Post by michele5611 on Nov 5, 2013 9:33:59 GMT -5
www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2013/11/flints_potential_pit_bull_ordi.html
By Dominic Adams | dadams5@mlive.com
Follow on Twitter
on November 05, 2013 at 6:00 AM, updated November 05, 2013 at 6:10 AM
FLINT, MI – An Illinois-based animal rights group is crying foul over a Flint city councilman’s idea to require pitbull owners to register their dogs with police.
Under Councilman Sheldon Neeley’s proposed ordinance, owners could be hit with a $500 fine and 90 days in jail if the pitbull attacks someone.
Attorney Ledy VanKavage with Best Friends Animal Society, in Maryville, Ill., claims the breed specific legislation won’t work and will cost the city more than $150,000 per year to enforce.
In a letter sent to the Flint City Council and others in September about Neeley’s proposal, VanLavage calls the idea breed discrimination and claims it would punish innocent dogs.
The Flint Journal obtained the letter and other documents through a Freedom of Information Act request.
VanKavage said he wrote the letter following “a few calls from distressed Flint pet owners afraid they will have to move out of the Flint if the city council enacts a breed discriminatory provision.”
Breed specific legislation is banned in 16 states, VanKavage said.
A better answer, he said, would be to spay and neuter all dogs because more than 70 percent of dog bites involve unsterilized male dogs.
The licensing fee rates aren’t finalized, but Neeley said residents would pay between $20 and $30 to register the dogs at the police department.
City ordinance currently requires vicious dogs to be kept on a leash or muzzle outside of a kennel, pen or house and mandates that owners display “beware of dog” signs, keep insurance in case of injury or death caused by the dog and register the animal with the city clerk.
City Clerk Inez Brown said the ordinance was written in 1987 and no one has registered a vicious dog with her office.
“There’s no way you can put a value on a child being attacked – on a mailman losing part of his hand,” Neeley said. “We will move forward with whatever we have to do to make these dog owners more responsible.”
VanKavage estimates 7 percent of dogs in Flint are pit bull, terrier-type dogs. The cost of enforcement, kenneling and veterinary care, euthanization and disposal, litigation costs and DNA tests is $166,000 annually.
“Those individuals (who) oppose this type of legislation – I encourage them to engage in a partnership with me and propose a solution for this problem,” Neeley said.
Emergency Manager Darnell Earley would have to allow the city council to take up the matter. Under the state’s emergency manager law, city council can do only what Earley designates.
Flint resident Quinston Hackett owns a American bully and wants to host a pitbull awareness walk to educate people about the dogs.
“We’re being punished for irresponsible dog owners,” Hackett told The Flint Journal last week. “(Neeley’s proposal) is just singling out one dog group.”
City Spokesman Jason Lorenz declined comment on Monday, Nov. 4, adding Neeley’s proposal hasn’t been reviewed by the legal department.
By Dominic Adams | dadams5@mlive.com
Follow on Twitter
on November 05, 2013 at 6:00 AM, updated November 05, 2013 at 6:10 AM
FLINT, MI – An Illinois-based animal rights group is crying foul over a Flint city councilman’s idea to require pitbull owners to register their dogs with police.
Under Councilman Sheldon Neeley’s proposed ordinance, owners could be hit with a $500 fine and 90 days in jail if the pitbull attacks someone.
Attorney Ledy VanKavage with Best Friends Animal Society, in Maryville, Ill., claims the breed specific legislation won’t work and will cost the city more than $150,000 per year to enforce.
In a letter sent to the Flint City Council and others in September about Neeley’s proposal, VanLavage calls the idea breed discrimination and claims it would punish innocent dogs.
The Flint Journal obtained the letter and other documents through a Freedom of Information Act request.
VanKavage said he wrote the letter following “a few calls from distressed Flint pet owners afraid they will have to move out of the Flint if the city council enacts a breed discriminatory provision.”
Breed specific legislation is banned in 16 states, VanKavage said.
A better answer, he said, would be to spay and neuter all dogs because more than 70 percent of dog bites involve unsterilized male dogs.
The licensing fee rates aren’t finalized, but Neeley said residents would pay between $20 and $30 to register the dogs at the police department.
City ordinance currently requires vicious dogs to be kept on a leash or muzzle outside of a kennel, pen or house and mandates that owners display “beware of dog” signs, keep insurance in case of injury or death caused by the dog and register the animal with the city clerk.
City Clerk Inez Brown said the ordinance was written in 1987 and no one has registered a vicious dog with her office.
“There’s no way you can put a value on a child being attacked – on a mailman losing part of his hand,” Neeley said. “We will move forward with whatever we have to do to make these dog owners more responsible.”
VanKavage estimates 7 percent of dogs in Flint are pit bull, terrier-type dogs. The cost of enforcement, kenneling and veterinary care, euthanization and disposal, litigation costs and DNA tests is $166,000 annually.
“Those individuals (who) oppose this type of legislation – I encourage them to engage in a partnership with me and propose a solution for this problem,” Neeley said.
Emergency Manager Darnell Earley would have to allow the city council to take up the matter. Under the state’s emergency manager law, city council can do only what Earley designates.
Flint resident Quinston Hackett owns a American bully and wants to host a pitbull awareness walk to educate people about the dogs.
“We’re being punished for irresponsible dog owners,” Hackett told The Flint Journal last week. “(Neeley’s proposal) is just singling out one dog group.”
City Spokesman Jason Lorenz declined comment on Monday, Nov. 4, adding Neeley’s proposal hasn’t been reviewed by the legal department.
I look forward to learning much here