Alert!!- Breed Bans!!

[~flower~]

I will be posting as I get them, notices on where breed banning is trying to pass.

  It seems it is happening more and more.  


  Anybody else come across one, feel free to post it.  I will be changing the Subject to reflect the name of the city/state, please do the same if you post any.

[~flower~]

ALERT: Minot, North Dakota
>
> Kenmare says certain dog breeds have to go By JILL SCHRAMM, Staff 
> Writerjschramm@minotdailynews.com
> POSTED: April 25, 2008
>
> KENMARE – A new city ordinance in Kenmare is forcing some dog 
> owners to either part with their pets or leave town with them.
>
> In response to citizen concerns about potentially vicious dogs in 
> the community, the Kenmare City Council voted April 14 to ban 
> American Staffordshire terriers, rottweilers and Doberman 
> pinschers. The ordinance contains no grandfather clause, which 
> means that dogs covered by the ordinance have 10 days to be removed 
> from town.
>
> Kenmare Mayor Roger Ness said the ordinance affects only a few dogs 
> in the city, but owners have been vocal in their opposition to 
> removing the dogs. He expects ordinance opponents to be at the next 
> council meeting in May.
>
> The city felt it needed to address concerns of residents about the 
> type of dogs coming into town, Ness said. There have been incidents 
> with threatening dogs, although no one has been bitten.
>
> “It’s been a problem. We wanted to get it solved before anything 
> did happen,” Ness said.
>
> The dogs that have raised the concern have come into the city only 
> in the last couple of months, Ness said.
>
> Cory Egeberg, a Kenmare resident who has had concerns, said the 
> trouble with potentially dangerous dogs is that too often owners 
> don’t take enough precautions to prevent them from running free. He 
> said his biggest problem is with dogs that may have pit bull in them.
>
> Kenmare’s ordinance had already banned pit bulls. Ness said people 
> were licensing dogs under other breed names that the city felt were 
> very similar to pit bulls, particularly American Staffordshire 
> terrier.
>
> The new ordinance eliminates pit bulls, American Staffordshire 
> terriers, rottweilers, Doberman pinschers and any mixture of those 
> breeds.
>
> Ness said the city police chief checked with other towns about 
> their ordinances to determine which breeds are commonly excluded.
>
> The Minot Police Department also is looking at what other towns are 
> doing in preparing revisions to Minot’s animal ordinance to present 
> to the city council. Recently, a Minot resident requested keeping 
> small goats, which aren’t specifically prohibited. The city council 
> denied the request.
>
> Minot’s ordinance currently outlaws wolves and pit bulls, including 
> American Staffordshire terriers and pit bull mixed breeds.
>
> Kenmare’s new ordinance requires that owners be willing to produce 
> a certification from a veterinarian that a dog isn’t of a breed 
> banned in the city. During 2007, there were about 130 cats and dogs 
> licensed in Kenmare, although city officials are aware that there 
> may be pets going unlicensed.
>
> Kenmare Police Chief Gary Kraft said owners who don’t remove 
> prohibited dogs in 10 days will be summoned to court. They also 
> will be fined $100.
>
> If the court rules that a dog must be removed and the owner 
> disregards the order, the owner can be assessed an additional fine. 
> Also, a second offense under the dog ordinance carries a $200 fine, 
> and a third offense is $500.
>
> The ordinance doesn’t allow the city to confiscate a dog, although 
> Kraft said that is something that council may choose to add to the 
> ordinance.
>
> Kenmare already has an ordinance regarding vicious animals that 
> allows the police chief to revoke a pet license. The owner then 
> would have three days to remove the animal. If someone is bitten, a 
> dog can be quarantined for rabies or possibly disposed of if no 
> evidence exists that the dog was vaccinated.
 
 

[~flower~]

 ALABAMA
 Page: <http://www.legislat <http://www.legislature.state.al.us/>
 ure.state.al.us/>http://www.legislat <http://
 www.legislature.state.al .us/ ure.state.al.us/

 Geneva - proposed pit bull ordinance will be discussed at the next council meeting in April.

[~flower~]

> Veedersburg - Town council members on Tuesday
> night (04/07/08) heard from the town's
> dogcatcher, Jim Abernathy, about some of his
> calls he has answered involving dogs. His primary
> concern lately has been pit bulls that have been
> getting loose near the park. The council
> discussed several options of dealing with the
> loose dog problem. Abernathy suggested that maybe
> Veedersburg should ban any pit bulls from town.
> Councilman Bob Barker suggested euthanizing dogs
> that bite anyone. Town attorney Stephanie
> Campbell said she would review the state statutes
> on dealing with vicious dogs for the next meeting
>

[~flower~]

> Eudora - city's proposed new codebook has various
> breeds of pit bulls and bull dogs in its cross
> hairs. One of the biggest possible changes in the
> new codebook has to do with the types of animals
> that will be allowed, or in the case of pit
> bulls, not allowed within city limits. Eudora
> residents would not be allowed to keep American
> pit bull, Staffordshire terriers, bull terriers
> or any mixed breed thereof on property within the
> city. Dogs had been allowed in the city if the
> owner registered the dog, but since nobody
> followed those rules, the council decided to
> outlaw the aggressive breed. Owners of pit bulls
> would be given a 10-day notice, but the city will
> not search out owners of the dogs.

[~flower~]

 Allen Parish - the police jury is trying to pass a ban on "pit bulls



 Bogalusa - city councilman is calling for an
> ordinance that will require people who own
> "vicious" dogs to have $200,000 in liability
> insurance. Proposed according to the ordinance, a
> vicious dog is any dog which attacks a human
> being or domestic animal without provocation; any
> dog trained for dog fighting; and any pit bull.
> Included in the proposed ordinance wording
> similar to St. Tammany Parish's leash law which
> requires all dogs to be fenced or leashed at all times.



 Welsh - city officials will vote next month on
> whether to amend its pit bull ban to give owners
> more time to prove their dog is a breed other
> than a pit bull or to challenge the ban in court.
> The council introduced an ordinance this week
> amending its original pit bull ban to allow pet
> owners more time to prove their dog is not a full
> pit bull breed or to challenge the issue in
> court. The number of days a dog will be held
> before being euthanized will be discussed at the
> council's work meeting before a public hearing is
> held on May 6. The new law that would give dog
> owners more time to show their pet is not a full
> pit bull breed. The new measure would also make
> owners pay fees for the animal and provide proof of vaccination.
>
> .

[~flower~]

Plymouth - City Commission is expected to
> discuss options for an updated vicious dog
> ordinance to ease the fears of residents. Two
> petitions were given to the commissioners.. The
> first petition calls for a ban on pit bull,
> fighting and dangerous animals within the city
> limits. Second petition calling for pit bulls
> and/or other types of breeds for fighting be
> spayed or neutered, contained within a six-foot
> secured privacy fence and to be leashed when in
> public UPDATE: City commissioners approved
> Monday night (3/17) the first reading of a
> revised dog ordinance that focuses on "dangerous
> dogs" instead of specific dog breeds. Under the
> ordinance revisions approved by commissioners,
> any owner of a dog within city limits against
> which a sworn complaint has been filed alleging
> serious injury or death to a person or other
> animal can be summoned to a district court or
> other municipal court to show cause why the
> animal should not be destroyed. If the dog is
> found to be a danger, the judge or magistrate can
> order the destruction of the animal at the
> owner's expense. If the dog is found to be a
> danger but has not injured or killed another
> entity, the court will notify the county animal
> control authority of its findings as well as
> ordering the owner to purchase liability
> insurance for the animal and sterilization. Other
> provisions in the ordinance focus on licensing,
> yard cleanliness and kennel requirements. Marzano
> said the language in the ordinance is consistent
> with Michigan Compiled Law code for animals. The
> definition of a dangerous dog is one who bites
> and attacks along with causing serious injury or killing.

[~flower~]

> MINNESOTA Home
 Page: <http://www.leg. <http://www.leg.state.mn.us/leg/legis.asp>
> state.mn.us/leg/legis.asp>
>
> HF3245 - A bill for an act relating to animals;
> requiring obedience training for certain
> dangerous dogs; providing for a task force FYI
> - Legislation would ban five breeds in Minnesota
> - Rottweilers, Pit Bulls, Chow Chows, Akitas and
> Wolf Hybrids UPDATE: Withdrawn
> <https://www.
> <https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?
> bill=H3245.0.html&sessi
> on=ls85>
> revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?
> bill=H3245.0.html&session=ls85>https
> ://www.
> <https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?
> bill=H3245.0.html&sessi
> on=ls85>
> revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H3245.0.html&session=ls85

[~flower~]

Ely - Kim Young, animal control officer said she  would like to bring an ordinance to the city council that would ban pit bulls from the city
unless the owner has a breeder's license. City Attorney Kevin Briggs told the council during a meeting in March that the issue of banning certain breeds of dogs might come up in the future. There was no direction from the council for him to proceed either way.

[~flower~]

Sylvania - city council will consider a vicious
> dog ordinance modeled after Toledo's one-dog
> limit, which was upheld by the Ohio Supreme
> Court. UPDATE: City Council has decided to spend
> more time to research a proposed ordinance that
> would place restrictions on vicious dogs. Two
> versions of a vicious-dog ordinance have been
> written. Both proposed ordinances place
> limitations on ownership and would require that
> pit bulls be muzzled and kept on a leash when
> outside of the owner's home. One of the proposed
> ordinances, however, would require that all dogs
> commonly known as pit bulls or pit bull mixed
> breed dogs be spayed and neutered when they are
> six months or older, and the same ordinance would
> make it illegal for a convicted felon to own a
> pit bull or pit bull mixed-breed dog. The
> less-restrictive ordinance is the one originally
> introduced, said Councilman Doug Haynam, noting
> that provisions in that ordinance have been
> litigated and have been upheld as a responsible
> use of police powers which is based on state law
> and language in the Ohio Revised Code.
> UPDATE: heated debate in Sylvania at a public
> meeting (04/06/08) over additional restrictions
> on "pit bulls" and vicious dog legislation. Under
> the proposed ordinance, vicious dog won't be able
> to be in the front yard without a muzzle. Council
> members like to see alternatives that have
> worked, including, among other things, anti
> chaining/tethering laws, enforcement of leash
> laws and registration laws, harsher penalties.


Toledo - City Councilwoman Wilma Brown wants to
> make it legal to spay and neuter all pit bulls
> the warden picks up in Toledo, which would cost
> the dog's owner an extra $75 to $125. Right now,
> pit bulls must be muzzled when walked off the
> property, and owners cannot have more than one

[~flower~]

 SOUTH CAROLINA
> Page: <http://www.scstateh <http://www.scstatehouse.net/index.html
>
> HB5010 - A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 47-3-710, AS
> AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976,
> RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF TERMS USED IN THE
> REGULATION OF DANGEROUS ANIMALS, SO AS TO PROVIDE
> THAT DANGEROUS ANIMALS INCLUDE CERTAIN BREEDS AND
> SPECIES, INCLUDING PIT BULLS, TO AUTHORIZE BUT
> NOT REQUIRE, COUNTY GOVERNING BODIES TO DESIGNATE
> OTHER BREEDS OR SPECIES AS DANGEROUS ANIMALS; AND
> TO DELETE THE PROVISION THAT AN ANIMAL IS NOT A
> DANGEROUS ANIMAL SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF ITS BREED OR
> SPECIES
> <http://www.scstateh
> <http://www.scstatehouse.net/cgi-bin/web_bh10.exe?
> bill1=5010&session=117>
> ouse.net/cgi-bin/web_bh10.exe?bill1=5010&session=117>http://
> www.scstateh
> <http://www.scstatehouse.net/cgi-bin/web_bh10.exe?
> bill1=5010&session=117>
> ouse.net/cgi-bin/web_bh10.exe?bill1=5010&session=117



 Anderson - City Council member Tony Stewart is
> proposing a ban on new pit bulls and tighter
> restrictions on existing pit bulls some owners
> have in the city. The proposed ordinance says
> existing pit bulls present an unacceptable risk
> of harm and fear to residents. Under the proposed
> ordinance existing pit bulls must have a fenced
> yard, you must be at least 18 year old to walk
> the dog, and it must have a muzzle on it's mouth.
> Also, owners must have a $1, 000.00 dollar
> insurance policy. Also, pit bulls must have their
> tags and shots.


Lancaster County - round two for a proposed
> vicious dog ordinance. Last month, a citizens'
> committee is tweaking a proposed law that
> would've automatically labeled certain dog breeds
> vicious. The ordinance labeled pit bulls,
> American bulldogs, and canary dogs as vicious
> animals and required that they be registered with
> the county, kept inside a steel cage, and wear
> special bright-colored collars. The citizens'
> committee stripped all the breed-specific
> language from the newest version of the
> ordinance. At the very least, county leaders say
> a leash law out of all these talks. That's
> something the county has never had. The last vote
> on the ordinance will likely be taken next month.

[~flower~]

Provo - A neighborhood's complaints of pit bulls
> running wild has prompted city officials to
> research remedies that could result in tighter
> restrictions for a dog breed with a bad
> rap. City Council decided to explore the issue
> further and study what other cities so they
> understand all their possible options.

[~flower~]

Lakewood - looking at tightening up its animal
> control laws after reviewing a recent case where
> two pit bulls attacked a family. Officials will
> look at Auburn's ordinance, passed in 2006, which
> lists 12 dog breeds, as potentially dangerous and
> requires owners to register them with the city.
> The breeds include pit bulls and bull terriers

[~flower~]

 Bluefield - City Board of Directors unanimously
> approved an overhaul of the city's existing
> dangerous animal ordinance Tuesday (04/09) after
> only two people spoke during a public hearing on
> the proposal. The ordinance includes a maximum
> penalty of up to $1,000, or the maximum allowed
> by state law. The ordinance adds pit bulls and
> wolf-hybrids or wolf-mixed breeds as two
> breed-specific animals. The ordinance states that
> no person shall permit a registered pit bull or
> wolf hybrid to go outside of its kennel or pen
> unless the dog is secured with a leash no longer
> than six feet in length and under the control of
> a person 18 years of age or older with a physical
> ability to control the animal. The ordinance
> further states that all pit bull dogs or
> wolf-hybrids must be muzzled by a muzzling device
> when outside of the animal's kennel.

[~flower~]

Racine - city needs to look into a stricter
> vicious dog ordinance, Alderman Ray DeHahn says.
> He originally asked the city attorney to draft an
> ordinance specifically dealing with pit bulls.
> But he has since reconsidered the now-drafted
> ordinance, which he said would be too difficult
> to enforce. The drafted ordinance would have
> prohibited the "ownership, harboring, or
> possessing of pit bulls within the city of
> Racine." The draft would have allowed current
> registered owners to keep their pit bulls as long
> as they followed stricter regulations. Instead of
> a pit bull ordinance, the city should look into
> leash and muzzle regulations, he said. DeHahn is
> still uncertain about the details, such as who
> would enforce regulations, how it would be funded
> and how much the fines would be. There needs to
> be more research done, said DeHahn. The city
> already has a "vicious animal" ordinance that
> forbids an animal from living in the city if,
> unprovoked, it bites or injures a person or pet
> twice in a year. Racine also has an ordinance
> that prohibits animals from running loose on
> public property. Racine County humane officer
> Jody Halladay enforces animal ordinances in the
> county. But she does not think tougher ordinances
> would make a difference. The problem is that
> ordinances are not fully enforced from all
> levels, Halladay said. Too many times, citations
> are dropped or lessened in municipal court.

[chaos]

Just depressing.

[Vet]

I will be posting as I get them, notices on where breed banning is trying to pass.

  It seems it is happening more and more.  


  Anybody else come across one, feel free to post it.  I will be changing the Subject to reflect the name of the city/state, please do the same if you post any.

Thank you. 

[Vet]

Just depressing.

Oh but its very real. Bans dont' work, they wont' work.  The problem is its easier to hate and put a bandaide on the problem than it is to actually fix it.

[Lord Humungous]

The only thing I agree with is "Leashes must be no more than 6' in length" Those  friggin flexi leashes can inflict some serious rope burns on the legs!!

[tonymctones]

They should concentrate on punishing the owners instead of the dogs, hefty fines for misbehavior I would think that the owners of these dogs would try much harder and be a bit more precautious if it was them at risk instead of the lives of the dogs...bastards

[Purple Aki]

We've had a ban on various breeds in the UK and it has been a failure.

The police have trouble classifying what breed the dog is in a lot of cases.

[Vet]

We've had a ban on various breeds in the UK and it has been a failure.

The police have trouble classifying what breed the dog is in a lot of cases.

yup.   thats just one of the problems with breed legislature. 


The thing thats starting to piss me off is the fact that you have all of these seeminglogical people posting on message boards---just like in this thread.   But there doesn't seem to be a damned thing done to take the idiots out of city councils in relation to these sort of laws. 

[~flower~]

yup.   thats just one of the problems with breed legislature. 


The thing thats starting to piss me off is the fact that you have all of these seeminglogical people posting on message boards---just like in this thread.   But there doesn't seem to be a damned thing done to take the idiots out of city councils in relation to these sort of laws. 

  the people in these towns need to write there council people, call, and go to the meetings on them. 

    Let them know as a voter they will not be getting your vote if they endorse these laws.

  Just like the mandatory altering laws.   Call, email, go the the meetings.

[Vet]

  the people in these towns need to write there council people, call, and go to the meetings on them. 

    Let them know as a voter they will not be getting your vote if they endorse these laws.

  Just like the mandatory altering laws.   Call, email, go the the meetings.

Honestly Flower good luck with that.    I agree it needs to be done, but for some reason City Councilmembers have the brains of a dead duck's turd when it comes to animal issues. 

[~flower~]

Honestly Flower good luck with that.    I agree it needs to be done, but for some reason City Councilmembers have the brains of a dead duck's turd when it comes to animal issues. 

  but if they realize they might get booted next voting time they may listen.

    Plus if nothing else bombarding them with emails, letters, faxes and calls will annoy them.