PIT BULL OWNERS to pay $500 to keep dog!!!!!

 I signed.  No law abiding person should have to pay to own their breed of choice.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.  I signed!

How stupid!!!  Why don't they do something sensible like fine people $500 when they don't follow the dog owners laws that each city has...instead of something stupid like this!

I will sign it now.

dyan

How stupid!!!  Why don't they do something sensible like fine people $500 when they don't follow the dog owners laws that each city has...instead of something stupid like this!

I will sign it now.

FYI This is not the typical BSL folks. In fact the people in Reading are far from unreasonable.

The law in Reading PA is that if any one breed is responsible for more than 40 percent of the dog bites in a year in which there are more than 30 dog bites reported then that breed is considered aggressive the next year. The $500 figure is what people who own INTACT dogs must pay because the folks in Reading have determined that most bites in their town are by intact dogs.

In July pit bulls were responsible for 62 percent of the bites in the first half of the year. See article: http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=49529

The aggressive label and assorted requirements would be in place for the next year (not forever) and then would be dropped if bites by the breed fell under the 40%.

A GSD bit a kid on Dec. 31 which made pits responsible for only 39.7% of the bites in 2007 so the 3/4s of the PB owners in Reading who have intact dogs will not need to pay anything extra.

VERY interesting approach. Thanks for posting.

Intereresting but still flawed IMO.

 So if my breed becomes popular and idiots own them, keep them intact and allow them to bite people and the bite ratio reaches 30% of reported bites then I have to pay $500 even though my dog has not bitten anyone.

 I still think it would be better to charge every owner whose dog bites someone $500.00

I signed it.  It's so stupid to have to pay just because your dog is a pit. 

My dogs have a three strikes and you are out rule. if either of them were to bite three times intact or otherwise (unless in my defense) I will have them put down. The owners of the two dogs that are responsible for a majority of the bitings ought to be cuffed upside the head.

Thanks for the heads up.  I signed.

dgriego

 

Intereresting but still flawed IMO.

 So if my breed becomes popular and idiots own them, keep them intact and allow them to bite people and the bite ratio reaches 30% of reported bites then I have to pay $500 even though my dog has not bitten anyone.

 I still think it would be better to charge every owner whose dog bites someone $500.00

This is the reason I signed.  Law abiding individuals should not have to pay any penalty for anything.   

Are most people who have guns killers? NO, Of course not. But you still have to go through a background check and pay and get a license to have one, especially in a area where gun violence is common.

 Are all pitties biters? NO, of course not. But in an area where pitties are the most common biters, I can see why they would want to impose at least a fine in order to perhaps discourage potentially poor owners from getting one/more.

Law abiding individuals should not have to pay any penalty for anything.

I agree with this, but the problem lies with who gets to determine who is a "law-abiding pit owner."

Who would decide who got the fine and who didn't? If you keep your dog intact, you get fined? What if you are a breeder? If maybe people keep their dog out in the yard too much, if they don't feed the right food, if they use a choke chain...who will make these rules and decide? Who will pick out the "good owners" who will not haver to pay a fine?

In this case, I do not think law enforcement, etc are "out to get" pits. If this was any other breed of dog causing a majority of dog bites, then the same thing would happen. There is now way for decide who is a "good owner" and who is a "bad owner" and therefore gets the fine. There just isn't, unfortunately.

That is also true, the whole 2 dogs thing caught my attention and it doesn't really make sense either.

If enacted, the fee, which seems to apply only to intact dogs, might have at least the silver lining of causing people to go ahead and speuter.