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.

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!

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!