Posts
'via Blog this'
Posted: 06/07/2011
CLEVELAND - Cleveland City Council has voted to amend part of the city's vicious dog ordinance Monday night, removing pit bulls from the vicious dog classification.
During the council's meeting, changes were made to break all threatening dogs into two categories--Level I (Dangerous) and Level II (Vicious).
The new classifications are based on evidence of the behaviors of the dog, not the breed.
Here is the breakdown of the two classifications:
Level I Threat Dog--Dangerous:
- Without provocation has chased or approached a person in a menacing manner or apparent attitude of attack
- Attempted to bite or endanger any person while off the premises of its owner
- Any dog that on three separate occasions within a 12-month period has been impounded by the city animal control officer for being unrestrained or uncontrolled off its owner's property
- Attempted to bite or endanger any person while off the premises of its owner
- Any dog that on three separate occasions within a 12-month period has been impounded by the city animal control officer for being unrestrained or uncontrolled off its owner's property
Level II Threat Dog - Vicious
- Any dog that without provocation has caused serious injury (puncture wounds that require immediate medical assistance) or death to any person or domestic animal
- A Level II classification does not include dogs that seriously injure or kill a person or dog committing or attempting to commit a criminal trespass or criminal offense on the property of the owner
- A Level II classification does not include dogs that seriously injure or kill a person or dog committing or attempting to commit a criminal trespass or criminal offense on the property of the owner
Cleveland City Council's Public Safety Committee heard more than two hours of testimony from the city's chief animal control officer and various animal rescue and welfare organizations, including Sharon Harvey, executive director of the Cleveland Animal Protective League.
"The people of the Cleveland Animal Protective League applaud councilman Matt Zone and Cleveland City Council's Public Safety Committee for unanimously voting to move on step closer to enacting a breed-neutral dangerous/vicious dog ordinance," Harvey said.
Smooth move, Ex-Lax. Pat yourselves on the back.
I found an excellent response here:
The "All in the Owner" fallacy
I was originally going to put this in the comments as a response, but I am so sick of hearing this garbage that I thought I would address it in a post instead. Someone answered a story posted in the comments about a pit bull suddenly, and without provocation, attacking a child it had been raised with in her bed because it was aroused by the squeak of a stuffed toy by saying that "all breeds do this and it is only a matter of how you raise them".
What a load of garbage. You could tie my loving retriever cross under a porch for 7 years and beat her with a board 3 times a day, and I could NEVER make her harm a child. She came out of a scenario not much different than that before she was rescued, yet she doesn't have an ounce of aggression toward anyone or anything, no matter how many unfamiliar squeaks she is peppered with. This nonsense is an affront to every wonderful dog that was ever neglected and abused and then rescued and loved and TRUSTED. Most normal dogs would NEVERintentionally harm the people they live with. A dog snapping at someone to convey a message is a far cry from a pit bull latching on to an arm and beginning the shake and hold, with the full intention of killing the victim. Normal dogs DO NOT attempt to kill their social partners, no matterHOW they are raised.
If irresponsible pet ownership is "where the problem lies" then we should see serious attacks and maulings in numbers that EXACTLY reflect the breed numbers in a given area. Irresponsible ownership is not breed specific so if a given area has 70% sporting breeds (which is typical), then sporting breeds should be responsible for 70% of the severe and fatal attacks. This is NOT the case, anywhere. Serious attacks are never proportional to breed numbers, they are always biased toward fighting breeds.
In Calgary, by Bill Bruce's own admission and documentation, pit bulls lead the serious bite count with 13% of the city's serious bites attributable to pit bulls, yet pit bulls account for less than 1% of the city's dogs. In fact, pit bulls are responsible for nearly as many serious bites (13%) as theENTIRE sporting breeding category (15%), which includes all of the most popular breeds (Labs, Goldens, Poodles, Spaniels, etc) and houses 70% of Calgary's dogs. Why aren't these breeds attacking in the face of irresponsible ownership?
What a crock. It IS the breed. Sometimes the owner contributes, and let's face it, human garbage likes to own a pit bull, but it is the breed that is the problem. When you breed dogs to override every social instinct and attempt to fatally injure social partners you get dogs that are genetically dangerous. It isn't rocket science. And Calgary, at the mercy of Bruce and his influx of pit bulls, will learn that lesson in the coming years.
What a load of garbage. You could tie my loving retriever cross under a porch for 7 years and beat her with a board 3 times a day, and I could NEVER make her harm a child. She came out of a scenario not much different than that before she was rescued, yet she doesn't have an ounce of aggression toward anyone or anything, no matter how many unfamiliar squeaks she is peppered with. This nonsense is an affront to every wonderful dog that was ever neglected and abused and then rescued and loved and TRUSTED. Most normal dogs would NEVERintentionally harm the people they live with. A dog snapping at someone to convey a message is a far cry from a pit bull latching on to an arm and beginning the shake and hold, with the full intention of killing the victim. Normal dogs DO NOT attempt to kill their social partners, no matterHOW they are raised.
If irresponsible pet ownership is "where the problem lies" then we should see serious attacks and maulings in numbers that EXACTLY reflect the breed numbers in a given area. Irresponsible ownership is not breed specific so if a given area has 70% sporting breeds (which is typical), then sporting breeds should be responsible for 70% of the severe and fatal attacks. This is NOT the case, anywhere. Serious attacks are never proportional to breed numbers, they are always biased toward fighting breeds.
In Calgary, by Bill Bruce's own admission and documentation, pit bulls lead the serious bite count with 13% of the city's serious bites attributable to pit bulls, yet pit bulls account for less than 1% of the city's dogs. In fact, pit bulls are responsible for nearly as many serious bites (13%) as theENTIRE sporting breeding category (15%), which includes all of the most popular breeds (Labs, Goldens, Poodles, Spaniels, etc) and houses 70% of Calgary's dogs. Why aren't these breeds attacking in the face of irresponsible ownership?
What a crock. It IS the breed. Sometimes the owner contributes, and let's face it, human garbage likes to own a pit bull, but it is the breed that is the problem. When you breed dogs to override every social instinct and attempt to fatally injure social partners you get dogs that are genetically dangerous. It isn't rocket science. And Calgary, at the mercy of Bruce and his influx of pit bulls, will learn that lesson in the coming years.
BINGO!!!!
Pits dominate in the worlds of dog fighting, meth lab guarding and canine weight pulling for a reason.
They are dangerous idiots. If I owned a pit bull and read just one story like this, it would send chills down my spine. They insist that all dogs do this. How in the world could so many people own dogs if they all felt it might turn on them at the slightest squeak? Only pit nutters, that's who.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Pit-bulls-reputation-takes-new-hit-1370739.php#page-1
Yet so many trainers, specialists, medical professionals, animal control officers and so on will dispute these myths. yes they can always find those that will spread their attempts at misinformation but we can find as many that speak the truth.
Mr. Bruce, I commend you on speaking out and speaking the truth. It is interesting that Harvey Levin, the attorney for peoples court for 25 years basically says the same thing as you in this article. Yet there are so few who do speak out and that is something we must change in order to address this problem and arrive at proper solutions.
To achieve the same success in Winnipeg that was seen in Calgary using its 'breed ban' approach, Winnipeg would have to ban 58% of its dog population.
The victims who spoke out against Bill 132 said:
"Please, let's not look at banning specific breeds of dogs. Let's look at banning the irresponsible, dangerous owners who either train their dogs to attack or don't train them in good behavior. Put them in jail. Fine them as you would a drunk driver. Make our society aware that if their dog attacks, there will be serious consequences, not months and years of lawyers battling in the legal system. That's what happened to us and that's just not right."
- Donna Trempe, whose daughter Courtney was killed by a Bull Mastiff in 1998
"My mother stopped counting stitches at 250. That was before the top layer of my skin was reattached. One third of my scalp had to be reattached to my skull. An opiate-class narcotic was prescribed for the pain. I take exception that this bite would have been quantitatively less painful than one from a dog under section 1. The pain was very, very real, and the trauma was real."
- Krys Pritchard who was attacked by the family dog (not a "pit bull")
The bottom line: Calgary enacted dangerous dog legislation in response to an escalating bite problem. The results were incredible. Bites have dropped by 70% and the city's animal control program pays for itself. Police work with animal control in dangerous situations like the one mentioned by Julian Fantino last week; the Calgary approach effectively manages the problems Fantino outlined. This is the model that Ontario should be looking at. This was the advice of the experts.
Douglas - please don't thank Bill Bruce for anything, he is Calgary's Animal Control Director and he LOVES pit bulls. He is responsible for the overpopulation of pits we have now - supports and imports them at every turn.
Anonymous 2:58 - the Calgary model worked for a while because any tightening of AC legislation will produce a decrease in normal, non-serious bites. Now, though, we have a preponderance of pit bulls and a preponderance of pit bull attacks and injuries - Bill himself admitted that pit bull attacks constitute 13% of all serious bites in Calgary. Please explain how statistics that show that a breed that constitutes 1% of the dog population is responsible for 13% of serious dog bites can be called successful?
Yes it is the same anywhere they reduce restrictions on Pits. The problems worsen usually quickly and out of proportion to the animal populations.
For example: Linda Halford, animal control supervisor at the Topeka Police Department. June 3 2011. "Since the change in the ordinance took away the insurance requirement, all we do is run pit bull calls," Halford said. "It's wham, wham, wham, especially here in the last six months."
Find out more at:
http://cjonline.com/stories/060305/loc_pitbulls.shtml
I would never thank any AC dept. for releasing these dangerous animals back into the public. I would however ask everyone to keep an eye on these released animals ad make sure the shelter, ac or rescue that puts them back into our communities are sued and held civilly and/or criminally responsible for the actions of the animals, and this includes Bill Bruce. Releasing these animals back into society is negligent at best and criminal in many cases.
However I do want to thank the author of this story and the site for posting it here. There are to few of us actively working to help prevent these attacks and save lives. While the majority does agree with us they are not very vocal most times. However we have developed an new national site and we hope it will cover all the US and Canada, where we can work together, help each other, and educate everyone on the dangers and the proper solutions to the issues surrounding Pit Bulls and Dangerous Dogs. I would love for you to join us there. pitbulldangers.com