Going Against The Stereotype

Long time readers of this blog know that one of my "pet" issues is the issue of breed specific legislation. BSL's are usually geared around the so-called "bully breeds" - pit bulls, rottweillers, dobermans, german shepherds etc. My argument against BSL comes in large part from my days with the Junior Logician in dog training. One of the things we have learned in training is that ANY dog can become dangerous to people in the "wrong" set of circumstances. A story from my old stomping grounds brings that point home.

The verdict is in – Bitsy the long-haired dachshund is a potentially dangerous dog.

The designation came about as a result of the first dangerous dog hearing where the city used an outside hearing officer to preside over a case, which was also the second time the updated ordinance was followed.

Hearing examiner Karen E. Marty handed down the ruling Feb. 3 after presiding over an appeal hearing of a potentially dangerous dog citation against Bitsy that involved two very different stories about what happened on the morning of Nov. 26, 2008.

Now I fully understand that a Rottie is going to do more damage to a child than a Dachshund if either was to bite one. The point here is that you can not legislate based on profiling. You have to legislate the action not the genes. I have known too many "bully" breed dogs who have been the sweetiest, kindest creatures - incapable of harming of harming a flea much less a child. I have actually had more bad experiences with small dogs. The bottom line is it is not the size of the dog...it's the training and work that the owner puts INTO the dog.

Relief

In a way, I am relieved that this story ended the way it did.

When a pit bull kills a child, "all of us want to find a person who is responsible and to hold them accountable," Hennepin County District Judge Kevin Burke said Friday.
But Burke decided that Zachary King Sr. was not guilty of second-degree manslaughter in the death of his son "Zack Jr." from a pit bull attack in the family home last August.

I say in a way because I am torn. What Mr. King Sr. did (keeping a dog he knew to be dangerous around his kids) was so excruciatingly stupid...but to put a man on trial for manslaughter for this....I just think losing his child and then going on trial for it was probably punishment enough. Keeping an unsocialized intact male dog with no training of any size or breed in the same home with small children and a breeding female is a recipe for disaster.

Last summer, we brought Captain Jack home. Jack is a mini-Australian Shepard - a herding breed. His instinct is to chase his "sheep" and nip them in the heels in order to get them moving. He nip, people react, the action is reinforced. Because he is an "intact" dog, he has that aggressive male nature that is necessary for survival of the species if he were in the wild. We are not, so we are working very hard to train that instinct out of him! We do NOT lock him up in a damp dark basement with no contact other than at meal time...and that is exactly what Mr. King did to his dog.

Which in a way speaks back to what I had been saying during the initial course of the BSL debate here in Minnesota....ANY breed can become "mean" given the proper set of circumstances. No training and no socialization is a guarantee for a bad dog....whether it is a little ankle biter or a 200 pound Great Dane.

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.

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.

Good Intentions?

There is an old saying about the road to hell and what it is paved with. Last Tuesday, Jazz and I did a show on health care options. Since both of us take more of a free market approach we were castigated by one emailer as being cold-hearted (ok there was a little more to the description but it is not suitable for polite company). I suppose, if the emailer is correct, then maybe we are a little cold-hearted. After all Jazz and I were opposing a system that makes pregnant women wait 10 months for a slot in the maternity ward. We are opposing a system that telling doctors to with hold treatment for the old and unhealthy in order to maintain costs. After all - they MEAN WELL when they have government give out "free" health care. Surely the Greater Minnesota Health Care Coalition and the NEA don't want old folks to be denied health care any more than the want disabled children denied health care....right?????

I was sent this article in relation to the pending Breed Ban that Rep. John Lesch is proposing this session. The National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA) has a long history of fighting this kind of legislation. However, the study that they quote has a larger implication.

A landmark study published last year in one of America's most respected scholarly journals provides powerful evidence that "feel-good" legislation – indiscriminate and/or unenforceable bans, as well as draconian sanctions applied to behavior that is already illegal – degrades respect for law and reduces compliance, while aggravating (or at best, failing to improve) the problems these laws were supposedly enacted to solve.

The study specifically addresses gun laws in the U.S. and worldwide. "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence," by Don B. Kates and Gary A. Mauser: Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, vol. 30, pages 651-694. But its broader point supports a central reality that has long been recognized by the National Animal Interest Alliance: whether lawmakers target pet owners or gun owners, ill-conceived "feel-good" laws usually just make things worse.

Emphasis mine. I understand that the folks at the GMHCC really want to help....they want to make it better for those without health insurance. I GET THAT....what I don't get is why people like our emailer just don't get that rationed health care - such as they are seeing in the UK and in Canada are worse! They simply don't get that it will lead to something much worse than what we have today....a system where people with chronic diseases are shuttled off to institutions and left to die...with minimal care because that care will cost the government too much. Can someone please tell me what is "compassionate" about that?

It's called the Law of Unintended Consequences it is something that we really need to be aware of the next time we want to do something in order to "feel good".

BSL Heating up

ECM Publications runs several weekly local newspapers in Central Minnesota. Here in the Savage Lands, the representatives of ECM are This Week Prior Lake and This Week Burnsville. T.W. Buddig, the Capital reporter for ECM gives us part one of a three part series on Rep. John Lesch's (DFL-St. Paul) pending breed ban proposal.

When Kellie Dillner of Andover scooped up Marri, the pit bull showed only tenderness cradled in her owner’s arms.
Tenderness might not be the behavior expected from a breed of dog proposed to be banned from Minnesota.

Tenderness is only an unexpected behavior if all you knew about the breed was what was in the local media.

According to the article, Rep. Lesch is still adamant on proposing this ill-conceived legislation. Thankfully, support for the legislation is not high.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty is inclined to let local communities handle dog-related issues rather than favor a statewide approach, he recently explained.“What happens in a densely populated area of an urban center may be different than if you have a three thousand acre farm,” said Pawlenty this month. “It’s probably an issue that’s best addressed by local units of government,” he said.Animal control officers, too, see problems with a breed ban.The Minnesota Animal Control Association rejected Lesch’s breed ban proposal, said Bill Forbes, an association official and an animal control officer with the Bloomington Police Department.

The article then hits on the main opposition point.

Dog bite statistics, Forbes argues, reflect the popularity of dog breeds. He points to dog owners themselves as a major factor in the dog bite equation. “The breeds have changed, but the people (problem owners) are still the same,” Forbes said.Troublesome dogs tend to belong to certain types of owners, Forbes argues.
These owners tend to have personal histories of violence, substance abuse, run in with the law, he explained. “It’s mostly men — it’s kind of a hormonal thing,” said Forbes. It’s not a racial. It’s not a cultural. These problem owners are found across the socioeconomic spectrum, said Forbes.

Given my previous posts on the issue, I hope you would assume that the above emphasis is mine! After talking to the enforcement officers, Mr. Buddig talks to a veterinarian about the issue.

Dr. Margaret M. Duxbury, a veterinary behaviorist at the University of Minnesota Veterinary Medical Center, doesn’t view certain dog breeds as inherently more dangerous than any other. “Do I support the idea of outlawing certain dog breeds? No,” she said. “The issue is way too complicated to be solved that way,” said Duxbury.
“We see dogs every week for many kinds of aggressions. And many, many, many of them are not pit bulls,” she said. Several factors influence dog behavior, explained Duxbury.
Genetic temperament is one, but it strongly depends on a particular dog’s own direct relatives, she explained.
Within breeds, individuals differ, she explained.
Duxbury also points to socialization as a primary influence on dog behavior.“That starts really early — like three to twelve weeks,” she said.“It’s important what environment the puppies are in at the breeders. If they’re isolated — in a barn or a room and they don’t hear many people — they aren’t handled very much, that puts them at a great disadvantage,” she said.

Again, points I made in my previous posts. However, leave it to Rep. Lesch to ignore facts and base his decision solely on emotion.

But Lesch believes the testimony of dog bite victims will be powerful and compelling.
“I think they’re (A Rotta Love Plus) going to have to take their chances with that one,” Lesch of the idea of his bill lacking legs.

There is no doubt that the testimony of the dog bite victims will be powerful, but if you really want to fix the problem, Rep. Lesch, then listen to the experts. They are trying to tell you what the real solution to this problem is.

The Minnesota Animal Control Association is currently working on ways to give courts more ways of dealing with problem dogs.

To quote Laura Ingraham (when she is talking about illegal immigration) "ENFORCE THE LAW!" It's really that simple!

Some More Dog Bite Statistics

After a couple of highly politicized dog bite attacks in Minneapolis and St. Paul, Rep. John Lesch (DFL-St. Paul) announced to great fanfare that he would propose legislation next session to ban 5 different breeds of dogs, including Pit Bulls. Both Chief and I wrote a couple of initial posts on the issue on our respective blogs. Since those posts in July, a couple of things have happened.

1) Rep. Lesch held a town hall meeting that many anti-breed ban legislation groups attended. A couple of people got out of line which put a very bad face on dog owners (see the comments in my post here).

2) Two more attacks occurred - one of them was fatal.

Here is some unemotional statistics (courtesy of the National Canine Research Council)

Over the past 42 years there have been three (3) fatal dog attacks in Minnesota or approximately one (1) dog attack fatality every 12 years.

Two different breeds of dogs have been involved in the three fatal attacks.

One of the three fatal attacks in Minnesota involved loose roaming dogs attacking a child on a bicyle, (1984). The other two fatal dog attacks were inflicted on unsupervised children attempting to interact with a chained dog, (1981, 2007).

The third and latest fatal attack (2007) occurred in Minneapolis with a intact, male dog chained in the basement. The dog had a history of biting and aggression. There was also a female dog on the premises, and a litter of puppies...

And despite the reckless ownership practices of some dog owners, dogs still pose an incredibly low risk for causing a fatal as demonstrated by the following statistics:

Fatal Dog Attacks in Minnesota as Compared to Other Selected Risks:

Fatalities in Minnesota over a 10-year-period: 1993 - 2002

Persons killed by dogs: 0

Persons killed by fireworks: 1

Killed by Mule: 1

Children killed by horses: 4

Adults killed by cattle: 7

Lightning deaths: 11

Persons drowned in swimming pool: 24*

Bicycle-related deaths: 39*

* Under reported - data only includes years 1999 - 2002.

More people (in bicycle and pool related incidents) died in 8 years than were killed by dogs in 10. That is something you didn't see reported by our local media! Another thing that our local media didn't report is that since 1965 only one death has been attributed to a pit bull and that is the one that just happened in August. Most of the reasons that the NCRC lists are contributing factors to attacks are reasons that I covered in my previous posts!

Sadly, I fear no amount of common sense will sink into the minds of our esteemed media. They are, today, wailing about how two girls on the White Earth Reservation were attacked by a Rottweiler this morning. On the radio there is not mention at all of the fact that the Star Tribune waits until the 5th paragraph of their story to report....that the dog was unrestrained - running loose in the neighborhood. That action alone (in a populated area) is a sure fire sign of an irresponsible owner. Of course that aspect will never get reported!

Dog Bites & Breed Specific Legislation

In my prior posts, I discussed some of the triggers that can "cause" dogs to go bad. Now it is time to discuss solutions. Here are some FACTS for Rep. John Lesch (DFL-St Paul) on Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) from a lawyer.

"A study reported in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Ass’n (JAMVA) showed that over a 2-year period, 82% of all human dog bite-related fatalities, involved unrestrained dogs who were either on or off their owners’ property. Analyzing these statistics, it would be prudent to stay away from dogs that you are not familiar with if they are off a leash.
Despite concluding that Rottweiler and pit bull-type dogs accounted for a 67% of all dog bite-related fatalities between 1997 and 1998, the JAMVA study concluded that “Breed-specific legislation does not address the fact that a dog of any breed can become dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive.” (emphasis mine)

My point exactly! The Fordham Law Review takes a reasoned look at BSL and quickly finds the shortcomings of BSL.

"Though all breeds of dog can and do inflict severe injury and death, extensive media coverage of serious pit bull attacks has resulted in public fear of these dogs in particular. [FN10] Despite the existence in the majority of the United States of dangerous-dog laws, which regulate ownership of dogs based on the animals' prior conduct, [FN11] legislators have proposed an additional quick-fix solution in response to public outcry and extensive media coverage of pit bull attacks. The solution is breed-specific legislation, a type of law that restricts or bans ownership of certain dog breeds, most commonly the pit bull terrier. [FN12] Unfortunately for Diane Whipple, however, legislation targeting ownership of pit bulls would not have protected her. She was killed by Presa Canarios, [FN13] a breed which does not fall within the common statutory definition of a pit bull terrier. [FN14]" (emphasis mine)

Best Friends Animal Society of Utah has a document that shows the REAL stats regarding these "dangerous breeds".

"Statistics are also flawed as to naming pit bulls as the instigators. It appears that in many cases in which pit-bull-type dogs are blamed for fatal attacks, the dogs were few of the recognized pit bull breeds. Glen Bui, vice president of the American Canine Foundation, using statistics on the American pit bull terrier from the AKC, A.D.B.A. and UKC and for the other breeds, AKC/UK statistics, found:
Numbers registered No. of Fatal Attacks Breed Percentage
240,000 12 Chow Chow .705%
800,000 67 German Shepherds .008375%
960,000 70 Rottweiler .00729%
128,000 18 Great Dane .01416 %
114,000 14 Doberman .012288%
72,000 10 St. Bernard .0139%
5,000,000 60 American Pit Bull .0012%" (emphasis again mine)

Now these are fatal attacks. What about attacks that do not result in a fatality.

"Americans are feeling the bite of a growing dog population. There are approximately sixty-eight million dogs kept as pets in the United States. [FN17] Every year, these dogs bite an estimated four to five million Americans, representing about two percent of the population, and that number is on the rise."

Hmmmm that is what...a whopping 7.35% of the dog population in the country??

The other thing that BSL proponents forget is that the folks that want a "tough" dog are going to ignore or otherwise work around these laws as they already do existing laws such as dangerous dog ordinances and leash laws.

"On the other hand, irresponsible owners and criminals could care less about BSL. They really don't care about the laws anyway. They already fail to license and vaccinate their dogs. They don't follow leash laws. Their dogs are unsocialized, untrained, and neglected. How can BSL change the way these owners act?"

BSL treats all owners the same, whether they are responsible law abiding owners or not. Rather than go after the responsible owners, I wish Rep. Lesch would do something to make it harder for the irresponsible owners. Most current dangerous dog ordinances don't have a punishment for violations of the ordinances other than a minimal fine and the loss of the dog. That hardly does anything to change the human behavior....change the human behavior - make it painful for the owners of dangerous dogs and you just might fix the problem.

Dog bite statistics and common sense

In my last post, I introduced you to some of the canines in my life. That information will be handy to remember for this post.

When this story came out this week, my hackles went up to be sure. I just knew it was going to be used in Rep. Lesch's dog ban debate. But the more I read the article, the more the common sense jumped out at me.

"The study found that children between the ages of 1 and 4 had the highest rate for both hospitalization and emergency room treatment. "

Of course, any time a child between the ages of 1 and 4 has an accident they are bound to get hospitalization/emergency room treatment.

"The study also said that in 75 percent of the cases, the victim was familiar with the dog or dogs involved. "

Very good point - dogs are pack animals by nature. Sometimes, when interacting with their human "pack" they forget that we are humans and not dogs. I have more than a few wounds on my arm (over the years) from wrestling with my dogs. I will never forget when Kessa (Doberman) and I were playing one day and she put her mouth around my wrist to "capture" me - I had her toy in that hand. Her canine tooth happened to hit the crystal of my watch and crushed it. Kessa was devistated. She really thought she had hurt me. If my watch had not been there, that could have been a serious injury.

"Dog bites also occurred 48 percent of the time in the home and 18 percent of the time in yards.
Among other findings:
- Dog bites were most common between May and August.
- 96 percent of bites to children younger than 1 year of age occurred when the child was provoking, teasing or approaching the dog.
- Among children ages 5 to 14 years old, the leading cause for getting a dog bite (31 percent) was walking, running or biking past a dog." (emphasis mine)

Kids do not know how to behave around dogs. A lot of their squeeling and carrying on sounds like prey to them and it triggers long dormant instincts. Running triggers instincts - especially in herding breeds (like German shepards and Border Collies). It is canine nature.

Just as parents teach their children how to safely cross the road, they need to teach their children how to safely approach a dog - whether the dog is a stranger or not! Which is something all of the radio and tv reports mentioned. I have lost count of how many children have come up to Lucky (who is a very docile, well trained dog and the Junior Logician gets all the credit for that) in a manner that would have been seen as aggression by a lesser trained dog! I have many times corrected kids not to run up to Lucky or bring their hand "down" toward her head to pet her (a dog that has been abused will ASSUME you are going to hit them and they will bite). When the Junior Logician was growing up, I taught him that he was to walk to a dog and ask permission to pet the dog FIRST - just in case the dog was not as friendly as his were. It takes work and vigilence. Something many parents just don't seem to have anymore.

Going to the dogs!

Much has been said about the Michael Vick situation. Much of it has been from the political realm, but I think instead of going there, I am going to go at it from a little different direction.

I make no bones about the fact that I am crazy about my animals. I have shared my life with (in no specific order) 2 horses (Shadow and Dizzy), several cats and dogs Penfold (Pug), Jessie (Brittany Spaniel/Coon hound cross), Heidi (Belgian Shepherd), Poo and Kessa (Doberman Pinsers), Streak (a Heinz 57 - her dam was a beagle) and Candy (beagle cross and dam to Streak) and now Lucky (the worlds best Border Collie). All share a special place in my life. I grew up around Boxers and Labradore Retrievers and Malamutes and just about every other breed under the sun INCLUDING a white Pit Bull Terrier that was our unofficial mascot for our dorm in college! The dogs that have come into my life have all had various levels of training. ALL (except Spot - more on him later) were well socialized to the point of while possibly appearing to be mean (Poo and Heidi scared more than a few trespassers off of our farm even though they were both the biggest babies) they were all pussycats inside.

Spot was another story. Spot was a Labradore Retriever. Labs are not a"dangerous" breed. Spot was the exception to the rule. The reason that Spot was mean, the reason why many so-called "dangerous" breeds are mean is how humans treated him. We had a gaggle of boys in our neighborhood who would stand in the middle of our back yard and simultaneously tease Spot and Streak. Both dogs disliked those boys, but Spot's dislike turned to anyone on our side of the fence. If you walked by the fence and Spot was out, you ran the risk of him jumping (or in the case of my 8 year old sister and her 6 year old friend) him running right through the chain link. If the girls were not right next to our back door where I was standing, those girls would have been dog bite statistics!

Fences too, can cause a dog to act more aggressive to someone on the other side. Our pug (talk about a baby...he would lick you to death if you were not careful) went from being a farm dog to a city dog. When he had the fence between him and the neighbor girls, he would bark and act very mean....when he was out front on the leash. Lucky has alway been a city dog and she is the same way!

How does this all tie into the Michael Vick situation and the John Lesch breed bans you ask? Simple - the human trainers (Vick and his cohorts) used fear and intimidation to turn the dogs mean. The dogs (like Spot) were not born mean - THEY WERE MADE TO BE MEAN!

Rather than banning the breed, we need to make the punishment for the behavior harsher. Right now, animal abuse is a misdemeanor offence - regardless of the extent of the abuse. There needs to be a harsher punishment depending on the offense. The dog will be punished to be sure - once a dog has been "made mean" you have no choice but to euthanize them. However, banning breeds is not the answer. It will not address the underlying human behavior...the behavior that says "It's cool to have the toughest dog on the block". It's always easy to blame the "dumb" dog, but dogs are what we make them to be. It is high time to put the blame back where it belongs.

Calling all dog lovers

Beth DeLaForsest from AWholeRottaLove sent me the following email today. If you are interested in joining Beth for the event, please do so. I will not be able to attend (our County Fair starts on Tuesday and the 4Hers are very busy Tuesday night) but if any Ladies Logic readers who go I would LOVE to have a report of the event!

Rep John Lesch will be at the Town Hall Meeting Tuesday July 24 2007 at 6:30 PM. It will be held at The Model Cities Building 849 University Ave in St. Paul. He will be taking questions and comments including those on his proposed Breed Bans. The moderators might want to moderate the questions so please have questions written down before hand. St. Paul Animal Control will also be there.

***I want to stress how IMPORTANT it is that you take the time to make it to this meeting.

***Below is posted how to deal with a representative…that was sent in the initial e-mail I sent…I edited it a bit for this situation…good reminders as this can be a highly emotional topic for a lot of us.

***Please remember that you represent the breed…so we need to put our VERY best foot forward!

***I have attached a few items to read through (directly below)to look at so you all can compile as much ANTI BSL information as possible! (Please forgive me as a lot of this will be on pit bulls…since that is what most BSL is aimed at).

Web Sites: http://www.mydogvotes.com/ http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/legislation.html http://www.realpitbull.com/pits.html www.atts.org http://www.pitbulllovers.com/site-map.html http://www.ducksoupplayers.com/rubyatwork.htm http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/BSLindex.htm http://www.defendingdog.com/ http://www.dogsdeservebetter.com/home.html http://www.animallaw.info/articles/aruslweiss2001.htm

Also, if you go to the A Rotta Love Forum (www.arottalove.org/forum) there is a section on BSL that says Web Sites. There are a lot more there to check out as well.

***If you would like to meet up with a group of us we will be meeting at 6:00pm sharp right outside the main doors. In case you can’t find us and you want to meet my cell phone number is 651-592-9591.

1) Keep it short and to the point.
2) Steer clear of stereotypes. In politics, appearance is everything. When you talk face-to-face about BSL to politicians and the media, you must also adopt that same philosophy. Hide your tattoos, brush your hair, put on some nice slacks and a dress shirt, stand up straight, and use good grammar. I know it doesn't seem fair that you can't just "be yourself", but the fact is, life isn't fair, and this isn't about you. It's about your rights as a citizen and your responsibilities as a dog owner. If you don't convey an attitude of respectability, you will get two negative results: first, you won't be taken seriously, and second, you will be reinforcing a negative stereotype, thereby making it much harder for all the rest of us.
3) NEVER speak or write rudely - ALWAYS be respectful and mature. As the saying goes, "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." Or like my mom used to tell me, "if you want to be treated like a grown-up, you need to act like a grown-up." If you want your views to be heard, you need to be patient, open-minded, and mature. If you name-call, swear, threaten, or lash out, you risk losing your audience. Not only that, but you are reinforcing a negative stereotype ("all pit bull/Rottweiler owners are uneducated and immature"). Denver council members recently expressed interest in a non-breed-specific alternative to their draconian pit bull ban - until they started getting angry hate mail and threats from some pit bull owners. That just confirmed to them that pit bull owners are scary, angry, dangerous individuals; they now defend their BSL with fervor, and hundreds of family dogs have been put to death as a result. Don't let your passion and emotions carry you away when you speak!
4) If you choose to mention your dog, be very careful what you say. When you speak out against BSL by arguing "My pit bull is the friendliest dog on the planet and everyone loves him!", that is not helping your case. Your pro-BSL representative believes you own a ticking time bomb. Your protests that your dog "loves everyone" only confirms in their mind that you are in denial - and anything else you may try to say becomes more crazy talk to them. On the other hand, if you speak to the representative as a concerned citizen - not a dog owner - you are more likely to be heard and respected as an equal rather than discounted as a nut job. Mention your dog only if you have proof - a title, certificate, award, or other evidence - that your dog is capable of "above average" good deeds and is highly unlikely to be a "ticking time bomb." If you have a therapy dog, a search-and-rescue dog, a hero dog (which received some sort of recognition from a major group), or an obedience-titled dog, you can mention it. If your dog's credentials are average (i.e. Temperament Tested, took some agility classes, lives with a child and hasn't eaten him yet), that's great - but not good enough to get out of the "could snap at any moment" category, so it's probably best to leave him out of it. Yes, you have every right to be proud of your dog, and yes, you should tell people all about your great dog - but not when you're talking to a pro-BSL legislator. They have a tendency to tune out words from pit bull and Rottweiler owners in particular.
5) Join your representative in worrying about the human victims. Aurora Councilmember Bob Fitzgerald gives us a wonderful quote regarding his reasons behind supporting a pit bull ban: "The thought of one kid getting hurt is too much for me." If we think further about the context in which Fitzgerald gives this comment, he seems to be implying that he does not care about children who are attacked by dogs other than pit bulls. In fact, some months prior to Fitzgerald's insensitive comment, in a city very close to Aurora, a young girl was killed by two Alaskan Malamutes. This child's needless death was apparently not "too much" for Fitzgerald, since he shows no interest in banning Alaskan Malamutes.This sort of exclusionary thinking is pervasive among legislators who support BSL. They are so focused on the victims of attacks committed by certain breeds of dogs that they tend to overlook victims who were attacked by less "controversial" breeds. In effect, they are minimizing the danger posed by non-targeted breeds, the fear suffered by individuals who live near a dangerous dog of a non-targeted breed, and the pain inflicted on victims of attacks committed by a non-targeted breed. Ultimately, pointing this out to representatives is helpful; politicians do not want to seem insensitive toward victims, and the only way to treat every dog attack victim equally and fairly is through non-breed-specific legislation, where all victims are entitled to the same justice and retributions regardless of the breed of dog that injured them.
6) Provide good examples of non-breed-specific legislation that works. Identify some possible solutions to the problems your community is having with dangerous dogs. Perhaps your animal control department is under funded and understaffed, resulting in paltry enforcement of laws. Maybe your community has a blasé attitude toward leash laws and other dog laws. Perhaps school children are not getting any lessons in dog safety. Try to identify what areas need to be worked on in order to improve public safety and reduce dog bites. Offer model non-breed-specific dangerous dog legislation to replace breed-specific proposals (the AKC and the HSUS can both provide this). Our government representatives need to look like they're doing something - anything - to protect the public against vicious dogs. They automatically default toward BSL because it seems so easy, but if you give them something better, safer, and more effective...

I am working on a set of posts that will address the different problems of Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) that I will be posting over the next few weeks. Beth links to a lot of the information that I am using (but I do have a few other sources up my sleeve) so you can get up to speed fairly quickly through her links. If you have the time, I urge you to go. Speak out for the 4Hers who will be very busy getting ready for their annual rite of summer!