What Is So Hard To Understand?

Pits in the news and info on Breed Specific Legislation.

Postby Marinepits » June 7th, 2010, 6:38 pm

http://www.semissourian.com/blogs/1452/entry/35283/

What Is So Hard To Understand?
Posted Sunday, June 6, 2010, at 9:06 AM
by Melanie Coy

What part of "they WILL take your dogs away if you do not take responsibility" is so difficult for people to understand? We had two incidents, going into the Memorial Day weekend, of blatant ignorance on the part of people that should be old enough to understand this simple concept. Apparently the notion of cause and effect is too complicated to penetrate the fog of stupidity that permeates the pshyche of this new wave of Pit Bull owner.
The first incident to come across my computer was from a community in northern Illinois that less than three months ago fought to eliminate the breed specific language from proposed changes to their animal control ordinances. When the ordinances were changed to reflect generic, fair penalties for any dog owner not being responsible, one of the proponents of the push to ban or restrict Pit Bulls said the issue would come up again. Guess what....he was right.

On May 28th, 2010, police officers in Elgin Illinois shot and killed two Pit Bulls after they allegedly attacked a nine year old boy in front of about 100 people in an Elgin city park. Councilman Prigge was quoted as saying "I knew we would be back here. I'm rearing to go on this." You can bet he is too.

The Pit Bull owners of Elgin dodged another bullet. It was decided not to revisit the subject of breed specific bans or restrictions in their newly enacted animal control ordinances. Do not think you have an open account.

According to the link I received to the Southeast Missourian's Speak Out column, on the night of May 29th, there was an incident during the Tunes at Twilight concert right here in Cape Girardeau. I have attended these concerts. I have taken my dogs on occasion but for the most part I consider outings such as this "my time". I have no problem with other people bringing well behaved, managed pets. This is a wonderful opportunity to enhance social skills. What I do have a problem with is the owner of the Pit Bull that was running loose and jumped the leashed dog belonging to the author of the Speak Out comment.

Do you honestly think Cape Girardeau is immune to breed bans and restrictions? The subject has come up before. I would like to remind you we have a new mayor and two new council people. Just like I warned the Pit Bull owners in the City of Jackson a couple of weeks ago, I am warning the Pit owners in the City of Cape Girardeau, pull yourselves together or we will be facing bans and restrictions just like these other communities. I take this very personally because you are going to cause problems for my dogs. I am going to be the one that gets the call to clean up your mess, again.

We also have a southern county considering a ban on Pit Bulls across the board. My understanding is a county wide ban would supersede individual rules. That would make it illegal to own a Pit Bull in every community, regardless of local ordinances. I would normally be outraged and working on a strategy to counter this action. The principals involved in the proposal took me on a tour of their county. I saw first hand why they are considering such a drastic ruling.

Saturday, May 30, I got to experience what has been dubbed the "Dog Fighting Triangle". What I saw caused my emotions to swing between anger, frustration and sorrow. It has also made me wonder if throwing up my hands and allowing these dogs to be legislated into extinction would not be a form of mercy for them. Their circumstances just keep getting worse and it all comes right back to people.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to preach about addressing the human issue, when faced with the reality of how much easier and better for the dogs it would be to simply ban the breed. There are whole communities whose daily lives revolve around the torture of these animals. It has become irrelevant that these same people are involved in illegal fire arms, drugs and abusing their families. There seems to be nothing that can be done to get rid of this influence. I honestly feel that focusing on banning the dogs is an attempt to alleviate that feeling of helplessness. The dogs have become the easiest target because they are so much more visible. Does this make us safer? No, but it makes us feel that we have done something.

I will not be euthanizing my dogs simply because it is easier than fighting this epidemic of stupidity and irresponsibility. I will continue to take these incidents as a personal assault against me and my rights. I will continue to fight to save this breed. What I will not do is allow these criminals to go unpunished for their crimes against society. By enacting breed bans and focusing on these dogs, that is what is happening. The danger is not being addressed. We cannot allow our lawmakers to continue to ignore these criminals by targeting the perceived danger presented by a dog. The dog is not the problem. The person trying to hide behind that dog is.

If we are going to enact ordinances or laws aimed at restoring security to our communities, then let them address the people at the root of our problems. Keep the rules generic, and enforce the rules fairly, to insure no one is allowed to endanger our citizens or our pets, including mine. Make sure the penalties match the crimes. Above all, make sure no one is allowed to project their crimes onto any animal. Pit Bulls are not our problem. These criminals not being held accountable for their crimes are.


SIDE NOTE TO PEOPLE TROUBLED BY DOGS AT LARGE AND THE OWNERS OF THESE DOGS:

Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 273, Dogs-Cats

Dogs may be killed when. (Condensed)

273.030 If any person shall discover any dog or dogs in the act of killing, wounding or chasing a domesticated animal or animals, such person is authorized to immediately pursue and kill such dog or dogs; provided, however that such dog or dogs shall not be killed in any enclosure to or being in lawful possession of the owner of such dog or dogs.

Killing or injuring a dog, reasonable apprehension of imminent harm is an absolute defense. (Condensed)

273.033

1. In any action for damages or a criminal prosecution against any person for killing or injuring a dog, a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that such person was in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful contact by the dog or was acting to prevent such imminent harmful contact against another person by the dog shall constitute an absolute defense to criminal prosecution or civil liability for the killing or injuring of such animal.

2. If a person has, on at least two occasions, complained to the county sheriff or to the appropriate animal control authority in his or her jurisdiction that a dog, not on a leash, has trespassed on property that such person owns, rents or leases or on any property that constitutes such persons' residence, and when at least one of the prior two complaints was motivated by reasonable apprehension for such person's safety of another person or apprehension of substantial damage to livestock or property, then any subsequent trespass by such dog shall constitute prima facia evidence that such person was in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful contact. the county sheriff or animal control authority to which any complaint under this section is made shall notify the owner of the alleged trespassing dog of such complaint. Failure by the county sheriff or animal control authority to notify dog owner under this subsection shall not invalidate or be construed in any way to limit any other provision of this subsection.

Animal Abuse-penalties (Condensed)

Section 578.012

1. A person is guilty of animal abuse when a person:

(3.) Having ownership or custody of an animal knowingly fails to provide adequate care or adequate control.

2. Animal abuse is a class A Misdemeanor, unless the defendant has previously plead guilty to or has been found guilty of animal abuse.

The county sheriff's department is the agency to contact for abuse complaints. You can also contact your county health department. When these agencies are not responsive to investigate complaints, please contact the Missouri Highway Patrol. They insure the laws of the State of Missouri are upheld.


Melanie Coy has been a pit bull fancier for 29 years. She's also been involved in obedience and other training and showing animals. Coy became involved in animal legislative issues in the mid-80s to dispel myths about the pit bull breed and fight against breed-specific laws. She advocates responsible dog ownership through training and educational programs, and helps shelters make dogs more adoptable.
Never make someone a priority in your life when that someone treats you like an option.
User avatar
Marinepits
Proud Infidel
 
Posts: 15621
Location: New England

Postby DemoDick » June 8th, 2010, 12:12 pm

This is going on in Illinois, which due to its blatant disregard for the U.S. Constitution, cannot rightfully be called a State in the Union. With regards to individual liberty, it is one of the worst states we have ever seen in this country. As such it should be no surprise that it has an abundance of bullshit laws that not only fail to protect the citizenry in any meaningful way, but that serve to advance tyranny in the form of a nanny-state.

I would vote with my feet and leave.
"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban PERMANENTLY as soon as I take office...I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."-Barack Obama
"When in doubt, whip it out."-Nuge
User avatar
DemoDick
They Like to Fondle My Gun
 
Posts: 1910
Location: New York

Postby SassyCassie » June 8th, 2010, 4:24 pm

Agree with Demo about Illinois.

I think they should take dogs away from people who leave them in a car in the summer while they 'pop into the store for a minute' When it is 80+ degrees out, even with all the windows down (and if the dog is loose in the car, that usually is NOT the case) it is damn hot after a few minutes.
The root of ALL evil at dotcorny
User avatar
SassyCassie
Just Whelped
 
Posts: 49
Location: Rochester, NY

Postby HappyChick » June 8th, 2010, 5:53 pm

I believe the writer of this blog is in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, not Illinois. The first incident she spoke of is in Elgin, Illinois, near Chicago. The rest of the story is about Missouri and the statutes are MO statutes.

My take on the Elgin story is that BSL was repealed now this incident is fueling the fire to reinstate BSL there. So how do you hold an owner responsible when she claims the dogs had been stolen? That is probably a BS story, but I still want to know how they hold her responsible. I can tell you what I think, I think those dogs should not have been left outside alone while she was gone from the home. I don't care if they were in cages. If she could afford to build cages outside for them, I'll bet she could afford to have nice crates in the house. Also why would you have your dogs caged outside in an area where they would be targeted for theft??? Don't many of us here know that our dogs would be stolen in a heartbeat if we left them outside and we left the premises? This owner is ignorant and her dogs paid for her ignorance. She will probably pay her fines then go out and get more dogs.

Demo if you want to see a perfect example of how f'ed up Illinois really is, check into the S 510 food bill. That dumbass Dick Durbin has introduced this so Monsanto can have a monopoly on food and we can be arrested for growing a vegetable garden. Every day I become more and more disgusted with our so called leaders. :mad2:
Angie & crew

http://www.epitome-dog-rescue.org

My beloved Vincenzo 07/22/05 - 11/16/09 forever in my heart. Cancer sucks.
HappyChick
Loyally Bully
 
Posts: 701

Postby DemoDick » June 8th, 2010, 7:27 pm

HappyChick wrote:I believe the writer of this blog is in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, not Illinois. The first incident she spoke of is in Elgin, Illinois, near Chicago. The rest of the story is about Missouri and the statutes are MO statutes.


If this is true, then the writer is an even bigger moron than I first suspected.

My take on the Elgin story is that BSL was repealed now this incident is fueling the fire to reinstate BSL there. So how do you hold an owner responsible when she claims the dogs had been stolen? That is probably a BS story, but I still want to know how they hold her responsible. I can tell you what I think, I think those dogs should not have been left outside alone while she was gone from the home. I don't care if they were in cages. If she could afford to build cages outside for them, I'll bet she could afford to have nice crates in the house. Also why would you have your dogs caged outside in an area where they would be targeted for theft??? Don't many of us here know that our dogs would be stolen in a heartbeat if we left them outside and we left the premises? This owner is ignorant and her dogs paid for her ignorance. She will probably pay her fines then go out and get more dogs.


In this case, all of the details are irrelevant. You either believe in freedom or you don't. If you do, you consider each case in context. If you don't, you support BSL.

Demo if you want to see a perfect example of how f'ed up Illinois really is, check into the S 510 food bill. That dumbass Dick Durbin has introduced this so Monsanto can have a monopoly on food and we can be arrested for growing a vegetable garden. Every day I become more and more disgusted with our so called leaders. :mad2:


I can see that Illinois (and disturbingly, the rest of the U.S.) is completely fucked, from a Constitutional standpoint, by simply observing that the current POTUS rose up through the ranks of Chicago politics to become the leader of the free world. Vote with your feet.

Demo Dick
"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban PERMANENTLY as soon as I take office...I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."-Barack Obama
"When in doubt, whip it out."-Nuge
User avatar
DemoDick
They Like to Fondle My Gun
 
Posts: 1910
Location: New York

Postby amazincc » June 8th, 2010, 8:10 pm

DemoDick wrote: Vote with your feet.

Demo Dick


And go where???

Totally unrelated to dogs and BSL, but... I had one of my city-issued garbage cans confiscated this morning.
While it was still full of garbage, mind you...
I then found a notice tacked on to my mail box, stating that I can *rent* an additional garbage can for the nominal fee of $9.00 per month. If I decide to buy my own additional garbage can I will be fined a minimum of $150.00. The City of Concord reserves the right to inspect peoples properties/backyards if one is suspected of owning (or openly flaunts) more than one garbage can.
I sh!t you not.

There is no place to go where you aren't confronted by insane and absurd laws of one kind or another.
User avatar
amazincc
Jessica & Mick
 
Posts: 9814
Location: Holding them both in my heart.

Postby DemoDick » June 8th, 2010, 8:29 pm

amazincc wrote:
DemoDick wrote: Vote with your feet.

Demo Dick


And go where???


You want a list?

MT, ID, AK, ND, SD, UT, WA, NH, VT, etc. I could go on.

Totally unrelated to dogs and BSL, but... I had one of my city-issued garbage cans confiscated this morning.
While it was still full of garbage, mind you...


Pursue criminal/civil action against your municipality for taking your property unlawfully. I'm not joking.

I then found a notice tacked on to my mail box, stating that I can *rent* an additional garbage can for the nominal fee of $9.00 per month. If I decide to buy my own additional garbage can I will be fined a minimum of $150.00. The City of Concord reserves the right to inspect peoples properties/backyards if one is suspected of owning (or openly flaunts) more than one garbage can.
I sh!t you not.


Ask them what the charge is if you dispose of your own garbage. When they ask how you what "dispose" means, answer "you just worry about what's in the can." And tell them that you consider anyone trespassing on your property to be a threat to your safety, regardless of WHY they are there of who pays them. And back that crap up.

There is no place to go where you aren't confronted by insane and absurd laws of one kind or another.


See my post above with state abbreviations.

Demo Dick
"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban PERMANENTLY as soon as I take office...I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."-Barack Obama
"When in doubt, whip it out."-Nuge
User avatar
DemoDick
They Like to Fondle My Gun
 
Posts: 1910
Location: New York

Postby HappyChick » June 8th, 2010, 8:37 pm

DemoDick wrote:
HappyChick wrote:I believe the writer of this blog is in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, not Illinois. The first incident she spoke of is in Elgin, Illinois, near Chicago. The rest of the story is about Missouri and the statutes are MO statutes.


If this is true, then the writer is an even bigger moron than I first suspected.

Please explain. Maybe this should be it's own thread.....

My take on the Elgin story is that BSL was repealed now this incident is fueling the fire to reinstate BSL there. So how do you hold an owner responsible when she claims the dogs had been stolen? That is probably a BS story, but I still want to know how they hold her responsible. I can tell you what I think, I think those dogs should not have been left outside alone while she was gone from the home. I don't care if they were in cages. If she could afford to build cages outside for them, I'll bet she could afford to have nice crates in the house. Also why would you have your dogs caged outside in an area where they would be targeted for theft??? Don't many of us here know that our dogs would be stolen in a heartbeat if we left them outside and we left the premises? This owner is ignorant and her dogs paid for her ignorance. She will probably pay her fines then go out and get more dogs.


In this case, all of the details are irrelevant. You either believe in freedom or you don't. If you do, you consider each case in context. If you don't, you support BSL.

Yes, I agree. I believe in freedom, but I also believe to social responsibility.

Demo if you want to see a perfect example of how f'ed up Illinois really is, check into the S 510 food bill. That dumbass Dick Durbin has introduced this so Monsanto can have a monopoly on food and we can be arrested for growing a vegetable garden. Every day I become more and more disgusted with our so called leaders. :mad2:


I can see that Illinois (and disturbingly, the rest of the U.S.) is completely fucked, from a Constitutional standpoint, by simply observing that the current POTUS rose up through the ranks of Chicago politics to become the leader of the free world. Vote with your feet.

Haha! We were just talking today about moving to Canada. That is the only way I can see to vote with my feet, leaving the country. BO may have risen through the ranks in Chitown, but he convinced enough people that he was going to change things for the better to put him in his present position.

Demo Dick
Angie & crew

http://www.epitome-dog-rescue.org

My beloved Vincenzo 07/22/05 - 11/16/09 forever in my heart. Cancer sucks.
HappyChick
Loyally Bully
 
Posts: 701

Postby HappyChick » June 8th, 2010, 8:41 pm

DemoDick wrote:
amazincc wrote:
And go where???


You want a list?

MT, ID, AK, ND, SD, UT, WA, NH, VT, etc. I could go on.

Last time I checked these were still part of the U.S.


There is no place to go where you aren't confronted by insane and absurd laws of one kind or another.


See my post above with state abbreviations.

Really? I stand by Christine's statement.

Demo Dick
Angie & crew

http://www.epitome-dog-rescue.org

My beloved Vincenzo 07/22/05 - 11/16/09 forever in my heart. Cancer sucks.
HappyChick
Loyally Bully
 
Posts: 701

Postby amazincc » June 8th, 2010, 8:57 pm

Well, damn... I picked Concord, because it sounded like a nice little laid-back town... lol

I'm allowed the one garbage can they left me with, and garbage pick-up is included in the "City Of Concord - Collections" fee I pay every month. If I have too much garbage to fit into one can the city will charge me an additional fee for every clear plastic bag (has to be clear, and HAS to be tied w/a knot) that I put next to my garbage can. I can also request to have a city inspector come to my residence to discuss recycling strategies, which is a "free service" because I pay city taxes... blah... blah... blah...
I swear, I thought this was a joke until my neighbors started griping about the same thing happening to them...
I do recycle, and I really don't NEED a second garbage can, but WTF??? Some city council asshat definitely had too much free time on his/her hands... and you can find them anywhere, in any city, at any given time.

This country really is going down the sh!tter if they can fine, arrest, and/or incarcerate you for "harboring an illegal trash can". So sad it's almost funny...
User avatar
amazincc
Jessica & Mick
 
Posts: 9814
Location: Holding them both in my heart.

Postby DemoDick » June 8th, 2010, 9:05 pm

If the writer is from Missouri and tries to take an incident in Illinois and argue precedent without a higher court ruling, then they have no idea how precedent actually works. Hence, they are a moron.

Yes, I agree. I believe in freedom, but I also believe to social responsibility.


No. The ideas of freedom and social responsibility are polar opposites. Freedom, or more properly "liberty", is the idea that the individual should be able to pursue whatever course of action he decides is right and proper for him, as long as his actions do not infringe on other people's ability to exercise their own freedoms and liberties, even if his actions are self-destructive.

"Social responsibility" is the idea that above and beyond freedom and liberty, the individual holds some metaphysical obligation to uphold the general welfare of the public at large. This is nonsense. The only social responsibility I hold is to myself and any children I create, as that is by purely voluntary action. My "social responsibility" is to myself and my children. I hold no obligation to feed my neighbor. Extend this: my dogs are my responsibility and if they bite my neighbor without provocation then their actions are my responsibility. But no one should have the authority to tell me what kind of dog I should be legally able to own based on arbitrary criteria.

Haha! We were just talking today about moving to Canada. That is the only way I can see to vote with my feet, leaving the country. BO may have risen through the ranks in Chitown, but he convinced enough people that he was going to change things for the better to put him in his present position.


The U.S. is as good as it's going to get in terms of government respecting individual rights. If you vote with your feet, at least move them into a free state (I listed a few).
"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban PERMANENTLY as soon as I take office...I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."-Barack Obama
"When in doubt, whip it out."-Nuge
User avatar
DemoDick
They Like to Fondle My Gun
 
Posts: 1910
Location: New York

Postby HappyChick » June 8th, 2010, 9:23 pm

DemoDick wrote:
Yes, I agree. I believe in freedom, but I also believe to social responsibility.


No. The ideas of freedom and social responsibility are polar opposites. Freedom, or more properly "liberty", is the idea that the individual should be able to pursue whatever course of action he decides is right and proper for him, as long as his actions do not infringe on other people's ability to exercise their own freedoms and liberties, even if his actions are self-destructive.

"Social responsibility" is the idea that above and beyond freedom and liberty, the individual holds some metaphysical obligation to uphold the general welfare of the public at large. This is nonsense. The only social responsibility I hold is to myself and any children I create, as that is by purely voluntary action. My "social responsibility" is to myself and my children. I hold no obligation to feed my neighbor. Extend this: my dogs are my responsibility and if they bite my neighbor without provocation then their actions are my responsibility. But no one should have the authority to tell me what kind of dog I should be legally able to own based on arbitrary criteria.

Are freedom and social responsibility polar opposites or just different subjects? I can believe in both comfortably. You even think social responsibility is "above and beyond" freedom. I didn't say to what degree I believe in it personally. I don't conform to society's definition of ANYTHING. I decide my own definition and it is realistic to what I think is just.

Haha! We were just talking today about moving to Canada. That is the only way I can see to vote with my feet, leaving the country. BO may have risen through the ranks in Chitown, but he convinced enough people that he was going to change things for the better to put him in his present position.


The U.S. is as good as it's going to get in terms of government respecting individual rights. If you vote with your feet, at least move them into a free state (I listed a few).


Ah, but those states are still part of the U.S. which still has a bunch a greedy mother smurfers in charge of things. Don't get me started on the BP oil situation. I want to know WHEN our government is going to stop bending over for big business. They are all whores for the dollar.
Angie & crew

http://www.epitome-dog-rescue.org

My beloved Vincenzo 07/22/05 - 11/16/09 forever in my heart. Cancer sucks.
HappyChick
Loyally Bully
 
Posts: 701

Postby amazincc » June 8th, 2010, 9:31 pm

DemoDick wrote:
No. The ideas of freedom and social responsibility are polar opposites.


I don't "get that"... sorry.
I want the freedom to choose what breed of dog I want to be owned by, but I also feel that I have a social responsebility to keep said dogs from harming society at large... how can you NOT reconcile the two???
It's BECAUSE people have this freedom (to own whatever breed they want), and then DON'T act responsibly that enables those law makers and their groupies to impose BSL on the rest of us in the first place.
User avatar
amazincc
Jessica & Mick
 
Posts: 9814
Location: Holding them both in my heart.

Postby DemoDick » June 8th, 2010, 10:27 pm

amazincc wrote:
DemoDick wrote:
No. The ideas of freedom and social responsibility are polar opposites.


I don't "get that"... sorry.


Yes, you do. Your own statements on this board indicate that you understand this. Extend both ideas to their terminal ends and you will understand what I am getting at.

I want the freedom to choose what breed of dog I want to be owned by, but I also feel that I have a social responsebility to keep said dogs from harming society at large... how can you NOT reconcile the two??


Simple. Are your dogs a threat to "society at large" by virtue of their phenotype or not?"
"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban PERMANENTLY as soon as I take office...I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."-Barack Obama
"When in doubt, whip it out."-Nuge
User avatar
DemoDick
They Like to Fondle My Gun
 
Posts: 1910
Location: New York

Postby amazincc » June 8th, 2010, 11:35 pm

DemoDick wrote:
Simple. Are your dogs a threat to "society at large" by virtue of their phenotype or not?"


I actually had to look that up, so I'm sharing the definition for the other unenlightened members like myself... lol

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: phenotype
All the observable characteristics of an organism, such as shape, size, colour, and behaviour, that result from the interaction of its genotype (total genetic makeup) with the environment. The phenotype may change throughout the life of an individual because of environmental changes and the changes associated with aging. Different environments can influence the development of inherited traits (e.g., size is affected by available food supply) and can alter expression by similar genotypes (e.g., twins brought up in dissimilar families may mature differently). Furthermore, not all inherited possibilities in the genotype are expressed in the phenotype, because some are the result of inactive, recessive, or inhibited genes.


If I understand this correctly, my answer to your question is "no"... but that's because I feel an obligation to be a responsible owner, and act accordingly.
I think certain "freedoms" or "rights" have certain responsibilities attached, because a persons freedom does not give one the right to endanger others.
You are free to own a gun (more or less... you know what I mean), for example - but if you go around shooting people in your neighborhood willy-nilly... well, then that becomes a problem, right?
Who should be accountable... you, or your gun?

:idea:

:doh: :doh: :doh:


Crap... I think I just totally answered my own question... :oops: :oops: :oops:

I hate having to think this late at night. LMAO
User avatar
amazincc
Jessica & Mick
 
Posts: 9814
Location: Holding them both in my heart.


Return to Pit Bull news and BSL

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot]

cron