CafePress chooses BSL City for meet and Greet

This is where to talk about Pit Bulls!

Postby Maryellen » May 16th, 2006, 1:20 pm

yep, why anyone would have a banned breed in a town that has them banned since that time is beyond me.. it is the owners fault to a degree.. they should have never had the dogs there knowing the ban was in effect..
I live here
Posts: 5971

Postby cheekymunkee » May 16th, 2006, 1:27 pm

Karen wrote:
Maryellen wrote:i too would prefer a mandatory spay/neuter then to have a total ban enacted like what happened in denver.. denver has killed over 1000 pit bulls so far, if they did a spay/neuter, those dogs would be alive still

You know what? The people that had those dogs in Denver are to blame. Yes the owners. Why on earth would you have a pit bull that had been illegal since 1989 in Denver? On the appeal state law thing? I even knew Denver to be home rule just on principle and I don't even live there! Those dogs are the owners fault.

Yup, sad as it is I have been screaming this since they started enforcing the law. The law HAS been in effect since 1989, just not enforced. it was never a secret. :|
There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.

User avatar
I Have Your Grass
Posts: 28540
Location: Dallas

Postby Red » May 17th, 2006, 1:34 am

Of course you can live with it you don't show or breed at all do you? All your dogs are speutered anyway so that makes yours a moot point.

Read the frigging bill, Karen.

122330. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(a) Uncontrolled and irresponsible breeding of animals contributes
to pet overpopulation, inhumane treatment of animals, mass
euthanasia at local shelters, and escalating costs for animal care
and control; this irresponsible breeding also contributes to the
production of defective animals that present a public safety risk.
(b) Though no specific breed of dog is inherently dangerous or
vicious, the growing pet overpopulation and lack of regulation of
animal breeding practices necessitates a repeal of the ban on
breed-specific solutions and a more immediate alternative to existing
(c) It is therefore the intent of the Legislature in enacting this
chapter to permit cities and counties to take appropriate action
aimed at eliminating uncontrolled and irresponsible breeding of
122331. (a) Cities and counties may enact dog breed-specific
ordinances pertaining only to mandatory spay or neuter programs and
breeding requirements, provided that no specific dog breed, or mixed
dog breed, shall be declared potentially dangerous or vicious under
those ordinances.
(b) Jurisdictions that implement programs described in subdivision
(a) shall measure the effect of those programs by compiling
statistical information on dog bites. The information shall, at a
minimum, identify dog bites by severity, the breed of the dog
involved, whether the dog was altered, and whether the breed of dog
was subject to a program established pursuant to subdivision (a).
These statistics shall be submitted quarterly to the State Public

It does not say that breeding is no allowed but refers to irresponsible and uncontrolled breeding.Do you have a problem with limiting overbreeding?
A breeder with a bit of ethic and understanding of the reality should not see a problem with this.Don't reputable breeders spay and neuter pet quality dogs anyway? They should.I don't show nor breed but if I did I believe it would not change a thing.Unless I was only interested in what happens in my little show world and refuse to consider the fate of thousands of dogs who end up in shelters because someone overbred the parents.
User avatar
Snot Nose Bully Pup
Posts: 151
Location: South CA

Postby Karen » May 17th, 2006, 7:15 am

Try getting a smurfing kennel permit oh not so bright one! It is almost impossible! I have friends out there that breed maybe once every 3 or 4 years who are being forced to speuter everything because they can't get permits.
Karen, Cuddles, Dilly the Understudy, and Rowdy the Ruckus Raiser
User avatar
Confident Young Bully
Posts: 534
Location: NH

Postby a-bull » May 17th, 2006, 7:28 am

SisMorphine wrote:Yes, Boston has BSL, but it's also the best meeting place for this area, most convenient for all, etc. Especially The Harp because it is right across the street from the train station, a T station, and down the street from another T station.

OBVIOUSLY I understand that the BSL in Boston sucks, but we need to focus on educating the law makers in that city and turning it around and not on hurting the business owners, who have nothing to do with what happened, and more than likely don't even live in the city itself. Sure you can boycott the city but frankly it's most likely not going to make much of a dent in the city's economy. It would be far more efficient to focus efforts on targeting the law makers if people want the BSL in the city to be reversed.

Agree, and in terms of bsl, Boston isn't even nearly as bad as most places. Yes, it's sad it exists at all, but we should try to keep the focus where it should be.

My posts are my own opinions unless otherwise stated. They are not necessarily correct for all dogs or all owners.
I live here
Posts: 2926

Postby Red » May 18th, 2006, 12:19 am

Try getting a smurfing kennel permit oh not so bright one! It is almost impossible! I have friends out there that breed maybe once every 3 or 4 years who are being forced to speuter everything because they can't get permits.

So how did your friends breed before the ban?Without license or kennel permit I guess.Kennel permits were asked by law even before SB861.
Anyway, her is the LA ordinance, as far as show dogs (amends to mandatory spay and neuter) and breeding:

SECTION 2. Section 10.08.095 is hereby added to read as follows:
10.08.095 Competition dog.
"Competition dog" includes a dog which is used to show, to compete or to breed,
which is of a breed recognized by and registered with the American Kennel Club (AKC),
United Kennel Club (UKC), American Dog Breeders Association (ADBA), or other valid
registry approved by the department and meets one of the following requirements:
A. The dog has competed in at least one dog show or sporting
competition sanctioned by a national registry or approved by the department, within the
last 365 days;

B. The dog has earned a conformation, obedience, agility, carting,
herding, protection, rally, sporting, working or other title from a purebred dog registry
referenced above or other registry or dog sport association approved by the
department; or
C. The owner or custodian of the dog is a member of a purebred dog
breed club, approved by the department, which maintains and enforces a code of ethics for dog breeding that includes restrictions from breeding dogs with genetic defects and life threatening health problems that commonly threaten the breed.

10.20.355 Unaltered dog license - requirements.
An owner or custodian of an unaltered dog over the age of four months must
obtain an annual unaltered dog license for the dog. The license shall be issued if the
department has determined that all of the following conditions are met:
A. The dog is one of the following: a competition dog as defined in
Section 10.08.095; a dog used by a law enforcement agency for law enforcement
purposes; a qualified service or assistance dog as defined in Section 10.20.090; or a
dog which is unable to be spayed or neutered as set forth in Section 10.20.350 B;
B. The owner or custodian has submitted the required application and
has paid the fee set forth in Section 10.90.010(VI)(A); and
C. The unaltered dog will be maintained in accordance with the
provisions of Los Angeles County Code Section 10.40.010, and with applicable state
animal care and control laws.

You can check this out here:

I am sure that your "friends" already follow these simple guidelines, right?They shouldn't have major problems continuing to keep their dogs intact, granted they do all of the above.If they live out of the Los Angeles county area let me know where and I will get you the local law or call AC myself to see what the heck you are talking about.No matter where they live in California, SB861 does not ban breeding all the way and municipalities should not abuse the bill.
User avatar
Snot Nose Bully Pup
Posts: 151
Location: South CA

Postby babyreba » May 18th, 2006, 12:29 am

interesting info, red. thank you for posting the bill language instead of just rhetoric.
User avatar
Supremely Bully
Posts: 1132


Return to Pit Bull Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users