I propose these questions in response to the pending legislation:

Who decides what is a pitbull and what is not, since the AKC does not recognize the breed? Keep in mind, the following AKC breeds are often mistaken for a so-called "pitbulls": American Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Bullmastiff, and on at least one occasion that I know of, a Jack Russell Terrier. I've even heard people ask if a purebred Boxer was a pitbull. Do mixed breeds count? If so, how exactly is that determined?

Does anyone honestly think that people that fight dogs (the REAL root of the problem) are going to abide by this? Or get caught? Even if the dog gets caught, do you really think they will claim ownership? (Of course they will! And they'll also offer to tell you where the guns and drugs are in the house too!)

Since this would apply to ALL "pitbulls", does that include service dogs, therapy dogs, and dogs that have passed the Canine Good Citizen test? Hmmmm....let's see...they are helping us....they've never hurt a fly.....yup! Let's muzzle them! Good idea!

Here's some better suggestions:

ENFORCE stricter laws against repeat offenders. You're dog bites a person or another dog, it gets reported, $1,000 fine. Your dog does it again? $2,000 fine. Are we getting the picture? People will be forced to take responsibility for their dog's actions or go bankrupt.

Make leaving ANY dog unattended in a yard, fenced or not, against the law. Not only could they choke, get stolen, or be poisoned, they could get out and harm someone or something. And don't forget getting hit by a car.

How about some laws against backyard breeding perhaps? Enforce a strict screening process to get a breeding license. A fee must be paid every year and every year each breeder is re-screened. Hell, do a criminal background check too. That should get interesting. They should have to prove that they are screening prospective owners and breeding for AKC standards. Aside from that
all cats and dogs get spayed and neutered. Period. No breeding license, no puppies. If you are caught with puppies or an unfixed dog without a breeding license, they get taken away and you go to jail. No questions asked. I am very certain that reputable breeders would welcome this process. Geez, we could even get rid of the puppy mills with this law. How about that?

Thaks so much.. we who work every day fighting breed specific legislation applaud you..

While naive, middle class folks whine about breed specific legislation, the dog fighter breeders are churning these dogs out by the hundreds of thousands to torture, kill, dump.

And reporters have sat by silently.

Since fighters selectively breed pits for aggression and kill ability, these dogs have special issues that require special handling.

And the fighting trade is where most pit bulls come from.

So, of course, the pit bull fighter/breeders oppose breed specific legislation too, because they want to stay in business breeding and torturing dogs.

Pit bulls are number one on the list for killing people, John.

There ARE problems with these breeds.

These bills don't say anything about caging and muzzling for life, and such hysterical comments are irresponsible.

Pit bull owners DO need to follow some rules for care and handling, however, or the maulings and killings will increase. And the dogs' reputation will continue to slide downhill.

John, you are getting fed propaganda by the for-profit dog breeders and dog fighters.

They fight breed specific legislation not because of the dogs, but because of the MONEY, the profits.

And they will say anything, use any emotional manipulation to try to get reporters to lobby for their interests.

Oh and Carey? The breeders oppose ALL laws and rules regarding breeding, both the dog fighter breeders and the AKC. The AKC now makes most of its money by registering puppy mill puppies. So they lobby for puppy mill breeder interests. They get their members to do the same, which they do because many of them are running illegal, unlicensed businesses too and not paying taxes on their income.

Beware of those who claim to care about dogs, but actually lobby for PROFITS from dog breeding.

Carey, you make some excellent points. Too bad you're not a legislator in Baltimore County. I recently read over some of the information at the Humane Society website, and they bring up an interesting point that I'd like to add to yours. First of all, every few years a different dog (or dog type) makes it to the top of the "hit list." Right now it's the "bully" breeds, the various bull terriers. You've pointed out just how many varieties of those we have. Twenty years ago, the Doberman was regarded as "vicious" and a "threat." When I was a youngster, it was the Chow--"dangerous and unpredictable." My semi-educated guess would be that German Shepherd Dogs, assorted mastiffs, Rottweilers, Dobermans, Akitas (sorry, Ace!) and a number of other breeds could end up being swept up into various ill-considered "dangerous breeds" lists.

The other issue that chills me to the bone is that if you have a mixed-breed dog, or if you've rescued a purebred dog and have no papers for it, you've got no documentation to "prove" it's not one of the forbidden breeds. So if somebody in law enforcement or animal control decides your Boxer looks like a Pit Bull, you're out of luck--and so is your dog.

If they would just devote some of this energy (and maybe some funds) to more enforcement of dog-fighting and existing animal control laws, a lot of the so-called "problems" would go away.

BSL does not work. First of all who is qualified to determine if a dog is a "pit bull" or not? If you have a judge that can do that I would love to know their secrete cause I can't. Not only that but how much of a percentage would it take to outlaw the dog? There are 26 breeds that I can think of off the top of my head that have been confused for the APBT.
Next, how long will it be before other breeds are added? In Arora CO they added 13 other breeds from the time they started the ordinance till it was passed.
Furthermore, how are the councilmembers who have taken an oath to uphold the US Constitution going to pretend that they are in fact upholding that document? Have they never looked at the 14th amendment? You know the one that says we should be secure in our property? Dogs are property. And then there is the one that says equal treatment under the law, owners of APBTs will no longer be treated equally under this law. Then there is that pesky little amendment about "due process?" How are they going to manage that?
It is not a "dog problem" it is an irresponsible owner problem. If a responsible owner's law were to be passed and enforced then there would be no need for breed specific legislation.

A sincere thanks....from myself and my 10-year old pit bull. It is articles like these- along with all the great work being done by anti-BSL and animal rescue groups- that will hopefully one day make BSL laws history. Until then, my dog will continue to be subjected to discrimination, fear, suspicion, and hatred. It is truly sad considering what this breed has done for us, and the noble reputation it once enjoyed (the poster dog for US war efforts during WW1; once considered the premier family dog for its ability to play well with children!)

What a wonderfully insightful article! As the responsible owner of 8 Rescued Pit Bulls, I couldn't agree more with this article. Singling out anyone or anything because of it's physical characteristics is DISCRIMINATION. Responsible owners and their pets would be punished for the behavior of irresponsible owners. My husband and I are senior citizens, we have been contributing members of society,have wonderful families, and count our 8 dogs as part of our family. We live in constant fear that our dogs could be taken away from us if Breed Specific Legislation is passed where we live. None of our dogs has ever shown any kind of human aggressive behavior. All of our dogs came from shelters or rescued situations; most were adults when we got them. The Pit Bull has been bred to be human friendly; however, some are dog aggressive, because "man" has chosen to breed that into them. They are wonderful dogs, in the hands of responsible and loving owners.

Restrictive laws on the ownership of certain breeds inhibits the owners ability to get his dog out in public in order to properly socialize the dog to lots of sights, sounds, people, and situations.

Isolating a dog does nothing to prevent dangerous dogs.

it is not a secret that people are afraid of things they do not understand. It is also a common knowledge that most of the people hold fixed ideas and stereotypes about lots of their life aspects. it is OK for people to be ignorant in their own house and among their friends however once people decide that what they think needs to decide for other people how to live this is when things go completely wrong and the world looks a bit more uglier. People that do not understand dogs decide for the rest of us what will happen to our dogs. People that are afraid of Pitbulls deal with their fear by prosecuting them. It does remind me of dark times in human history of which people were persecuted for their beliefs, religion, in the name of greed and so on.
I say, instead of banning Pitbulls why don't we ban stupid people, it will solve the problem dog owners have which is more important then bunch of narrow minded ignorants that scare the sh!t out of me by their dangerous behavior.

Ted- In response to, "John, you are getting fed propaganda by the for-profit dog breeders and dog fighters."

John found out about this legislation from me. I do rescue work, have a therapy dog in training, and have studied canine behavior for years. I have never bred a dog, and as you can see from my comments, I am in favor of a mandatory spay and neuter program. I have also never fought a dog either. In fact, I've helped rehabilitate abused dogs.

I am all for legislation against vicious dogs. I am all for legislation against irresponsible dog owners. But that legislation better include everything from a chihauha to a great dane and it cannot single out any breeds in particular.

For the record, breed bans have never resulted in a reduction in the number or severity of dog bites in any region they've been tried. In many cases, such laws actually led to increases in dog attacks. England has a nation-wide ban on 'pit bulls'. Hospitalizations due to dog bite are now more than double what they were prior to the enactment of the 'pit bull' ban.

It would be impossible to explain what can and can't be attributed to genetics in such a small space. In short, aggressive behaivors are learned behaviors, in response to environment and past experience. (i.e. a dog has to learn who is and isn't a "stranger" for example, and then must also be rewarded for, practice, and perfect, the behaviors that lead to the development of what we call aggression.)

But, when you get right down to it, it's a simple numbers game.

'Pit bulls' are estimated to make up 9% of the U.S. dog population, yet they make up approximately only 4% of reported bites, nationwide. That means they're significantly LESS LIKELY to bite, than should be expected.

Over the past twenty years, a problem has developed with PEOPLE acquiring 'pit bulls' (and a few other 'breeds') in the hopes of training them to behave aggressively. Even so, statistics prove 99.9% of all 'pit bulls' will never be involved in an attack at any time in their lives.

You can prove this to yourself, by simply paying close attention to the attacks that even an incredibly biased media chooses to report.

Based on population estimates, if 0.1% of U.S. 'pit bulls' were involved in attacks, that would mean 14 serious dog attacks every single day of the year, without exception. Every day that goes by with less than 14 serious 'pit bull' attacks only suggests even more than 99.9% of all 'pit bulls' will never be involved in an attack.

The CDC no longer tracks dog bites by breed because they consider a dog's breed to be "irrelevant" in predicting or preventing unprovoked bites.

But if we look at the number of 'pit bulls' involved in fatal human attacks over the past thirty years, the figure represents just 0.00002% of the 'pit bull' population. That leaves 99.99998% of the 'pit bull' population innocent of the accusation they're "killers". Of the last 400 dog bite-related human fatalities, about 320 (80%) have not involved 'pit bulls'.

It's important for the public to be aware that anywhere from 80-99% of dog bites, attacks, and fatalities are attributed to non-'pit bull' dogs. On average, zero to maybe four Americans are killed by dogs alleged to be 'pit bulls', each year. By comparison, eight to fifteen people are killed by non-'pit bull' dogs, each year..

There is no scientific basis for claims aggressive behavior in the general dog population is genetic or inherited. In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever that the dogs involved in serious biting incidents are genetically related in any meaningful way, even when they're from the same breed. They don't share common ancestry, thus could not possibly share some kind of unique, as-yet-to-be-discovered "aggression gene" which could have been passed down.

For the record, I have no affinity for 'pit bulls' (or Labrador Retrievers, Shih Tzus, etc.). I am a dog bite researcher and experienced dog trainer, and I have no agenda to prove 'pit bulls' are either "good" or "bad".

I've been known to say, "I don't have a love affair with 'pit bulls'. I have a love affair with the truth." Years of research has more than proved many of the claims made about dogs, and even 'pit bulls', are patently false or unfounded.

I only have a few things to say. John, thanks so much for your viewpoints. I love to hear a reasonable opinion from time to time. And Ted, please crawl back under the animal rights rock you were under. I have never heard so much crap in all of my life. How exactly do you know what people report on their taxes? Just more animal rights hysterics. You animal rights types just keep beating the same dead horse all the time.

Ted - it's not all pit bull owners that are against this legislation. I have a border collie and a mini-australian shepherd. Neither one of them are "bully" breeds, but because they are herding breeds and can nip, they could be "next".

In my 40+ years there have been proposals to "ban" German Shepherd Dogs, Dobermans, Rottweilers, Dalmations, Chows, Malamutes and a slew of others. In my state (Minnesota) one of our legislators is proposing a ban on Pit Bulls, Akitas (sorry Ace), Wolf Hybrids, Rottweilers and Chow Chows. Even if he were to get 100% compliance, those people that want to have that "mean" dog will go after even worse breeds!

I don't mean to dog pile on you Ted, but the real common sense solution is to make sure that the owner of ANY dangerous dog, regardless of breed, is held responsible for the actions of their dog. Any dog can be made "mean" under the wrong circumstances. However, with proper training and socialization even the meanest dog can be made into a well behaved Canine Good Citizen.

Cindy

I am a dog trainer/behavioral consultant who started working with dogs in 1982. I teach dog bite prevention and dog safety, owner education/choosing the best dog for a home, public safety around dogs. http://www.SafeKidsSafeDogs.com

I also work quite a bit with breeds assumed inherently dangerous and rare breeds. I have worked with, but not limited to) Cane Corsos, Dogo Argentinos, Maremmas, Estrelas, American Bulldogs, "alternative" bulldogs, APBTs, Am Staffs, Bull Terriers, Leonbergers, King Shepherds, Presa Canarios, etc.

I can honestly and professionally state that it is not the breed that is ever my worry but the person owning the dog. In the past, I have worked with quite a few dogs I would deem dangerous or at risk of becoming a danger. The breeds have included (and often not limited to one individual within the breed.):

Golden Retriever
Labrador Retriever
Cocker Spaniel
Beagle
Shetland Sheepdog
Pug
Siberian Husky
German Shepherd
Pomeranian
Border Collie
Chihuahua
Chow Chow
English Springer Spaniel
English Cocker
Rottweiler
German Shorthaired Pointer
Multiple crossbred dogs without any "pit" in them.

What did all the above dogs have in common? Owners who were not able to give the dogs what they needed physically, behaviorally, humanely. Owners who acquired dogs on impulse or for children to care for solely, etc. When owners acquire dogs they are not prepared or unable to meet the needs of, the dog stands a greater chance of becoming a risk regardless of breed or cross.

I have only worked with one pit bull in the past seven years I would consider a risk. She was pulled from a bad situation and in a foster home that was ill-suited for her.

For more information on dangerous dogs and why breed bans are a bad idea:
http://www.westwinddogtraining.com/BSLeducation/

For an example of a great dangerous dog law from Prince William County, VA
http://www.westwinddogtraining.com/BSLeducation/html/pwc_dangerous_dog_laws.html

Banning breeds and ending breeding is not the way to go. It never has been. Breed bans and anti-breeding laws have failed in various areas:

http://network.bestfriends.org/
http://www.westwinddogtraining.com/BSLeducation/pdfstuff/Mandatory%20Altering%20Laws.pdf
http://www.cfawa.org/PDF/v2%20FAQs.pdf
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/breedlaws.html

We need to tighten dangerous dog laws and increase the punishment for the owners. We need to realize that any dog can and will bite if the need is felt. Any dog can be the neighborhood menace regardless of breed or cross. We need to make low cost altering clinics available to more people. We need to create incentives such as gas vouchers, tax deductions, etc for owners who alter their pets as opposed to force.

Bad owners will ignore animal laws. Look at all the loose dogs in areas with leash laws, for example. Look at all those who fail to license thier dogs in areas with a licensing requirement. Look at all those who own more animals than allowed by law (without considering those who are collectors/hoarders and may have a psychological concern).

We need to put the blame where the blame belongs: bad and irresponsible owners. We should never punish the good owners and breeders busting their tails to improve the health and quality/working ability of dogs for the actions of a highly visible minority of owners.

Thank you,

Karen Peak
West Wind Dog Training
The Safe Kids/Safe Dogs Project

The only one hurt by these breed specific legislation laws are law abiding citizens who take care of their dogs. People who are fighting these dogs and training them to be vicious are not going to abide by these laws. "Kept locked up in private?" What are these people thinking. Even people who are arrested for crimes are innocent until proven guilty. Do politicians think the holocaust was a good idea? Because that sounds a lot like what they want to do to these dogs.
Politicians are much more dangerous than any dog out there.

Both Carey and Karen,

Thank you for a wealth of information and reasonableness (if that's a word) in the BSL debate.

One question for Carey: in your initial post you indicated that American Staffordshire Terriers were often mistaken for pitbulls. I'm confused ... I thought that's what pitbulls were. Can you clarify that for me?

Thank you!

Michelle,

The United Kennel Club recognizes an American Pit Bull Terrier as a breed. The AKC does not. According to Wilkipedia APBT's are closely related to American Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers. American Staffordshire terriers are usually a little taller, whereas Staffordshire Bull Terriers are shorter and stockier. Most dog fighters (and the media and general public) lump all of these dogs into the "pitbull" category.

The most recognized features are the angular jaw and muscular build. However, if you mix, say, a Boxer and Jack Russell together, you'd have what looks to be a "pitbull". I know of a Shar Pei/Husky mix that people think looks like a pitbull. A breed that is ALWAYS mistaken for a pitbull is the American Bulldog. That's why I think this is so unfair. Some people don't even know what breeds their dog is. And innocent non "pitbull" dogs are going to suffer, along with well behaved pitbulls.

Thank you to Carey, Karen and John for your posts to help educate a misinformed public. I live in a city that currently houses a "Pit Bull Ordinance". This includes any dog that is judged by the Animal Control Staff to be mixed with a Pit Bull. I have a rescued Boxer that I had to register with my Pit Mix because the Animal Control officer (which I later found out had less dog experience than I did as a vet tech for 5 years) who judged my Boxer Mix to be a Pit. I comply with the current ordinance because I love my dogs. I have to pay $50 per dog per calendar year. My dogs can never be left outside without being enclosed in an structure with a top, bottom and lock. And the bottom has to be a foundation such as cement. It's never a good idea to leave dogs unsupervised but there are times you wish you could leave your dog in your privacy fenced yard while you cook dinner. This is not allowed in my town. My dogs have to be muzzled in public, no exceptions! I have to place a sign on every entrance to my house containing the words "Pit Bull Dog" at least 8 by 11". My address is registered with Animal Control who is welcome to inspect my house to see if I'm complying with the laws. My dogs have to be current on their Rabies Vaccination, and Spayed/Neutered (These are the 2 main good points of the legislation and my dogs are all fixed and current on vaccinations.) Also my dogs must be confined to a crate while in my car and in my house while I am gone. Unfortunately my G6 does not fit an appropriate sized crate for them, so it poses a problem to get them to the vet. (As a side note I crate my dogs normally) The final contingency of the Ordinance is that all Breeders must be AKC registered. With any Pit Mix that is brought into the local shelters, including the Humane Society they are to be surrendered to Animal Control and "disposed of" which we all know means PTS.

I feel like this Ordinance in unfair because it is Breed Specific. If everyone that had a dog in our town of Springfield, Missouri had to comply I would never complain! I just feel discriminated againest, and angry. The point that makes me the angriest is that our city council had appointed a "Dangerous Dog Panel" that they chose themselves that included local Vets, Animal Control Officers, and the Council Members. They were given a reccommendation by their Panel that opted againest BSL, and they chose it anyway. I don't get why waste the money, time and resources if you are going to be unfair regardless.

My friends and I have worked very hard to combat the discrimination we face on a daily basis. We have now elected 3 new council members who platformed with the agenda to turn the ordinance over. We face an uphill battle all because of ill-informed biased Council Members.

Please educate yourself on both sides of the issue before you judge, and make an opinion. There are innocent souls that are paying for the ignorance of many frightened people.

who's getting fed the propaganda here, ted?! you honestly believe that it's the breed that is the problem here?! you're just as ridiculous as the politicians! anyone who has any sense in their head at all knows it's the owner that is responsible for the actions of the pet.

i own a 7 year old pitt mix who couldn't be any more well behaved if she had to. in fact, she is more well behaved than a lot of adults i know! i have given her a caring and loving home. i have trained her and respected her. in turn, she loves me, respects me, and oh yeah - doesn't attack other dogs or people!

it is up to the owner to properly train the dogs and when they don't is when the problems arise. one friend of mine owns 2 attack poodles. yes, you read that right. i also have another friend that owns a yellow lab that attack. so if the problem is the breed, can you explain that to me ted?!

the problem is the owners. they need to take responsibility for themselves and for their pets. unfortunately, we live in a society that allows people to be stupid and lazy and to push the blame for everything else on to other things. "that's not my dog - my dog wouldn't attack!" "i didn't train my dog to be like that, i don't know what happened." these are the same stupid people who think it's the school's responsibility to teach the children morals and ethics and not the parents.

WOOO-HOOO! Score 1 for the pitties! 48 of the 49 dogs Michael Vick "owned" will be placed in homes or at a sanctuary. Only one will be euthanized.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/01/vick.dogs/index.html

I agree with Carey good suggestions maybe our politician could be that intelligent the world would be better place to leave. I wish people would leave our dogs alone. I am so sick of the media. Gardina needs to be muzzled and took for a walk on a leash becuase my dog is smarter then he is. Our rights as citizens are being volated.

The Baltimore County Council website states that the Council is having a work session on this proposed bill on Oct. 9 at 2pm at its headquarters in Towson. Members of the public can attend and make comments, or you can submit your comments beforehand in writing. I hope everyone with concerns about this propopsed legislation will plan to attend, or submit written comments to the Council!

Amen. We have a St. Paul, MN, congress-"person" going after 5 distinct "dangerous dogs" because he figures it's a lost cause going after their owners.
Pit-bulls
Akitas
Dobermans
Chow Chows
and I can't remember the last one.

My name is Loree Wagoner. About 5 years ago I was like most people, I had heard the media call these dogs monsters and baby killers.....I was afraid when I saw a "Pit". Then I got to know one.....and another.....and another....til I came to realize that all I had heard was Bull!Now I am the proud parent of an APBT! I believe that instead of making new laws against so called dangerous breeds they should focus on the laws that are in place now! Every dog should be licensed....every dog should get it's shots.....and every dog should be on a leash when in the public! Stop punishing the people who are doing the right thing and who have awesome dogs! Maybe we should gather up a bunch of these said polatitions and put them in a big room filled with "pits"........I'll bet they would change thier minds =]

As I indicated I might, I will forward all the comments accumulated here to the Baltimore County Council on Oct. 8 -- the day before its scheduled work session dealing with the proposed pit bull legislation. So keep your comments coming.

I just want to let everyone know that there is an online group organized against this particular law and BSL in Maryland. Please join if you like!

http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/BSL-MD/

John- When you send them the comments, can you do a comment count of "for" and "against" the proposed legislation? From what I understand, they are piling the emails and letters into these two groups. Thanks!

Below is an e-mail that I recently sent to all members of the Baltimore City Council:

Councilmen and Councilwomen,

To be useful, legislation must be effective, enforceable, economical and reasonably fair. Recently, Councilwoman Welch introduced “Vicious Dog” legislation; this legislation fails as any or all of the previously stated. This action is motivated by fear and lack of relevant knowledge. It is discriminatory, impractical and unenforceable. Worst of all, it will not solve the problem of vicious dogs. As in many cases in the past, I am convinced that this will lead to the introduction of Breed Specific Legislation (BSL).

In conducting my research, I discovered that Council members Conaway, Middleton, Clarke, Young, Kraft, Reisinger and Crider were the Council members that introduced Council Bill 07-0740. Bill 07-0740 fails the litmus test for sensibility. The owners/keepers of vicious dogs are not generally licensing their dogs anyway.

I believe Council Bill 07-0740 is a good piece of legislation in theory; the obstacle is that the targeted dog owners are not in compliance with mandated licensing requirements to begin with. I believe that this bill is only a precursor to the introduction of BSL targeting breeds such as Pitt Bull Terriers and other Bull Terrier breeds.

I believe the issue with breeds such as Pitt Bulls is three-fold: negligent owners, the propaganda relentlessly broadcast by the sensationalistic, liberal media and the lack of public education about the breed. Prior to the adoption of our formerly abused, five-year-old Pitt Bull, Maggie, I knew nothing of the breed; only the negative connotations spewed by the press. Yet, with this erroneous knowledge, we chose to rescue what seemed to be an intelligent, warm and gentle dog. We are glad we did and now we know better; it is not the breed that is evil and vicious, but the careless and reprehensible owners - if you can really call them that. Neither an entire breed of dog, nor responsible, loving owners of the breed should suffer because of other nefarious individuals.

I have been conducting research into the unconstitutionality of BSL and have discovered two key facets:

1. In 1982, in Holder v. City of Hollywood, a Broward County Court set legal precedence stating that “Breed Specific Legislation” infringes upon an individual’s 14th Amendment right to due process and is therefore unconstitutional. The court found it was impossible to identify the breed of an unregistered (AKC, ACA) dog. Because the ordinance only applied to the owners of an American Pit Bull, Pit Bull Terrier or Staffordshire Terrier, the court found notice problems for citizens and enforcement problems for police. Owners of mixed breed or unregistered dogs had no means of knowing whether their dog was one of the types listed and whether they were required to comply with the statute. Additionally, law enforcement had no means for determining a dog's breed and no standard for deciding whether an owner was in compliance or in violation of the law. The court believed this situation would lead to arbitrary, unequal and unfair enforcement of the law, a situation clearly in violation of due process.

2. Further supporting evidence of the fact that BSL is an infringement upon 14th Amendment rights is a letter from the Ohio Veterinarian Medical Association, written by Gene P. King, to the City of Cincinnati, Ohio. In his letter he stated that veterinarians could not identify a dog's breed using any test known to science; any evaluation could only be based on subjective visual "speculation," and giving an opinion not based on scientific fact is "totally inappropriate" for a veterinary physician.

A five year study published in the Cincinnati Law Review in 1982, Vol. 53, Pg 1077, which specifically considered both Rottweilers and Pitt Bulls, concluded in part that: - statistics do not support the assertion that any one breed is dangerous, - when legislation is focused on the type of dog it fails, because it is “unenforceable, confusing and costly.” - focusing legislation on dogs that are deemed "vicious" distracts attention from the real problem, which is an irresponsible owner.

I am attaching various pictures of our “ferocious” Pitt Bull and I make the offer to all; if anyone would like to meet her I would be more than willing to make the arrangements. After seeing her pictures and/or having met her, I would like someone to explain to me why I might potentially have to register with the city, like I am a sex-offender, for owning her; why my wife and I may have to pay hundreds of dollars in fees to have her; why she would constantly have to be muzzled; and why a city official would have the ability to come to our home and inspect as if they were a Parole Officer and I was on parole.

I have joined the BSL battle on the side of opposition and am ready to wage a war against it in two ways; by attempting to educate the ignorant and by ousting the unwilling (to be educated) from office.

Councilmen and Councilwomen, as a constituent, a registered voter and an individual with the ability to influence others, I urge you to educate yourselves and your colleagues about breeds deemed as “vicious” in an effort to put an end to the stigma. I further urge you to vote in opposition to any BSL introduced before the City Council. Voting for this proposal as it stands will harm the law abiding, responsible dog owners and lay further stigma on the breeds; and still will not come to resolution.

Thank you in advance for your time and hopeful cooperation.

Respectfully,
Ryan C. Moore

Wonderful artical and wonderful idea.

People who aprove of BSL just don't understand that it doesn't work. Its a feel good law that only good people listen to. Its only a matter of time until their labs, goldens, and lap dogs.

Until these people understand they are only doing harm its up to the educated dog people to fight BSL.

My two wonderful GSDs are one of the breeds affected by BSL even if its not half as bad as the poor APBTs. So for all you Pittie haters its not just "pit bulls" (be it a mix, APBT, Am. Saff ect) its GSDs, Rotties, Dobbies, and other breed you wouldn't think of.

What ever happened to APBTs being the number one family dog?

You are my hero. :)

I hope you will be helping to speak against this knee-jerk legislation with us on Oct. 9th at 2 PM at the Council Meeting.

Kudos on a much needed article!

I am the owner of a 1+ yr old pit bull mix. She is the sweetest most lovable dog I have EVER had in my 30+ years. She is raised with 3 golden retreivers and during play time with each other they show more aggression then my pit bull. Need I remind everyone that Petey from the Little Rascals was a Pit Bull.

I have been in the Dog Grooming business for 16+years and if such laws passed, it needs to be done for all breeds not just the pit. I've seen several breeds, none of which were pit bulls, show aggression: Chows, Poodles, Lhasa Apsos, German Sheperds, Collies...too name a few. This does not make me dislike those breeds, it makes me enraged at the owners for poor raising, training, etc.

Thanks again for a great article! As an owner of a pit bull in Balto County, I certainly hope these laws aren't passed.

John,Carey, and Karen although I live in texas it is nice to hear nice things about APBTs and I agree with it all they should do those things nationwide

I grew up with many wonderful Pitts. The only dog that has ever bitten me was a Cocker Spaniel.

Just gotta love all these people who "OWN" another's life.