ANTI-BSL Letters

Discuss Breed Specific Legislation and local county laws on pit bull ownership.
Image1

ANTI-BSL Letters

Postby Image1 » Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:32 pm

Hopefully a mod will sticky this post.

This topic is for posting ANTI-BSL letters for other to also use and or change to fit what they need. As some don't have the time to sit down and right out 2 or 3 pages for a letter we should all help them out as well.

Post your letters here for any type of anti-BSL.


PLEASE ONLY POST LETTERS, do not post saying wow that letter was great. We want this to stay right to the point.

Image1

Postby Image1 » Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:33 pm

From: Jeret Burnett
2020 Manzanita Way
WEST SACRAMENTO, CA. 95691
President - Thera-Pits: Providing Luv-A-Bull Service
www.THERA-PITS.com

Subject: BILL 861

I am once again sending in my displeasement with Mayor Garvin Newsom of San Fransisco who wishes to change the current state laws to include that individual citys with in California can allow certain laws to be enacted to restricted a certain breed of dog as long as the law does not out right say they are banning the breed. Breed discrimination not only affects the few that have created the problem but the many responsible APBT owners that have not. The correct or more appropriate action would be to enact laws that target the irresponsible ownership of any breed of dog and enforce those laws. It is understandable that there is some dogs with in the breed of the APBT that are just plain and out right mean. But this is with EVERY breed of dog. I also understand that public safety is a big issue as well. Banning and/or restricting the American Pit Bull Terrier will not stop all dog bits or attacks from happening, therefore where is the public safety at now.

Many think of the American Pitbull Terrier as vicious four-legged spawns of Satan, but for those that know American Pitbull Terriers for what they really are - they think of them not only as a pet but also a member of the family. The American Pitbull Terrier has proven itself time and time again as a top notch Search and Rescue dog, Therapy dog, Handicap Disability Assist dog, Drug and Bomb Sniffing dog and most importantly, a wonderful and gentle companion for the whole family, "The Nanny Dog". Who can forget the cute little dog with the black ring around his eye from "The Little Rascals", that dog was an American Pitbull Terrier.

I am voicing my frustration on behalf of the millions of RESPONSIBLE Pit Bull owners who are tired of seeing these stories. We understand that people get excited when they see the words "Pit Bull" and "attack" in the same sentence. It is frustrating to us responsible owners because we know the true nature of this wonderful breed and are saddened at the exploitation and abuse of these poor animals. I have shared my opinion with my many friends and family members (who all happen to LOVE my Pit Bull) in hopes that they too will see the shallowness of this meek attempt for political advantages.

I am a father to 3 boys (11, 7 and 3 years old), an owner of two wonderful 3 year old American Pitbull Terriers and also the Founder and current President of Thera-Pits, an organization dedicated to APBT Therapy and Service dogs. I do not live with in the limits of your city, but this issue has brought great concern to many responsible dog owners across the United States.

Myself and others from Thera-Pits as well as many others for more canine organizations will be at the hearing on Wednesday the 29 2005 at the State Capital. Myself and all those involved with Thera-Pits apposes BILL 861 and will no longer vote for any Politician whom trys to take out beloved pet away from us.

Thank you for your time.
Jeret Burnett
President - Thera-Pits

User avatar
Madeleinemom
Adolescent Bully
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 5:51 pm
Location: EU or something like that

Postby Madeleinemom » Wed Jun 29, 2005 11:16 am

Here is what I faxed to California Assembly members yesterday:

"Dear :

The introduction of SB 861 has prompted me for the very first time in my life (now nearly 50 years of it) to contact my state’s legislature to express my sincere and absolute opposition to a State Bill.

Surely, you have and will receive many faxes, e-mails and calls from others that can voice their opinion more elaborately and who will buttress their arguments of opposition with relevant statistics and studies (of which there are many), however, I would like to keep it brief – and simple:

NO ON SB 861


Nationwide, other jurisdictions have attempted to regulate irresponsible breeding and blatantly irresponsible dog owners and have found it to be ineffective.

Quite simply, all encompassing legislation like this opens a gateway for rampant abuse of responsible owners, while the irresponsible and, worse, criminal element of society will continue to travel under the radar screen, producing unstable dogs and thus creating tools for tragedy.

Law, in its essence, is based on common sense, and, with all due respect, an all encompassing bill like this is not based on the premise of common sense.

Your attention to and consideration of my correspondence is greatly solicited and appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Marion .... "

Image1

Postby Image1 » Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:10 pm

Dear Appropriations Committee Member:

I am disappointed that SB 861, introduced by Jackie Speier, made it passed the Assembly Committee on Local Government.

This bill originally started out as a drug prescription bill. It is now a breed legislation bill. It arose in response to the unfortunate and tragic attack on young Faibish in San Francisco. However, the bill will affect responsible dog owners and will, for the first time in over a decade, allow breed specific legislation to afflict California.

The bill currently is split into amending Section 31863 of the Food and Agriculture Code. It also adds a section to California's Health and Safety Code. There are several problems with this bill that Speier's fails to addresses and, in fact, glosses over.

1) Insurance

Speier believes that by separating the bills, she will avoid the causing thousands of dog owners to lose their homeowners liability insurance (insurance companies will not cover any breed legally classified as dangerous or vicious, and this applies equally to owners of show dogs, service dogs, therapy dogs, and search and rescue dogs). However, she has done no such thing. Section 31863 states that cities may implement programs to control "dangerous or vicious dogs" and removes the prohibition on breed specific legislation. Speier's Health and Safety Code goes on to say that cities may enact breed specific legislation pertaining to spaying and neutering. Therefore, it does NOT prohibit communities from labeling breeds as potentially dangerous or vicious. So, many communities will, in fact, create legislation with language such as, "In order to control potentially dangerous or vicious dogs, all dogs of X breed within the city limits must be spayed or neutered." With that language, people will lose their homeowners insurance. Disabled people will lose their service dogs.

2) The bill puts NO limits on what kind of spay and neuter laws a city can enact. Many cities would love to ban certain breeds such as American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Bull Terriers, Rottweilers, and Chow-Chows, to name a few. Communities are permitted, under this law, to create blanket spay/neuter provisions that will cause thousands of people who own show dogs from champion, health-tested lines to LOSE their show dogs. Those dogs will have to be spayed and neutered, and therefore not only will this be a "taking" of dog owners' properties, but it will mean that those show folks will no longer be able to show their dogs. The AKC and UKC do NOT allow sterilized animals to be shown. People will be forced to neuter their champion show dogs, and many of those champion dogs are working toward specialing (in the dog community, that’s a BIG thing).

In addition, mobility service dogs that need to remain intact until after they physically mature will have to be neutered too early under such laws. This will cause the animals hardship as they will not develop proper musculature and will either be unable to perform the work of pulling wheelchairs and carrying backpacks, or they will develop hip and joint problems after a few years of service and have to be retired early (in addition to costing their disabled handlers money in excess vet care). Finally, some breeds, such as Rottweilers, suffer a 60% increase in bone cancer risk if they are neutered prior to physical maturation. This bill will allow blanket spay and neutering. Not only will such a blanket policy cause all the above problems, it could very easily lead to the extinction of entire breeds within California.

3) Currently, there are license and per-household limits on the number of dogs a person can own. Backyard breeders already ignore these laws, which are poorly enforced. These same breeders will likely ignore mandatory spay and neuter laws, which will also likely be poorly enforced due to lack of resources. Responsible breeders who license their dogs, health test them, title them, and offer guarantees on the pups' health and temperament for 1-2 years after sale will be forced OUT. Hence, the only dogs available will be unhealth-tested dogs from irresponsible backyard breeders. No show dogs. No health tested dogs. No temperament-tested dogs. The breeds as we know and love them will be single-handedly destroyed by Speier's legislation. Furthermore, the legislation will NOT target the problem of irresponsible breeders and owners. Even IF such legislation is fairly and effectively enforced so that all dogs are spayed and neutered and can't slip under the radar (leading to extinction of those breeds in those communities), unethical backyard breeders looking to make their living off breeding dogs will simply turn to another breed and perpetuate the problem. Prince George County, Maryland already saw that happen after they outright banned Pit Bulls. They started getting a flood of Presa Canarios, a breed no one had heard of at that time and therefore wasn't on any restricted list.

Added into the California laws that cites may enact a "Mandatory spay and neutering" for "Dangerous and Vicious Dogs" is not the way to go. California State law currently states that no city can enact any law that is specific to individual breeds of dogs. There for the city of San Francisco can still enact a mandatory spay/neutering as long as it is for all breeds, which is what should be done and of course there are some exceptions to that rule (Show dog breeding, Service dogs, etc). The cost alone to regulate only Pit Bull spay and neutering will far outweigh the benefits of this so-called amendment. Not to mention that it is apparent that Senator Jackie Speier is not in this for the betterment of the San Franciscans, she is in it to find ways to eradicate the Pit Bulls from the city. If she were truly in it for the public safety she would not be at the state level. She would be enacting spay and neutering laws for all breeds within the San Francisco city.

Lets by chance say this bill does become law. Who are the one going to be that will follow this new law? Only the responsible Pit Bull owners will follow this law. The ones that already spay and neuter there dogs when the time is right. Those that don't follow the current laws are the ones creating all the problem dogs and will continue to do so, with or with out new laws. Which points us to another topic. Who is going to enforce this possible new law, if the current laws can not be enforced

A lot of things that address the real problem and don’t target a specific breed:
1. Reviewing statistics on Fatal Dog attacks its obvious spaying and neutering a dog greatly reduces the risk and it’s healthier for the pet. Let’s sell this concept to people! There is NO reason that pet quality pets should not be speutered. Let’s get an official flyer together that list out the reasons pets should be altered, both behavioral and medical and get it mailed to every citizen. Get it in the libraries, city offices, parks.
2. Get low cost/ no cost spay and neuter clinics going and encourage people to get it done. I’m sure local rescues will be willing to work with the city on programs such as these.
3. Add canine safety to the official school curriculum. Invite local rescues and shelters in monthly to talk about animals, safety and responsible ownership.
4. Create flyers for parents about being a responsible owner and canine safety. Include the fatal dog stats on children, intact pets, etc.
5. Offer free classes at the local libraries or shelters on responsible ownership and canine safety for adults.
6. When new parents leave the hospital, include a flyer on canine safety and children. Let them be educated from day one.
7. Do canine safety public service announcements.
All of these are critical to success REGARDLESS of breed!

Breed specific legislation is being voted down and repealed throughout the US both at city and state levels.


* Wyandotte, MI – Recently decided on a non breed specific dangerous dog law after reading educational material.
* Roseville, MI – Also decided against BSL last summer
* New Mexico (SB188) – Tabled, died in committee once members read the research.
* Illinois (SB1790) – Withdrawn once Senator Sandoval started receiving the emails and research data.
* Illinois HB1128 – Voted down in committee
* Oklahoma (SB247) – Voted down in committee
* Oklahoma (HB1282) – Withdrawn after being educated to the truth
* Detroit, MI – Repealed
* Eastpointe, MI – Repealed
* Belton, MO – Repealed
* Kansas City, MO – voted against
* Auburn, WA – voted against


There are no dogs that are inherently vicious. The Courts are ruling against BSL as it doesn’t allow us “Due Process”, dogs have been proven not to be inherently dangerous. Here are a few of the cases, there are more and some suits currently being heard.


* United States Supreme Court ruled in Nicchia v. NY that dogs are property and we have the right to “due process”.

* The Ohio Supreme Court just ruled their State level BSL law was unconstitutional! Now a bill has been introduced to remove the breed specific language in the State law.
* Alabama Supreme Court ruled pit bulls are not inherently dangerous
* Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled against BSL and repealed the city of Lynn’s law.
* Westbury, NY and Pontiac MI were forced to repeal their BSL laws by courts.


Please, please, please oppose this bill. I currently own 2 male 3 year old neutered American Pit Bull Terriers. I am also the father of 3 boys (11, 7 and 3). The only dogs my kids have been around with great time is American Pit Bull Terriers. They no nothing about what it is like to be around a dog that bits.

Stitch was our first Pit Bull. He is also the inspiration that cause my wife and I to start an organization called Thera-Pits. Thera-Pits is dedicated to the great American Pit Bull Terrier Therapy and Service Dogs.

Homer was our second dog. We obtained him as a result of our neighbors not taking proper care of him. We have over $500 that we've spent on him in the last month along to get him medically where he should be.

Both Homer and Stitch are being training to preform Therapy dog functions and will be visiting retirement homes and the UC Davis childrens cancer ward.

Finally, if my community decides to implement BSL and incorporate the "dangerous or vicious dog language" (as allowed), I will lose my homeowners' insurance and have to decide between my dogs or my home. My dogs are my family.

Jeret Burnett
President - Thera-Pits

Image1

Postby Image1 » Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:47 pm

Subject: Police Chief Perry Webster

I am sending in my displeasement because Police Chief Perry Webster wants to ban anyone in town from owning a pit bull or Rottweiler. Breed discrimination not only affects the few that have created the problem but the many responsible APBT owners that have not. The correct or more appropriate action would be to enact laws that target the irresponsible ownership of any breed of dog and enforce those laws. It is understandable that there is some dogs with in the breed that are just plain and out right mean. But this is with EVERY breed of dog. I also understand that public safety is a big issue as well. Banning and/or restricting the American Pit Bull Terrier and the Rottweiler will not stop all dog bits or attacks from happening, therefore where is the public safety at now.

Just a suggestion on a model law for the city. Obviously this is not wrote up in "Law" terms and will have to be defined a little more. But it shows you how to start.

1. Mandatory spay and neuter for all breeds with exceptions of a higher fee for NON-S/N dogs

1a. Fee for a spayed or neutered (S/N) dog is $10 per year for each dog.

1b. Fee for a NON-spayed or neutered dog is $50 per year for each dog. (Will have a special colored tag to easily identify it).

For each offense for not providing a NON-S/N license is as follows

1. $100 fee on top of the $50 NON-S/N Fee or $10 fee for S/N. $10 fee if they decide to S/N the dog at which Animal Control will perform the S/N service and bill the owner.
2. $250 fee on top of the $50 NON-S/N Fee or $10 fee for S/N. $10 fee if they decide to S/N the dog at which Animal Control will perform the S/N service and bill the owner.
3. $500 fee on top of the $10 fee for S/N. At this point the owner of the dog will have no choice but a MANDATORY S/N (Regardless of reason) at which they will be billed by the Animal Control for the S/N service.

2. Mandatory breeder permit for ALL breeds of dogs used for breeding.

2a. Fee of $250 for EACH dog used for breeding. Also a special color for easily identifying.

All ads placed for advertising the sale of puppies MUST contain the ID #'s for both the mother and father of the puppies or have a viable reason (Father dog lives out side city). The fees for offenses are also quite high. It is to target the irresponsible breeders as they are the one causing the problems. A responsible breeder will have no problem paying a little extra to continue breeding.

For each offense for not having a breeding permit as follows

1. $1000 fee on top of the $250 breeding dog permit or $1000 fee on top of the $10 fee for S/N license if they decide to S/N the dog used for breeding. At which Animal Control will perform the S/N service and bill the owner.

2. $2000 fee on top of the $250 breeding dog permit or $2000 fee on top of the $10 fee for S/N license if they decide to S/N the dog used for breeding. At which Animal Control will perform the S/N service and bill the owner. ALL puppies are taken by Animal Control and S/N (At which the owner is billed for this service. Puppies stay with Animal Control for adoption.

3. $3000 fee. All dog used for breeding are taken by Animal Control as well as all puppies and ALL are S/N. The now S/N dogs that were used for breeding are returned to the owner and the puppies stay with Animal Control for adoption. The owners of the breeding dogs and the puppies will be billed by Animal Control for the S/N service.

Many think of the American Pitbull Terrier and Rottweilers as vicious four-legged spawns of Satan, but for those that know these dogs for what they really are - they think of them not only as a pet but also a member of the family. The American Pitbull Terrier and Rottweilers have proven themselves time and time again as a top notch Search and Rescue dog, Therapy dog, Handicap Disability Assist dog, Drug and Bomb Sniffing dog and most importantly, a wonderful and gentle companion for the whole family. Who can forget the cute little dog with the black ring around his eye from "The Little Rascals", that dog was an American Pitbull Terrier.

I am voicing my frustration on behalf of the millions of RESPONSIBLE Pit Bull owners who are tired of seeing these stories. We understand that people get excited when they see the words "Pit Bull or Rottweiler" and "attack" in the same sentence. It is frustrating to us responsible owners because we know the true nature of these wonderful breeds and are saddened at the exploitation and abuse of these poor animals. I have shared my opinion with my many friends and family members (who all happen to LOVE my Pit Bulls) in hopes that they too will see the shallowness of this meek attempt for political advantages.

I am a father to 3 boys (11, 7 and 3 years old), an owner of two wonderful 3 year old American Pitbull Terriers and also the Founder and current President of Thera-Pits, an organization dedicated to APBT Therapy and Service dogs. I do not live with in the limits of your city, but this issue has brought great concern to many responsible dog owners across the United States.

Thank you for your time.
Jeret Burnett
President - Thera-Pits

shelby

contact info

Postby shelby » Tue Jul 26, 2005 2:29 pm

Could you also post the contact info where these letters are sent so others can follow suit?

Thanks a million!

Image1

Postby Image1 » Tue Jul 26, 2005 2:36 pm

Senators: [url=http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/sen-addresses.html]Senators Address's, Phone #, Fax. Etc.]
Senator.Aanestad@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Ackerman@sen.ca.gov
Senator.AlarcC3n@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Alquist@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Ashburn@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Battin@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Bowen@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Campbell@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Cedillo@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Chesbro@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Cox@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Denham@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Ducheny@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Dunn@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Dutton@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Escutia@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Figueroa@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Florez@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Hollingsworth@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Kehoe@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Kuehl@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Lowenthal@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Machado@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Maldonado@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Margett@sen.ca.gov
Senator.McClintock@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Migden@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Morrow@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Murray@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Ortiz@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Perata@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Poochigian@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Romero@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Runner@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Scott@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Simitian@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Soto@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Speier@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Torlakson@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Vincent@sen.ca.gov


Assembley Member: [url=http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/asm-addresses.html]Assembly Members Address's, Phone #, Fax. Etc.]
Assemblymember.Baca@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Bass@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.benoit@assembly.ca.gov
assemblymember.berg@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.bermudez@assembly.ca.gov
assemblymember.blakeslee@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Bogh@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.ron.calderon@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Canciamilla@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Chan@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Chavez@assembly.ca.gov
assemblymember.chu@asm.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Cogdill@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Cohn@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Daucher@assembly.ca.gov
assemblymember.devore@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.dymally@assembly.ca.gov
assemblymember.emmerson@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Frommer@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblywoman.garcia@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Goldberg@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.hancock@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Harman@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.haynes@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Jerome.Horton@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Shirley.Horton@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Houston@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.jones@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Karnette@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.keene@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Koretz@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.lamalfa@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Lasuer@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.laird@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.leno@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Leslie@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.levine@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblywoman.lieber@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Liu@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.maze@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.mccarthy@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.montanez@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Mountjoy@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.mullin@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.nakanishi@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.McLeod@assembly.ca.gov
assemblymember.niello@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.nunez@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Oropeza@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Parra@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Pavley@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.plescia@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Richman@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.ridley-thomas@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblywoman.Runner@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Ruskin@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Salinas@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.spitzer@assembly.ca.gov
assemblymember.strickland@assembly.ca.gov
assemblymember.tran@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Vargas@assembly.ca.gov
assemblymember.villines@assembly.ca.gov
assemblymember.walters@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.wolk@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Wyland@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.yee@assembly.ca.gov[/url]

shelby

thanks

Postby shelby » Tue Jul 26, 2005 3:30 pm

wow! ask and you shall receive! thank you!

Image1

Postby Image1 » Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:47 pm

Subject: BILL 861

I am a father to 3 boys (11, 7 and 3 years old), an owner of two
wonderful 3 year old American Pitbull Terriers and also the Founder
and President of Thera-Pits, an organization dedicated to APBT Therapy
and Service dogs. This issue has brought great concern to many
responsible dog owners across the United States.

Many think of the American Pitbull Terrier as vicious four-legged
spawns of Satan, but for those that know American Pitbull Terriers for
what they really are - they think of them not only as a pet but also a
member of the family. The American Pitbull Terrier has proven itself
time and time again as a top notch Search and Rescue dog, Therapy dog,
Handicap Disability Assist dog, Drug and Bomb Sniffing dog and most
importantly, a wonderful and gentle companion for the whole family,
"The Nanny Dog". Who can forget the cute little dog with the black
ring around his eye from "The Little Rascals", that dog was an
American Pitbull Terrier.

I am writing to you to express my organization's disapproval of SB
861, the bill introduced by Senator Jackie Speier that would amend
California's progressive and liberal state law prohibiting breed
discrimination but allowing municipalities wide latitude in dealing
with dangerous dogs.

Senator Jackie Speier's SB 861 would change California's current law
dealing with dogs to add in that individual cities could enact a
MANDATORY spay and neutering law for a particular breed. Senator
Speier and Mayor Newsom of San Francisco have made it clear that they
want Pit Bull's out of the city of San Francisco. Senator Speier and
Mayor Newsom do not have the public safety or concern at the top of
there list by dealing with dangerous and vicious dog this way. They
also are not interested in the BILL OF RIGHTS that give California and
the United States the freedoms that makes this state and country the
best in the world.

THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Amendment IV.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V.
No person shall be………….deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use
without just compensation.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment X.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.

Amendment XIV.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any citizen of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Each one of the above cited Constitutional Rights will be violated if
SB861 passes. Animals are among human being's most ancient and
traditional property. When government chooses to remove property
rights in animals, nothing else that we the people hold as property is
safe from the clutches of a government out of control.

Every Senator, Assembly Member or Government elected Official took an
Oath of Office to serve the people and to protect the Constitution of
the United States of America, and the California State Constitution.
Every California State elected officials that supports SB861 have
wantonly violated their Oath of Office.

Animals are among the most ancient and traditional property of we
human beings. Property rights are at the focus of our individual
rights as granted in the Constitution of the United States of America,
and of the Constitution of the State of California. SB 861 would
allow for the local jurisdictions to mandate spay/neuter of our
property, namely dogs, by specific breed. This Bill 861 takes away our
ownership, and use rights in our dogs/cats ovaries, and testicles,
part and parcel of our animals. SB 861 removes our due process
rights. SB 861 removes our equal protection rights as it will only
target some dog/cat owners, but does not target all dog/cat owners.
This Bill 861 was designed to be divisive, and to separately address
some but not all of the citizenry of California, this goes directly to
equal treatment, equal protection. This Bill 861 would, if passed,
allow taking of property, and use rights without compensation.

Sincerely yours,
Jeret Burnett
President - Thera-Pits

EagleEye

Postby EagleEye » Wed Aug 24, 2005 7:02 pm

Here's what I'm mailng to Gov. Schwarzenegger tomorrow RE SB 861. I've abbreviated a couple of words/phrases to spare my wrists. I'm not a CA resident or lawyer, so this is the best I can do.

Dear Gov. Schwarzenegger,

I was deeply disappointed to learn that SB 861, sponsored by State Sen. Jackie Speier, passed in the General Assembly on Aug. 22, 2005. Should SB 861 be passed by the State Senate, I request that you please veto this bill.

As a responsible owner of an APBT, I strongly object to SB 861 because of the negative influence it will have on responsible APBT owners in California and across the U.S. This bill is a gateway for local and state governments to enact breed-specific bans affecting numerous innocent dogs and their loving families. I ask you, sir, would you support legislation that would tear a canine family member away from its human family simply because of the way the dog looks? If not, then please veto SB 861. If this bill passes, breed-specific bans on APBTs and other breeds are sure to follow. My APBT is a CGC and registered with TDI. He is loving, stable, well-trained, and much admired for his friendliness and good behavior by my neighbors. My dog is NOT an exception to the rule - this is the norm for any well-bred and responsibly-owned APBT. He does not deserve to be banned simply because of his breed, nor does any other dog.

I also object to SB 861 because it blatantly descriminates against APBTs and their owners. This bill would result in the unfair application of law by local governments against APBTs, regardless of the dogs' behavior or temperament, or the level of care and responsibility excercised by their owners. There are MUCH more effective (and fairer) ways to promote responsible dog ownership. Local governments can work with existing humane societies to educate their communities on owner responsibility, including the benefits of spaying/neutering and ways to prevent dog bites. Such programs would benefit all members of the community, canine and human.

Finally, I object to SB 861 because it interferes with the property rights of Californians, granted to them as American citizens under the U.S. Constitution. While most loving dog owners see their APBTs as family members, and not just as possessions, they are the property of the owners. Forcible spaying and neutering of APBTs by local government is an unwarranted interference with the owners' rights to their property. Please, sir, defend the property rights of all law-abiding Californians, regardless of the breed of dogs they own.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely,

Susan...

pitbull_mama

My request for people to email the Govenor

Postby pitbull_mama » Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:14 am

This is the email I sent to my friends and family requesting them to email the govenor. I sent a similar version to him directly.

I saw on the news today that the new breed specific legislation only needs the governor's signature to pass. In addressing the recent cases of dog attacks, the State Senate missed the big picture: IRRESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERSHIP CAUSES DOG ATTACKS. DOG ATTACKS ARE NOT BREED SPECIFIC.

Check out these statistics (at least 67% are directly related to irresponsible ownership):
25% of all fatal attacks were inflicted by chained dogs
25% resulted from dogs loose in their yard
23% occurred inside the home
17% resulted from attacks by dogs roaming off their property
10% involved leashed dogs or miscellaneous circumstances

I am extremely concerned that passing this piece of breed-specific legislation will lead to additional breed-specific legislation in the future. CALIFORNIA SHOULD NOT ALLOW ANY TYPE OF DISCRIMINATION, INCLUDING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST DOGS AND DOG OWNERS.

This legislation focuses on spaying and neutering specific breeds of dogs. Instead, we need legislation that focuses on catching and prosecuting irresponsible dog owners. I agree that spaying and neutering is essential to controlling our booming dog population, but instead of spending money enforcing mandatory spaying and neutering for specific breeds, the state should invest money into low-cost, no-cost, and incentive programs so people can voluntarily spay or neuter any dog regardless of their financial ability.

Please contact the governor and ask him to oppose SB 861 Breed Specific Legislation. TELL HIM TO OPPOSE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST DOGS AND DOG OWNERS! http://www.govmail.ca.gov/


Also, check out www.sorryagain.com when you get a chance.

Please forward this to your friends and family. Get this message out before Arnold signs this bill!

slechner

Postby slechner » Tue May 16, 2006 11:14 am

here's a generic letter i wrote:

To Whom It May Concern:



This letter is in response to the pending legislation in your jurisdiction as to regulating vicious/potentially dangerous dogs via breed-specific legislation.



I am concerned that, by targeting a specific breed, you are not providing an actual solution to the problem of vicious/dangerous dogs. Instead of targeting a breed of dog, I would request that you modify your legislation to target the owner. Rather than create new legislation, it is possible to combat the problem by enforcing existing legislation.



Very rarely does a dog attack involve an altered and leashed dog. Why not simply enforce the leash laws? Instead of incurring the administrative cost of new legislation, use the funding for subsidizing low-cost spay/neuter programs. Many cities provide low-cost (or free) education programs for new dog owners.



Many incidents involve chained and/or intact dogs. You can also target unethical breeders that are unable to control their dogs. Is the local kennel licensing ordinance up-to-date? Does it properly address the current proliferation of backyard breeders in our area?



Vicious/dangerous dogs that make headlines are usually repeat offenders. Is our Animal Control Department properly staffed and funded? If someone reports a loose dog or a dog that is a danger to the community, are they equipped to respond in a timely manner?



As you can see, many of these issues would benefit all dog owners and the community. There are several examples of existing dangerous dog legislation (not breed-specific) that can succussfully regulate irresponsible owners.



I implore you to reconsider your legislation. Enact legislation that would provide an actual benefit the community, rather than a perceived benefit.



Sincerely,

BabyGrl

Postby BabyGrl » Wed May 17, 2006 8:04 pm

Here is the letter I wrote to Dalton McGuinty and Michael Bryant after this BSL was passed:

I am writing to express my outrage and disgust at the legislation that was passed for banning pit bulls.

This is the most ill-thought out act I have ever heard of. I understand euthanizing the aggressive dogs that have actually attacked, but the answer here is NOT to ban the entire breed. And you're not only banning the breed of Pit Bulls, but also Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Bull Terriers, Bull Terriers, etc. These dogs haven't even been named as attackers anywhere yet they deserved to be banned!?!? What logic is behind THAT!? "Oh they have the word "bull" in their names, so they must be vicious"?? Let me tell you something, these dogs have the potential to be the sweetest, most loyal, smartest dogs. The reason that Pit Bulls (and every other "sub-breed" that you have banned - and I use the term sub-breed VERY losely, because they are a totally different dog) are aggressive is because they were TOUGHT to be aggressive. I hear all over the news about them being "fighting dogs", yes they will be fighting dogs if they are TOUGHT to be so. Just like any other breed of dog!! Are you going to ban every dog in the province now too!?!? I have inherited an English Bull Terrier, and I have not met a more placid, gentle, sweet, intelligent, obedient dog. If you teach a dog properly from the beginning, then there is no threat of aggression. You need to train them and take time with them. The owners of the pit bulls which have attacked, obviously have not done this, otherwise, these are very contained cases wherein the dogs may have a temperment problem(which, again had to have been caused by something other than then being pit bulls, as there are numerous pit bulls out there who are well trained,so therefore, this isn't genetic).

80 Golden Retrievers were ceased from a Montague Township home in September because they were not being properly looked after. The owner of these dogs was a breeder - someone you would figure knew who to look after animals, right? Unfortunately, this wasn't the case. These dogs were packed into 3 rooms in a house, with no food and feces-soaked carpets. 15 of these dogs had to be put down due to various medical conditions as well as agressive behaviour (biting, etc.). The reason these dogs had temperment problems is because they were not properly cared for and they basically had to fend for themselves. The dogs were so hungry they were litterally starting to eat each other (as well as the walls in the house). Are you going to ban Golden Retrievers too because ONE owner couldn't take care of her "pets" which led to aggressive behaviour in some??

What about children who are abused or tought aggressive behaviour and then grow up to pass this along to their children or who start fights?? Are you going to ban PEOPLE!?? No, you would deal with those SPECIFIC individuals and repremand them as seen fit. And the ones who are homeless, are you just going to kill because no one wants them(i.e. similar to the current dogs who are in shelters?)

There should be NO difference in pit bulls, or animals in general. Do either of you know anyone with these breeds of dogs?? Have you spent time with them? Have you ever even SEEN one of these dogs? The Ottawa Humane Society believes that banning is not the answer. These are people who deal with these dogs day in and day out and who know their behaviour and temperment. If they were aggressive animals, they would not be lobbying against this legislation or even allowing these dogs to be adopted as pets. Did anyone ever think about enforcing temperment tests for dogs or perhaps enforcing stricter laws and fines for biting nad aggressive behaviour? Or perhaps, to enforce a law that any owner must undergo training for their pet? No, you just went straight for a ban. There need to be stricter laws to PROTECT animals, the answer is NOT to simply abolish them.

What about the dogs who are abused and suffer?? No one seems to want to help them out. No one is jumping to enforce stricter bylaws on abuse to animals or even for certain people to OWN pets, which would prevent a lot of abuse and in turn, aggressive animals altogether. It took bylaw officers TWO YEARS to be able to get what they needed to search the house of the 80 retrievers which I mentioned above, which meant that these dogs, who had no one to protect them, were malnourished, developed diseases and developed tempermental problems. A lot of these dogs had never even seen daylight, some of which were 12 or 15 years old. Most, if not all, of the puppies were inbred, which meant they were the biggest target for personality defects and problems. Just because this ONE woman could not care for these animals, it does NOT mean that they are a bad breed of dog. Rather than allowing just anyone to have a dog or better yet to have a breeding license, enforce some sort of screening for such things. Rather than jumping into such a decision, maybe you should have taken some time to explore, research, and maybe even get to know some of these dogs personally, as well as their owners. . But we'll just ban the lot of them instead. Why should the well-behaved dogs and the owners who love them and take of them have to be punished for something a few agressive dogs, and potentionally, a few bad owners did ?? Enforcement should start with breeders and then be passed onto the owners - they are the ones who are more liable. You cannot generalize like this. They have a bad wrap because of dog fighting that was done YEARS ago, and again, it was something which was tought to them. So maybe you should have taken time to concentrate on the owners of these dogs and the reason why they are attacking. They are VERY intelligent dogs and they learn very quickly. This is the real weapon if placed into the wrong hands, which makes a dangerous owner a loaded gun.

ldavies

help

Postby ldavies » Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:42 pm

Just read your ideas about non-BSL and they are great. We have to do something soon. Three days a week I volunteer at a “humane society” in a pit fighting community and near a military base in so cal.. Last week they killed my favorite dog . He was there for 6 months. I went in almost everyday just to walk him and he was perfect. The biggest baby who just wanted his own family. Yes, he was a pit mix. I did serveral interactions with him and He was great with all people and kids. This shelter is now looking for any excuse to kill these dogs. .This morning I received the adoption report and THEY HAVE KILLED 3, yes 3 MORE PERFECTLY GOOD PITS. Nothing was wrong with any of these dogs. As a matter of fact, there are some other dogs (non-pits) there who do have issues and they are still there. I not saying I want them killed either, but this slaughter of pits has to stop. I have been volunteering there for over 2 years and things are getting out of control. This may be an on going theme on this site. .I don’t know. I was so up set about Sampson , so I started to search the internet looking for some help. And I need to vent. At times I feel as though I wont be able to continue to walk these dogs if this crap continues. HELP

User avatar
Second Wind
Matured Bully
Posts: 478
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:36 pm
Location: Greenville, NC
Contact:

Postby Second Wind » Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:47 am

This is a copy of the e-mail I sent to Mr. Vallone and the rest of the NY City Council:

Dear New York City Council,

I am writing in response to the recent proposal of a ban on pit bulls and other specific breeds of dogs in New York City. I am sure that this campaign is part of an attempt to protect the safety of your community, and that it is not your intention to discriminate against responsible dog owners.

However, I must make a few important points.

First of all, breed-specific legislation is an ineffective solution to the problem you are trying to address - the problem of dog attacks. Communities that have enacted similar bans have not shown any decrease in the number of dog attacks since doing so. There has always been one breed or another that is singled out as being vicious and is thus sought after by irresponsible dog owners who acquire them as status symbols or to frighten people and who do not properly train and control their animals. In the past, German Shepherds, Dobermans, and Rottweilers have all been demonized. Today, it's pit bulls. By banning the breed, you will discourage responsible owners from caring for these dogs; irresponsible owners will flout the law and continue to keep banned breeds. Those who do give up their pit bulls will simply find another breed to focus on. Breed-specific legislation doesn't solve the problem; it only displaces it.

Second, several statements made about this issue by councilman Vallone are based on misinformation. The jaw structure of a pit bull is no different from that of any other dog; the "locking jaw" you have referred to is a myth. Also, pit bulls, as a breed, are no more vicious than any other breed of dog. They actually perform very well in temperament testing. In fact, the average score for the breed in temperament testing is higher than that of the Golden Retriever and higher than the average for all breeds. The studies that claim that pit bulls are responsible for a disproportionate number of dog attacks are flawed in several ways. First, there is no reliable data on the number of dogs that exist in a given breed, making it impossible to determine how much the numbers are affected by the size of the sample. Second, the identification of dogs involved in attacks is, in nearly every case, determined by witness accounts. Since the average person is incapable of distinguishing a pit bull from a boxer, rottweiler, lab, or any mix including those breeds, pit bulls are blamed for far more attacks than they are actually involved in. Due to the hype about the breed, any time someone is attacked by a mean-looking dog, they are more than likely to identify that dog as a pit bull whether it is or not. The CDC has discontinued the practice of compiling attack information by breed because of the discrepancy this causes in the data.

Education, licensing and training are the solutions you're looking for to help reduce the occurrence of dog attacks. They might be a little more difficult to enact and enforce, and they might not be as popular politically, but if you want to do what is right for your citizens, both dog owners and non-owners, you need to abandon the notion of a breed ban, which will discourage responsible owners from caring for these animals and will do nothing to reduce the number of irresponsible owners.

Responsible owners with loyal, well-behaved pit bulls and pit mixes VASTLY outnumber the few vicious dogs that have caused problems and created this hysteria. Punishing responsible owners and their innocent family pets for the actions of a few bad examples of the breed is the wrong solution. Please think a little harder and propose a solution that will actually help dogs, dog-owners, and non-owners to co-exist safely.

Please read the following information about the ineffectiveness of breed-specific legislation in preventing dog attacks: http://www.goodpooch.com/BSL/failedBSL.htm.

Sincerely,
(name)
Wilmington, NC
______________________________________________

In the two weeks since I sent it, I have received only one response, as follows:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the possiblity of introduction of breed-specific legislation before the Council. I and my staff have been studying the issue. Our consulations with animal rights advocacy groups and humane groups have demonstrated to me that there exist problems with the proposed legislation. I am more concerned with the way owners raise and treat dogs than with breeding designations. Any dog is susceptible to bad, antisocial or dangerous behavioral patterns if poorly raised.

Based on the foregoing, I remain unconvinced that the proposed legislation represents the best answer to an acknowledged problem. I am currently not a co-sponsor of the legislation, and I continue to solicit input from members of the community.

Sincerely,

Vincent J. Gentile
New York City Councilman


Return to “Laws”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests