1) Has, off its owner’s property, attacked another animal or livestock;
(2) Has attacked, unprovoked, any human being, whether on or off the owner’s property;
(3) Any breed of pit bull; or
(4) Has bitten or attacked a person, causing wounds or serious injury creating a potential danger to the health and life of the victim;
(5) This term does not include those animals which cause injury or damage to a person while that person is committing or attempting to commit a criminal offense against the owner or agent of the owner :

(A) Which cause injury or damage to a person while that person is committing a criminal trespass upon the premises occupied by the owner, agent, or keeper of the animal;
(B) Which cause injury or damage to a person while that person is teasing, tormenting, abusing or assaulting the animal, or;
(C) That are certain breeds or types of dog.[...]

§19-20C-9. Exceptions.
A dog may not be declared a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog based solely on:

(a) The breed or type of dog;[...]

Assuming HB 3080 is ultimately revised to make sense with the breed-specific language, it would propose a myriad of restrictions on all “pit bull breeds.” Note that “any breed of pit bull” is not defined by this proposed law so it is unknown exactly which breeds of dogs would be subject to it.

WV HB 3080 has been sent to the Agriculture Committee for consideration. West Virginia residents, please contact your state representative and senator, the members of the Agriculture Committee, and the bill author to express your opposition to this bill as written. Please be respectful and informative in all correspondence with legislators.

This bill has no hope of getting through committee without revision to clear up the conflicts. Please encourage legislators to revise so that it is NOT breed-specific. In your correspondence, please ask that HB 3080 §19-20C-1 definition (c)(3) be removed. This is an easy revision that will eliminate the wording conflicts and the breed-specific language. The alternative revision, which would make the bill entirely breed-specific, is NOT an acceptable revision.

HB 3080 author: Delegate Mark Hunt, mhunt@markahunt.com

Find your state representative and senator here: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Districts/district_zip/zipmems.cfm

Members of the Agriculture Committee:
Delegate Butcher, greg.butcher@wvhouse.gov
Delegate Walker, david.walker@wvhouse.gov
Delegate Evans, allen.evans@wvhouse.gov
Delegate Canterbury, ray.canterbury@wvhouse.gov
Delegate Boggs, brent.boggs@wvhouse.gov
Delegate Guthrie, nancy.guthrie@wvhouse.gov
Delegate Hall, daniel.hall@wvhouse.gov
Delegate Manypenny, mike.manypenny@wvhouse.gov
Delegate Martin, dale.martin@wvhouse.gov
Delegate Phillips, L., linda.phillips@wvhouse.gov
Delegate Phillips, R., rupert.phillips@wvhouse.gov
Delegate Poling, M., mary.poling@wvhouse.gov
Delegate Rodighiero, ralph.rodighiero@wvhouse.gov
Delegate Swartzmiller, rswartzmiller@hotmail.com
Delegate Wells, danny.wells@wvhouse.gov
Delegate Williams, larry.williams@wvhouse.gov
Delegate Anderson, bill.anderson@wvhouse.gov
Delegate Border, larry.border@wvhouse.gov
Delegate Ireland, woody.ireland@wvhouse.gov
Delegate Miller, C., carol.miller@wvhouse.gov
Delegate Overington, john@overington.com
Delegate Romine, roger.romine@wvhouse.gov
Delegate Storch, erikka.storch@wvhouse.gov

Email block for cut-and-paste
greg.butcher@wvhouse.gov; david.walker@wvhouse.gov; allen.evans@wvhouse.gov; ray.canterbury@wvhouse.gov; brent.boggs@wvhouse.gov; nancy.guthrie@wvhouse.gov; daniel.hall@wvhouse.gov; mike.manypenny@wvhouse.gov; dale.martin@wvhouse.gov; linda.phillips@wvhouse.gov; rupert.phillips@wvhouse.gov; mary.poling@wvhouse.gov; ralph.rodighiero@wvhouse.gov; rswartzmiller@hotmail.com; danny.wells@wvhouse.gov; larry.williams@wvhouse.gov; bill.anderson@wvhouse.gov; larry.border@wvhouse.gov; woody.ireland@wvhouse.gov; carol.miller@wvhouse.gov; john@overington.com; roger.romine@wvhouse.gov; erikka.storch@wvhouse.gov

It is worth noting that a similar dangerous dog control bill presented to the legislature, HB 2716, is not breed-specific; however, neither does it expressly prohibit BSL. HB 2716 has also been passed to the Agriculture Committee for consideration.

HB 3080 can be read in its entirety here: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=hb3080+intr.htm&yr=2011&sesstype=RS&i=3080

HB 3080 can be tracked here: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/bills_history.cfm?year=2011&sessiontype=RS&i=3080

Onslow County, NC: Sheriff supports breed ban

To my knowledge, nothing official has been proposed at this time. Residents and locals can take this opportunity to reach out to their local government officials and provide factual information and reasonable non-breed-specific alternatives.

I was unable to find contact information for the animal ordinance committee mentioned in the article.

Email the Onslow County Board of Commissioners: BOC@onslowcountync.gov
Email the Onslow County Sheriff’s Office: sheriff@onslowcountync.gov

Family pet needs to be right fit

February 09, 2011 6:28 AM
LINDELL KAY

[...] Two Piney Green area toddlers were mauled by family dogs in similar, but unrelated incidents in the last week. In both cases, Onslow County Sheriff Ed Brown — who said he supports a ban on aggressive dog breeds — said previous owners had given up the dogs for being too aggressive.[...]

Banning breeds

Sheriff Brown said he believes the county should follow the lead of Camp Lejeune and ban aggressive dog breeds.[...]

In October 2009, county commissioners established a committee to research possible changes to animal-related ordinances.[...]

Full article retrieved 2/9/11 from http://www.enctoday.com/news/pet-87687-jdn-everyone-run.html

Terrebonne Parish, LA: Whispers of BSL

The statistics provided in this article are interesting, as not only were bite statistics provided, but cruelty case statistics were also provided. “Pit bulls” were involved in about a third of bite cases, but were involved in a much larger percentage of cruelty cases.

Nothing has been officially proposed at this time. Please offer polite, reasonable dialogue and breed-neutral alternatives for the parish council’s consideration.

Terrebonne Parish Council, 8026 Main Street, Suite 600, Houma, LA 70360
Phone: (985) 873-6519
Fax: (985) 873-6521

Mr. Alvin Tillman, atillman@tpcg.org
Ms. Arlanda J. Williams, ajwilliams@tpcg.org
Mr. Billy Hebert, bhebert@tpcg.org
Ms. Teri C. Cavalier, tcavalier@tpcg.org
Mr. Johnny Pizzolatto, jpizzolatto@tpcg.org
Mr. Kevin M. Voisin, kevin@kevinvoisin.com
Mr. Clayton Voisin, cjvoisin@tpcg.org
Mr. Joey Cehan, jcehan@tpcg.org
Mr. Pete Lambert, plambert@tpcg.org

Parish Council Quicklist
atillman@tpcg.org; ajwilliams@tpcg.org; bhebert@tpcg.org; tcavalier@tpcg.org; jpizzolatto@tpcg.org; kevin@kevinvoisin.com; cjvoisin@tpcg.org; jcehan@tpcg.org; plambert@tpcg.org

Do pit bulls pose a danger to the public?

By Nate Monroe
Staff Writer
Published: Sunday, February 6, 2011 at 6:01 a.m.

[...] After Silver was mauled, Terrebonne Councilman Billy Hebert, said he began considering new ordinances to better protect residents from pit-bull attacks, which could bring the debate over breed-specific legislation to the parish. Proponents of breed-specific legislation say such laws are common-sense ways to approach an obvious problem: Pit bulls are widely-owned, powerful and potentially aggressive dogs that pose public-health and safety concerns in communities across the country.[...]

Hebert said he is still researching the issue. While he said he considers pit bulls a public danger, he said he is open to authoring proposals that go beyond targeting pit bulls.

“Even when people have them on a leash they’re dangerous animals,” he said. “I don’t know about you, but I get nervous when I’m around a pit bull.”[...]

Full article retrieved 2/7/11 from http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20110206/ARTICLES/110209552/1211/news01?p=all&tc=pgall

Ohio HB 14 committee hearing on Feb 9

Ohio currently has statewide breed-specific legislation that declares all “pit bulls” to be “vicious” dogs. HB 14 would remove the breed-specific language from state law.

HB 14 is scheduled for a second hearing in the House Criminal Justice Committee on February 2 at 9:00 AM in Room 114 (Ohio Statehouse, Columbus, Ohio 43215).

If you are a resident of Ohio, please make every effort to attend the committee hearing and show your support for the removal of breed-specific language. If you would like to testify at the hearing, please arrive 30 minutes ahead of time and bring 30 copies of your testimony; you will need to complete a Witness Slip and submit your written copies before the hearing begins.

Contact the Criminal Justice Committee members to express support for HB 14:
Lynn Slaby, Chair, district41@ohr.state.oh.us
Bill Hayes, Vice Chair, district91@ohr.state.oh.us
Louis W. Blessing, Jr., district29@ohr.state.oh.us
Danny R. Bubp, district88@ohr.state.oh.us
William P. Coley, II, district55@ohr.state.oh.us
Cliff Hite, district76@ohr.state.oh.us
Joseph W. Uecker, district66@ohr.state.oh.us
Ron Young, district63@ohr.state.oh.us
Roland Winburn, district40@ohr.state.oh.us
Nancy J. Garland, district20@ohr.state.oh.us
Connie Pillich, district28@ohr.state.oh.us
W. Carlton Weddington, district27@ohr.state.oh.us
Sandra Williams, district11@ohr.state.oh.us

Cut-and-paste email block:
district41@ohr.state.oh.us; district91@ohr.state.oh.us; district29@ohr.state.oh.us; district88@ohr.state.oh.us; district55@ohr.state.oh.us; district76@ohr.state.oh.us; district66@ohr.state.oh.us; district63@ohr.state.oh.us; district40@ohr.state.oh.us; district20@ohr.state.oh.us; district28@ohr.state.oh.us; district27@ohr.state.oh.us; district11@ohr.state.oh.us

Read HB 14 here: http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/BillText129/129_HB_14_I_N.html
Read an explanation of HB 14 here:
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/analysis.cfm?ID=129_HB_14&hf=analyses129/h0014-i-129.htm
Track HB 14 here: http://lsc.state.oh.us/coderev/hou129.nsf/House+Bill+Number/0014?OpenDocument

Aurora, CO to consider service dog exception to breed ban

Aurora City Council set to change course on service dog rule

Sunday, February 6, 2011 8:09 pm
SARA CASTELLANOS, The Aurora Sentinel

[...]The proposal to allow restricted breeds, including pit bulls, as service dogs within the city but still uphold the city-wide ban on those breeds will be formally voted on at a meeting later this month.[...]

Council members also decided at the meeting that they want to re-evaluate whether there should be a breed-specific ban in the city or whether they should pare down the list of restricted breeds.

“It would be my preference that we have a dangerous animal ordinance,” said Councilwoman Renie Peterson.[...]

Full article retrieved 2/7/11 from http://www.aurorasentinel.com/email_push/news/article_e844e0b2-3267-11e0-8ef6-001cc4c002e0.html

All alerts for Aurora: http://stopbsl.com/?s=%22aurora%2C+co%22

Bristol Borough, PA reminder: Council to discuss BSL in February

Pennsylvania state law prohibits breed-specific legislation. Bristol Borough, PA council is considering a muzzle law for “pit bulls.” They will discuss the issue during the February meeting. Unfortunately, there are two February meetings and it is not clear at this time which meeting they were referring to.

Borough council meetings take place on Feb. 7 (work session) and Feb. 14 (agenda meeting) at 7:00 PM in Borough Hall, 250 Pond Street, Bristol Borough, PA 19007.

The council meeting video for the January 10 agenda meeting reveals the following important pieces of information.

Councilmember James Lutz has been adamantly against the proposed BSL. He advised council that breed-specific laws are not legal in PA.

Borough attorney William Salerno replied that PA state law prohibition against BSL only applies to dangerous dog laws. He stated that the muzzling proposal would be a containment law, not a dangerous dog law, and, therefore, the prohibition against BSL would not apply. He stated he was familiar with the Reading case and argued that the situation was dissimilar. He did not appear averse to the idea that he may have to fight for the law in court.

Council president Ralph DiGuiseppe said that he was prepared to give a presentation at the February meeting that would prove that a muzzle law for “pit bulls” was necessary.

Councilmember Betty Rodriguez claimed that she did not know “what else to do,” implying that the council had no alternative but to mandate the muzzling of “pit bulls.”

Please keep this info in mind when corresponding with council; please keep correspondence respectful and productive. Breed-neutral alternative laws may be very helpful, considering Councilmember Rodriguez’s comment. Council is also considering a breed-neutral leash law.

BRISTOL BOROUGH MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 250 POND STREET, BRISTOL, PA 19007
Fax Number: 215-788-5366
Borough Office Phone Number: 215-788-3828

Solicitor William Salerno, 220 Radcliffe Street, Bristol, PA 19007
Phone : 215-788-5450

Borough Council contact info:
Lorraine Cullen, lcullen@bristolboro.com
James Lutz, 215-788-2647
Anthony Muccie, amuccie@bristolboro.com
Patrick Sabatini, 215-781-9003
Ralph DiGuiseppe, rdiguiseppe@bristolboro.com
Leo Plenski, Jr., lplenski@bristolboro.com
Robyn Trunell, rtrunell@bristolboro.com
Betty Rodriguez, brodriguez@bristolboro.com

All alerts for Bristol Borough: http://stopbsl.com/?s=bristol+borough