Not Welcome
While the Transportation Bill is the talk of the day, Rep. John Lesch is still moving forward with his plan to dictate making thousands of loving pets unwelcome in the state of Minnesota. The local media is again reporting on the fact that Rep. Lesch plans to introduce (soon) his bill that would make 5 breeds of dog illegal in the state of Minnesota. To Rep. Lesch, it does not matter if the individual dog in question has or has not bitten anyone, it only matters that the dog exists. Well today I read a story that broke my heart and doubled my resolve to fight this egregious reach of big government.
Celine's grief is evident in this article, as is the grief of every owner of a loving pit who has ever had their dog siezed by the government for no reason other than the fact that the dog "could" bite. Well you know what Rep. Lesch....I have herding dogs. Their job is to use their teeth to make their "flock" go where it wants it to. In my dog's case, their flock is any human, squirrel, rabbit or cat that crosses their paths. Because of that, the Junior Logician (I will give full credit where it is do - the dog training is HIS project) has worked very hard to train his dogs so that they know that biting humans is absolutely 110% unacceptable! However, according to Rep. Lesch's reasoning, a dog that could bite should be banned. Does that mean hearding dogs are next on the list of breeds to be banned?
And that gets us to the bottom line of this debate. As a responsible dog owner, I have to make certain that my dogs are good citizens of the community. They are licensed and leashed and trained to make sure that they behave in a socially acceptable manner and that is what the government needs to focus on. If Rep. Lesch is serious about protecting kids in his district from dangerous dogs, then the onus needs to be put ON THE OWNER and not on the dog. The owner is the one who is responsible for the training and restraint (or lack thereof) of their dog and they should be the ones to bear the brunt of the consequences should their dog bite someone. Make owners of dogs that have been deemed dangerous undergo training with the dogs, make the carry special insurance, make them take special fencing precautions.....fine. But do not punish me or my dogs because someone else can't be bothered todo the right thing by their dogs, their neighbors and their family.
From K9, a British dog magazine, one of the best arguments against breed-specific legislation I’ve ever read, in the form of one animal control officer’s life-changing experience with Britain’s pit bull ban. Her name is Celine Jacobs, and she told this story:The other day I had to do something that went against everything I have ever strived for, I took a lovely, young, healthy dog to the vets and I had it put to sleep, the reason for this was that he had been identified by an expert as being a Pit Bull type.
When the expert identified the dog yesterday I thought my heart would break, without an owner to fight the dog’s case the law says we have to destroy them. For seven years I have been a dog warden and for seven years I have never put a dog to sleep that wasn’t on the advice of a vet due to illness or injury.
Red was a stray. He couldn’t help the fact that his genetics and appearance categorised him as dangerous. He was young, healthy and apparently very friendly.
Red showed no signs of aggression with people or other dogs, and yet England’s breed specific laws against pit bull-type dogs meant he had to die. The morning of his death, Celine took him out of his kennel, took him for a five mile walk, and let him run and chase a ball in a secure field until he was exhausted, after which she took him out for a junk food meal. Then she held him in her arms while he was killed.When we went in to the vets his tail was still wagging and he sat there licking my face and licking the tears of my face, he didn’t know I was going to have him killed. I held him all the time and he slipped away in my arms quietly, I held him even when he was dead and sobbed my heart out.
Now I feel empty, I feel like I have finally been beaten and that all I have ever tried to do has been broken, I wanted to dedicate my life to saving dogs and now I have killed a fit, healthy, happy dog and I don’t think I can live with it or continue to work as a Dog Warden.
I know a lot of people think dog wardens enjoy killing dogs, I have never been so miserable or felt that what I was doing so wrong. Now I feel that I hate people, I hate the law and I hate my job. The only small thing that has kept me from falling completely apart over this is the fact that at least I know no one can hurt him now, he will never be thrown in a pit and ripped to pieces and no one will ever abuse him or beat him. I hope he enjoyed his morning with me before he went. I know that I had to do this as it is the law and it is what my job entails, as a dog lover however it is heart breaking.
Celine's grief is evident in this article, as is the grief of every owner of a loving pit who has ever had their dog siezed by the government for no reason other than the fact that the dog "could" bite. Well you know what Rep. Lesch....I have herding dogs. Their job is to use their teeth to make their "flock" go where it wants it to. In my dog's case, their flock is any human, squirrel, rabbit or cat that crosses their paths. Because of that, the Junior Logician (I will give full credit where it is do - the dog training is HIS project) has worked very hard to train his dogs so that they know that biting humans is absolutely 110% unacceptable! However, according to Rep. Lesch's reasoning, a dog that could bite should be banned. Does that mean hearding dogs are next on the list of breeds to be banned?
And that gets us to the bottom line of this debate. As a responsible dog owner, I have to make certain that my dogs are good citizens of the community. They are licensed and leashed and trained to make sure that they behave in a socially acceptable manner and that is what the government needs to focus on. If Rep. Lesch is serious about protecting kids in his district from dangerous dogs, then the onus needs to be put ON THE OWNER and not on the dog. The owner is the one who is responsible for the training and restraint (or lack thereof) of their dog and they should be the ones to bear the brunt of the consequences should their dog bite someone. Make owners of dogs that have been deemed dangerous undergo training with the dogs, make the carry special insurance, make them take special fencing precautions.....fine. But do not punish me or my dogs because someone else can't be bothered todo the right thing by their dogs, their neighbors and their family.
3 Comments:
Way to go Cindy.
I figured in an election year, Lesch would have dropped this. Let's hope it is a burden for
Chief
By Anonymous, at 11:17 AM
Excellent post. I agree 100%.
By Mr. D, at 9:09 PM
You should write into the papers! My staffy thanks you for advocating for her rights!
By christeen, at 9:17 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home