Town outlaws five dog breeds
It's not a good time to be a dog in the Dakotas.
Voters in Leola, South Dakota, have upheld a decision by the city council to make it illegal to possess pit bulls, bull mastiffs, Rottweilers, Doberman pinchers and German shepherds, and any dogs that are mix of those breeds.
The banned breeds -- get this -- are exempted from the law if they help or are being trained to help people with disabilities. How generous.
Mayor Dean Schock says the ordinance was passed due to concerns from people who walk and bike or whose children bike around town. Residents voted 103-27 last week to endorse the council's action.
Meanhwhile, up in North Dakota, officials in the town of Kenmare, which approved a similar ban last month, decided the proposal needed more review. The town has a scheduled a special meeting tomorrow night to discuss it.
The Kenmare council has been considering a ban on American Staffordshire terriers, Doberman Pinschers, Rottweilers, pit bulls or crosses of any of those breeds. Officials said the ordinance was drafted due to fears of vicious dogs, but some dog owners threatened to move because of it.
For both these towns, I'd recommend doing a little homework on the issue. I'd recommend they meet my dog -- a combination of two "vicious" breeds -- but since that's not possible, maybe they could at least watch his movie, "Hey, Mister, What Kind of Dog is That."
Then I'd recommend they stop here. And here.
A dog's bloodlines don't make him dangerous.
Stupid humans do.
Comments
Where is the ordinance against vicious people? Seems the wrong species is being targeted. And while we're at it, how about laws against stupid, ill-informed, selfish, ignorant . . . .
Posted by: Marguerite | May 26, 2008 11:07 AM
Another insane council imposing their personal prejudices against dogs and their caretakers! This trend just makes me crazy. Why don't they focus instead on developing and passing laws that prevent people from raising and LEGALLY training dogs to be aggressive.....or seriously fine, imprison and otherwise deter people who allow their aggressive dogs to roam streets freely?? What -- Do we just euthanize these breeds (and their mixed-breed varieties) en masse? What exactly do these people propose for the thousands of responsible dog-loving families in their community? Wow -- I can think of several types of HUMANS that I would like to ban from my neighborhood!
Posted by: Eighteenpaws | May 26, 2008 11:30 AM
I thoroughly enjoyed reading through your posts, including the great video "Hey Mister, what kind of dog is that".
As a devoted owner of two pitbulls (one being a mix of something else), I know all about the stereotypes and the prejudice surrounding certain breeds of dogs. But I agree that there are no bad dogs, just bad owners. My dogs are special members of my family and they bring an endless amount of laughter and joy to my husband and I. Thank you for helping break down the stigma surrounding breeds. Ace is really a wonderful companion dog and it is obvious that you make a great team.
Faith (Families Against Breed Bans)
Posted by: Faith | May 26, 2008 2:39 PM
The National Canine Research Council has study after study, all of which show that owner behavior (and sometimes negligent parents) are behind almost all of these situations.
See our 2007 year-end report here:
http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/canineaggression.asp
It's also important to note that while dogs do bite, the vast majority of bites are classified by medical personnel as "fast healing, no lasting impairment" - about on par with a skinned knee.
A person is more likely to be killed by lightening (really!) than by a dog, and a child is exponentially more likely to be killed by her own parents/caretakers.
Posted by: Laura G | May 27, 2008 8:59 AM
"A dog's bloodlines don't make him dangerous. Stupid humans do."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Posted by: Julie | May 28, 2008 10:36 AM
So are we assuming that disabled people aren’t worthy of protecting from these ‘dangerous’ breeds?
Or do we conclude that these breeds are actually perfectly safe if trained and well socialised in a responsible manner?
Hmmmm?
Posted by: emmm | June 2, 2008 9:21 AM
Just finished watching "Hey Mister,what kind of dog is that?"
Loved it.
So did my Lab/mutt
Daddy was a Purebred Lab-just one of those accidental love matches.
She came racing over to the computer when she heard Ace with the squeaky toy and sat here watching the entire series with me.
I hate to disagree with a DNA test but I sensed "Pit Bull" starting with the chewed stuffing,then the squeaky toy and the cuddling.
It all adds up to "Pit Bull" disguised as a Chow/Rottie.
Once you`ve owned and loved one,you can spot them a mile away even when they`re wearing a disguise.
I`ve reread the post and I`m still confused about this comment..
[quote]So are we assuming that disabled people aren’t worthy of protecting from these ‘dangerous’ breeds?
Or do we conclude that these breeds are actually perfectly safe if trained and well socialised in a responsible manner?[/quote]
Aren`t all people worthy of protection from individual dangerous dogs?
Isn`t that why BSL makes no sense whatever.
Saying some Breeds are dangerous is as ludicrous as saying some Breeds are perfectly safe.
That`s why so many young children get bitten.This notion that it`s ok to leave them unsupervised around "safe" Breeds.
A number of small "safe" Breeds have killed children.
3 come to mind off the top of my head...
JRT,Westie and a Pomeranian.
That`s why we need well written Dangerous Dog Legislation with no reference to Breed which holds owners accountable.
For the life of me I just don`t understand why Politicians and some of the Public don`t grasp this.
Dogs are NOT the problem,people are.
Posted by: MG | June 8, 2008 11:34 PM
Hi - I also am a big fan of mutts. I thought your readers might enjoy this item I wrote for my blog today:
http://blogs.reuters.com/oddly-enough/2008/07/07/please-look-at-me-senator/
Posted by: robert basler | July 7, 2008 2:31 PM