There's no hope for Allen Park, MI. This is the response I got

So I sent him a response explaining that just because 5 or so (to pick a random number) dogs attacked people, you can't punish the other 100 dogs that have never done anything (again, just picking random numbers for reference).

This was his response:

"Ms. Phillips,

Why would you think I didn't read your email? Because I disagree with you?

I know that other breeds of dogs have attacked animals and people, the dogs that attacked Kelley's dogs were pit bulls mixed with other dogs. I think to achieve a larger more powerful dog would be the reason for that breeding, but that is just a guess.

You say you lost faith in humanity. See, I have faith in humanity, it's pit bulls I don't have faith in. I think you have it the other way around. That's unfortunate.

Your rough guess of the number of pits in AP is based on what? Have you ever even stepped foot in AP let alone Michigan? See I have never been to North Carolina, though I would love to visit the coast someday, but I am not trying to tell you what is best for your community or how to run your University.

On top of that, why do you assume that the other 95 pit bulls (using your nunbers) are wonderful pets? Were the 5 bad ones wonderful up until they actually attacked? Using that logic Charles Manson was a perfectly wonderful person right up until that messy Sharon Tate thing?

Now you might argue 'why judge all Cult leaders by the actions of just that one'. But then there was Jim Jones and the Kool Aid thing, and Sun Yun Moon (I'm sure there are some stories there), and the guy who is sleeping with and marrying all the teenagers in Texas, and those guys who thought the Hale Bopp comet was concealing a space ship that would come and take them away. Pretty soon a kind of pattern seems to develop.

I do find one thing interesting. The pro pit bull people were all ready with their (your) talking points without ever hearing or caring about what happened to Councilwoman Kelley's dog's. Your first mention of her was saying she shouldn't vote on it. To compound things it was stated that pit bulls don't tend to attack unprovoked. This insinuates that the Councilwomans dogs, my neighbors dogs, and the other cases I mentioned were provoking the attack. What an insult!

The pro pit people used the term knee jerk reaction, but I would argue that they had the knee jerk reaction. In defense of the pit bulls. It occurs to me that it doesn't matter what these pit bulls do or how many times they do it, you and the other pro pit bull supporters will continue to fight against "Breed Specific Legislation". I guess I just value our children more. You see, there is a 9 year old boy in the hospital tonight because of one of these wonderful animals. Did he provoke it too?


Kyle Tertzag

PS I searched but could not find any US bans on Shih Tzu's. That is the breed of Mrs. Kelley's dogs. There were also no organizations fighting Shih Tzu bans, I wonder why that is? "


My counter-response:

"Look, I feel very badly for those who have suffered attacks from Pit Bulls and you are completely entitled to dislike them, but you have to understand that you cannot blame the breed! None of those attacks would have happened if the dogs were in their houses, or leashed...is this correct?

It is scum, irresponsible owners like those who ruin it for people like us who have wonderful Pit Bulls. I mean, how in the world do you explain the millions of Pit Bulls across the country that lived and died w/o injuring or being aggressive to anybody? I understand your frustration, but please just think about it for a second.

So lets take your point of view for a second and assume that all Pit Bulls are born killers. Should people be denied the right to own them if they can contain them properly and keep them out of public? Why not make a law saying they have to be muzzled in public and registered with the city? Why not ban ownership of them to people with certain criminal backgrounds? Don't you think that would solve the problem without punishing those who are responsible and don't allow their dogs to roam the streets?

And to answer to your Charles Manson inquiry. You are incorrect when you state he was "good up until the Sharon Tate thing." If you do your research correctly, you will see that Charles Manson tortured and killed animals (setting them on fire and cutting them up for fun) since he was a young boy; textbook signs of being a sociopath. So I think that was a bad example to use....

Again, you are right, I have never stepped foot in your town. However, I still feel the need to speak out for others who may not be able to articulate the facts in calm manner. And look, I am not trying to change your mind, I value your opinion just as much as I feel you should value mine. With that said, what are your thoughts on the other methods I suggested of solving the problem? I guarantee that if you ban pit bulls it will not solve your problem. Why do you think they lifted the ban in Amsterdam?"

Wow, I would expect an elected official to be a *little* more diplomatic and impartial when responding, but, I should know better.  I know I'm preaching to the choir but the thing that bothers the living crap out of me is the "reported" bite statistics because they are terribly, horribly flawed!  A borzoi bit a greyhound at our dog park and the grey suffered extensive damage.  No report.  And the borzoi continues to frequent the dog park without a basket muzzle.  If it had been one of the numerous pits that frequent the park, not only would there have been a report to AC but people would be complaining to the park manager to ban pits from the park!  Small dogs bite all the time and no one reports it because there's typically less damage or because people don't really consider them "dangerous" even when little Fluffy has left scars on a small child's face!

GRRRRRR! 

My Pug bite my husband when she was 2 months old, no bigger than a kitten and he got 9 stitches in his lip!  Not the pups fault for my DH was playing ruff and so was the dog.  However, she got reported - the hospital was required to. 

I only have known two pit bulls and both were very nice dogs.  However, my granddaughter (5 years old) is now living next door to a pitbull which shares a common driveway.  The dog, is tied in a manner that he has access to the driveway.  When I brough her home the other night the dog came rushing us at the car, tail wagging and barking.  I wasn't afraid of the dog but I warned my daughter in law to not allow Brianna to play along where she and the dog can interact.  I can't help but to be nervous for her as she is a child and the fact that the dog seems tied for a long period time which can cause frustration, protection of property etc on the dogs part it makes me want to ensure that she is safe.  Granted, I would feel the same way with many other breeds in this same situation.

I don't support any breed legislation but if I lived in a town where "any breed" was truely causing havock on the community as this man describes I may think twice.  

I also agree with allowing a community to set its own standards.  Richmond is fighting a thug dog problem and I don't believe I have the right as a non-resident to tell them how to do it.  They've passed MSN as well as anti-tethering legislation aimed directly at the type of frustrated, tied up dog situation you describe.  What they've NOT done is passed breed specific legislation, they've made it behavior specific such as the state's dangerous dog statute which I support whole-heartedly.  The local SPCA has taken the initiative and is reaching out specifically to pit owners and offering free spays and neuters to bring the owners into compliance with the law as well as reducing the number of unwanted pits being put to sleep or sold into fighting every year.

I just wish that more people would report bites by other breeds when they happen.  Too often you hear of a really bad attack that harms and disfigures a child and then learn the dog had bitten friends, family members, etc.  Indie was recently jumped by a shar pei that has a bad attitude.  The owner keeps it leashed and now steers clear of us, but had that dog drawn blood or left a mark, I would have absolutely reported it. 

Not that I could have much say in what goes on in Michigan but I would counter this guy with a question. He'll go after a breed of dog without any qualms, but he won't go after the thugs that created this problem. Not much of a man, if you ask me. I could understand PTS on the dogs that did the attacking. There's something drastically wrong if the dog is attacking humans. But don't attack the breed. Attack the people that created a problem to begin with. Ideally, with a properly bred and trained dog, this story wouldn't even be happening.

But, it seems, the man up there is running on emotions and it's hard to blame him for that. If something came after me and mine, I would lash out and kill everything in sight until things quit trying to kill me. But that doesn't involve thought, only pure reflex reaction. I understand, too, that his primary responsibility is to humans. But I agree with you, Pap, enforce owner laws rather than punishing a breed. Here's something to consider. If he can't manage to enforce owner laws, what makes him think he can enforce BSL? Theres' only so much money and people. So write tickets on offenders and collect money.

In the good old days, if a loose dog attacked you, you just killed the dog, right then and there. Sort of a culling by temperment.

But the man seems willing to trample the rights of a lot of humans owning dogs just to assuage the feelings he has for a few residents of his town.

ron2

Not that I could have much say in what goes on in Michigan but I would counter this guy with a question. He'll go after a breed of dog without any qualms, but he won't go after the thugs that created this problem.

Just how is he not going after the "thugs" that created this problem?  What is it that you think he could to to eliminate "thugs"?  How do you even know that "thugs" are the problem in his community?  Not all irresponsible dog owners are thugs many are just not aware of or willing to take the steps needed to be responsible dog owners.

ron2

I could understand PTS on the dogs that did the attacking.

That requires that the community waits until a pet is killed or a person is attacked before they can do anything about the issue.  Most people would prefer that their city government takes action that will prevent the attacks rather then wait until after before they can do anything.

ron2

Attack the people that created a problem to begin with.

Just what do you mean when you call for them to "attack" the people that create the problem?  Should we arrest anyone whose dog gets loose?  Or would we just arrest those that do not train their dogs?  What level of training would we require the dog owners to provide for their dogs?

ron2

Ideally, with a properly bred and trained dog, this story wouldn't even be happening.

Ahh if we just lived in an "ideal" world the job of the city councilmen would be much easier!  The problem is that we  live in the real world and in that real world the council must answer to those they represent.  If those that they represent perceive a problem with a particular breed of dogs the city must address that issue.  In too many areas the "properly bred" pit bull has long been replaced by dogs that do not meet the "ideal" standard of the breed.  Yet many that oppose BSL for pit bulls keep quoting that rarely met standard!  That leaves the city councils with the options of doing nothing and allowing the problems in their towns to get worse or take drastic actions such as banning all of a particular breed.  Neither are great choices but if the people that they represent believe that the majority of the problem is coming from one breed then too often banning that breed wins out.

Mark

I don't see how your statements have helped anything, IMO.

Marklf

Just what do you mean when you call for them to "attack" the people that create the problem?  Should we arrest anyone whose dog gets loose?  Or would we just arrest those that do not train their dogs?  What level of training would we require the dog owners to provide for their dogs?

Yes. Arrest or cite irresponsible owners. If you own a dog, you have the responsibility to train and contain your pet. Period, paragraph, and new book. And make it stick. I am pleased to announce that my little town is stepping it up a notch. They are going to enforce the domestic animals at large ordinance. No animal is allowed to roam the streets, ever. Animals will be seized and taken to the next city at the Sherman Animal Shelter, where it will cost $45 to get the animal out. And the city could also prosecute you to the tune of $564.00. The loose dogs in our town was the main reason I quit walking my dog in our town. Instead, I would go to Sherman, where they enforce owner laws. Now, my little town will enforce owner laws. And it doesn't matter of your dog is a GSD, a Maltese, or a Lab. If it is loose, they will pick him up and put him in the shelter and it really behooves you to go get your dog because Sherman Animal Shelter is a kill shelter with a 7 -day schedule. You have so many days to pick up your animal. After that and a health and temperment eval, they will have 7 business days to be adopted. You, the owner, better make darn sure you have a secure yard and have trained your dog. Also, in Texas, there is a law that states that if your dog bites someone hard enough to require hospitalization, you, the owner, could be liable for criminal charges.

Yes, task the humans. Quit picking on the dogs.

Marklf

Most people would prefer that their city government takes action that will prevent the attacks rather then wait until after before they can do anything

See above.

Marklf

What is it that you think he could to to eliminate "thugs"? 

Put  thugs  in  jail. Or treat them as enemies of the state and ship them to Guantanamo Bay. Remove their rights to own pets. There's nothing in the Constitution that guarantees criminals the rights to own pets.

As for a non-thug owner of loose dogs, they have broken the law by failing their responsibility to control their pet, just as if they drive drunk, they have endangered the public welfare. We have a responsibility to our fellow citizens. How about we put that responsibility on the humans, rather than a specific breed of dog? I noticed that you didn't respond to the story about the child killed by a Malamute, either. Interesting. Because, why? Because it wasn't a Pit Bull. A Mal, by the way, is much larger and faster than a Pit Bull and are known to be a handful, as a breed trait, as opposed to Pit Bulls, which are supposed to be human friendly.

But I know, it's easier to pick on a dog than a human.

Right on, Ron.

 The funny thing is that in the 1920's it was Collie's that everyone wanted to get rid of.  People were afraid to bring their children to places that had Collie's because they had attacked and killed several children.  Why?  Because at the time they were popular and EVERYBODY had one.  Because of that, all sorts of owners had them, even the irresponsible ones who leave their child unattended with the dog, or "abuse" them (tethering outside for long hours, etc).  For awhile they were killed and "preyed" upon by police, people, etc and their popularity fizzled out.

After that (1940's I think), it was the Bloodhound.  Same tune as above.  After that, Great Danes.  After that, Rotties/Dobermans.  After that, German Shepards and Chows.  The "flavor of the year" is now Pit Bulls.

 "What man fears, man destroys."

The funny thing is, the councilman kept saying "the pit bulls that attacked Mrs. Kelley's dogs..." when it was a ROTTWEILER mix and LABORADOR/PIT mix.   When I told him that they weren't Pit Bulls he said "there is no such breed called a pit bull, it just means what a dog is made to look like."   He had NO idea what the breed even was!  I have sent him educational material about the American Pit Bull Terrier (UKC), American Staffordshire Terrier (AKC), Staffordshire Bull Terrier, etc.  He has actually turned his opinion around since then and apologized for not knowing the facts.

I also think this news video/story helped change his mind:

Good luck to you, Pap. Educating humans seems to be the hardest thing of all. We could euth dogs like crazy. We could ban certain breeds from a town. But you can't make a human think. A human has to think for himself. Or not. Considering those odds, maybe I should go to Vegas.

Vegas, baby!

ron2

I don't see how your statements have helped anything, IMO.

So just how are your statements "helping"?

ron2

Yes. Arrest or cite irresponsible owners. If you own a dog, you have the responsibility to train and contain your pet. Period, paragraph, and new book. And make it stick. I am pleased to announce that my little town is stepping it up a notch.

Dogs get loose from even those that are "responsible" dog owners!  There is NO legal responsibility for anyone to "train" their dogs.  Just what level of training do feel that dog owners have a "responsibility" to attain?   I have no problem with the towns enforcing "at large" laws but again the enforcement does not take place until the dog is already loose.  By then it is to late to prevent the problems that many areas are facing with certain dogs.  If the town is not having a problem with "at large" schnauzers killing other pets and attacking humans but they are having those problems with "at large" pit bulls why penalize the schnauzer owners?  In fact if the pit bull is as friendly and harmless as many of their supporters claim the fact that they are at large should never be  an issue!  

ron2

Also, in Texas, there is a law that states that if your dog bites someone hard enough to require hospitalization, you, the owner, could be liable for criminal charges.

Again while I support that law it does not go into effect until after someone is put into the hospital.  If the city council is facing a problem in its community with a specific breed of dogs, the people of that community are not going to want to have to wait until a child is injured before action can be taken.  They want their representatives to pass laws that will address the problem before someone is hurt.

ron2

Put  thugs  in  jail.

I read nothing in the letter from the councilmen that would indicate that he was trying to keep "thugs" on the street.

ron2

Or treat them as enemies of the state and ship them to Guantanamo Bay.

 So now being a "thug" is reason enough to send someone to GITMO?  I guess that pesky bill of rights really doesn't matter anymore!

ron2

There's nothing in the Constitution that guarantees criminals the rights to own pets.

Just as there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees anyone the right to own a pit bull.  But there is that pesky 14th amendment with its due process clause which prevents the state from targeting "thugs" without due process of law.

ron2

How about we put that responsibility on the humans, rather than a specific breed of dog? I noticed that you didn't respond to the story about the child killed by a Malamute, either. Interesting. Because, why? Because it wasn't a Pit Bull. A Mal, by the way, is much larger and faster than a Pit Bull and are known to be a handful, as a breed trait, as opposed to Pit Bulls, which are supposed to be human friendly.

I have no idea what story about a Malamute you are referring to.  So I guess I did not respond because I did not read it.  I tend to read those threads that I have an interest in and having owned pit bulls I am more interested in those threads.  I have never owned a Malamute (although my pup enjoys playing with the one on our street) so I may not read every thread about them.  You seem to have it in your head that I hate "pit bulls" but again you are wrong.  I do however recognize that there are too many people that own "pit bulls" that refuse to acknowledge the added responsibility and effort that owning that breed entails.  Because of those owners there are too many areas that are having problems with that breed.  Now those areas are reacting to those problems with BSL.  Not all BSL's are bans and not all BSL's are bad.  I do not support the banning of any particular breed but I at least understand how the towns get to the point where they enact such bans.

Mark

Marklf

So just how are your statements "helping

I'm offering solutions and your question above is merely a debate tactic, rather than offering a solution.

Marklf

There is NO legal responsibility for anyone to "train" their dogs. 

I beg to differ. There is implied responsibility with property and dogs, for the purpose of law and insurance are property. You cannot allow property under you control to harm another. For example, if I forget to set the parking brake on my car and it rolls back and hits your car, I am liable for your damage. A property of mine caused damage to you through my negligence.

Marklf

Again while I support that law it does not go into effect until after someone is put into the hospital.

No, the law is in effect, which is what would allow charges to be brought. The idea behind the law is to cause citizens to be more careful with their pets to avoid criminal prosecution.

Marklf

So now being a "thug" is reason enough to send someone to GITMO?  I guess that pesky bill of rights really doesn't matter anymore

And leaving the thug on the streets is better? Either declare a true war on crime and deal with it as acts of war, or find remedies in the law that forbid thugs from owning pets.

Marklf

Just as there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees anyone the right to own a pit bull.

True. You made a general statement from my specific one and we are both right. The Constitution does not guarantee the right to own any dog. So, what's wrong with suspending the local right of thugs to own animals? It's not the breed, it's the human.

Marklf

I have no idea what story about a Malamute you are referring to.  So I guess I did not respond because I did not read it.

It was mentioned in this thread, I believe.

(ETA: my bad, it was not mentioned in this thread. And you have mentioned that you don't read threads about other dog attacks, pretty much only those of pit bulls. Have you read of the other breeds mentioned in this thread, besides pit bulls?)

Marklf

I do however recognize that there are too many people that own "pit bulls" that refuse to acknowledge the added responsibility and effort that owning that breed entails.  Because of those owners there are too many areas that are having problems with that breed

We are agreed on that.

Marklf

Not all BSL's are bans and not all BSL's are bad.

Yes, they are and they don't work.

I understand your concept. 'If you can't play nicely, you can't play at all." BSL. I often think of BSL as being without the L.

The simple fact of the matter is that different breeds throughout history have been targeted as the mean breed to get rid of. Usually when the breed is so popular that there are too many from bad breeding and getting in the hands of bad people. So, instead of getting rid of dogs, why don't we get rid of bad people?

Yes, I believe in due process. That's why I think we can do better at documenting bad people's actions so that in court, they are found guilty and that does not violate due process. And let's make removal of pet privileges part of that due process.

Again, you're going to let the thugs wear the 14th amendment while penalizing the dog. The dog's only property, right? Well the owner of the property is responsible and that is a matter of law.

ETA:

Furthermore, on due process, why is the thug entitled to due process and the law-abiding owner is not?

ron2

I'm offering solutions and your question above is merely a debate tactic, rather than offering a solution.

Stating things such "go after thugs" or send the thugs to GITMO is not exactly what I would call realistic "solutions".

ron2

I beg to differ. There is implied responsibility with property and dogs, for the purpose of law and insurance are property. You cannot allow property under you control to harm another. For example, if I forget to set the parking brake on my car and it rolls back and hits your car, I am liable for your damage. A property of mine caused damage to you through my negligence.

Setting the parking brake is not "training" your car not to roll!  There may be laws that require one to restrain their dogs but that is not the same thing as requiring the owner to train their dogs.

ron2

No, the law is in effect, which is what would allow charges to be brought.

True the law is in effect but it does not take effect until after someone is hospitalized.

ron2

And leaving the thug on the streets is better?

Please show me anything in the email from the councilman that would indicate that he desires to leave "thugs" on the street,

ron2

True. You made a general statement from my specific one and we are both right. The Constitution does not guarantee the right to own any dog. So, what's wrong with suspending the local right of thugs to own animals? It's not the breed, it's the human.

It is an assumption on your part that all the dogs that they are having problems with in that town are owned by "thugs".  The councilman listed four separate recent "attacks" by pit bulls in his town yet I saw nothing that indicated those pit bulls were owned by thugs.  If the owners were not "thugs" then how would denying "thugs" the right to own dogs help in this case? 

ron2

The simple fact of the matter is that different breeds throughout history have been targeted as the mean breed to get rid of. Usually when the breed is so popular that there are too many from bad breeding and getting in the hands of bad people.

This city council is not dealing with the issue of breeds that may have been a problem in the past they are attempting to deal with the issue of of a breed that they believe is currently causing a problem in their community.  While I may disagree with their solution I do not believe my views should be considered by the council because I do not live there and they are not paid to represent me.

ron2

It was mentioned in this thread, I believe.

(ETA: my bad, it was not mentioned in this thread. And you have mentioned that you don't read threads about other dog attacks, pretty much only those of pit bulls. Have you read of the other breeds mentioned in this thread, besides pit bulls?)

A couple of points;

I did not say that I don't read threads about other dog attacks I said that I tend to read threads that I have an interest in but that I may miss a thread that about a breed that I do not personally own or have own in the past.  In other words if the title of the thread stated that it was about a malamute I may or may not read the thread depending on how much time I have available.

Yes I have read other threads about other breeds being involved in attacks.  I do not comment on all the threads that I read.  If a thread peaks my interest and I chose to comment on it I believe that is permitted here and if it isn't the moderators I am sure would let me know.  Not all the threads that I comment on however deal with pit bulls if that is what you are attempting to imply.

ron2

So, instead of getting rid of dogs, why don't we get rid of bad people?

Is that another example of a "solution"?  The city council of this town may have the ability to ban a breed of dogs but I am pretty sure they do not have the ability to "get rid of bad people"!  They may be able to punish people after they do something illegal but there will always be "bad people" and that is  far beyond the councils power to regulate.  But who knows maybe I should contact my city council and request they pass an ordinance that bans "bad people" and then all of our problems will disappear.

ron2

Again, you're going to let the thugs wear the 14th amendment while penalizing the dog.

Not sure what you mean by I am letting the thugs "wear" the 14th amendment?  If by that you mean that I think that the 14th amendment applies to thugs and not to dogs then you would be correct!  You see it goes back to that oath I took to uphold and defend the Constitution.  The oath was not to uphold and defend the Constitution for just those people that I thought were good and deserving but rather to uphold and defend it for all people(notice I said people not dogs)!

ron2

Furthermore, on due process, why is the thug entitled to due process and the law-abiding owner is not?

Try reading the 14th Amendment again it states "any person" so that would certainly include the "law-abiding owner".

Mark

Marklf,

 Despite the fact you act like you know exactly what "breed" is a problem in the Allen Park community, I just wanted to let you know that Allen Park decided against the ban just today for many reasons.  One of the reasons was when they looked at their communities dog bite reports.  Only 2% of reported bites that required hospitalization/deaths were Pit Bulls.  The rest consisted of Rottweilers, LABORADORS, German Shepards, unknown mixes and Chows.  Because of their findings they decided to put tighter restrictions on loose dogs, and heavier fines/charges for those who disobey the law.

Another reason had to do with the "Bark in the Park" event they had on Sunday.  75% of the dogs that were there were Pit Bulls and guess what....NO PROBLEMS!  Matter of fact (according to Kyle), only one dog had to be asked to leave for aggressive behavior and it was a Jack Russel Terrier.  Many of the councilmen met many well-behaved Pit Bulls with REAL responsible owners and decided otherwise...including Councilwoman Kelley who's dog was attacked by the mixes. 
 

So go ahead, continue your circular logic elsewhere.

 

papillon806

Marklf,

 Despite the fact you act like you know exactly what "breed" is a problem in the Allen Park community, I just wanted to let you know that Allen Park decided against the ban just today for many reasons.  One of the reasons was when they looked at their communities dog bite reports.  Only 2% of reported bites that required hospitalization/deaths were Pit Bulls.  The rest consisted of Rottweilers, LABORADORS, German Shepards, unknown mixes and Chows.  Because of their findings they decided to put tighter restrictions on loose dogs, and heavier fines/charges for those who disobey the law.

Another reason had to do with the "Bark in the Park" event they had on Sunday.  75% of the dogs that were there were Pit Bulls and guess what....NO PROBLEMS!  Matter of fact (according to Kyle), only one dog had to be asked to leave for aggressive behavior and it was a Jack Russel Terrier.  Many of the councilmen met many well-behaved Pit Bulls with REAL responsible owners and decided otherwise...including Councilwoman Kelley who's dog was attacked by the mixes. 
 

So go ahead, continue your circular logic elsewhere.

 

Yay! That's a great outcome!  I'm so glad to hear there were statistics on bites from other breeds and that they decided to appropriately legislate the BEHAVIOR and not the breed and to hold the OWNER responsible, not to unfairly target owners who've done nothing irresponsible only because they choose to love and own a particular breed.

There's a show coming on the 24th on Animal Planet about Vick's dogs and how great they've turned out.  I hope it opens some eyes.