Post by RealPitBull on Jan 15, 2010 12:28:25 GMT -5
It was just nice to get these updates.....
St. Mary Parish, LA: St. Mary tables ban on pit bulls
Posted: 15 Jan 2010 07:11 AM PST
www.2theadvocate.com/news/suburban/81414212.html
St. Mary tables ban on pit bulls
By ROBERT R. JONES III
Special to The Advocate
Published: Jan 14, 2010 – Page: 3BA
FRANKLIN — The St. Mary Parish Council voted Wednesday to table a measure by Councilman Glen Hidalgo to “prohibit” pit bulls from the parish except under strict guidelines.
Under the measure, the dog breed would be banned unless the owner bought an annual license for $50, provide proof of rabies vaccination by a licensed veterinarian, have the animal micro-chipped for identification purposes and confined in a steel kennel measuring a minimum of 4-feet-wide, 7-feet-long and 6-feet-high with a concrete floor.
A public hearing on the matter filled the board room before the regular meeting, and many people were there in defense of the breed, which has a reputation as a fighting dog but is regularly used in hunting hogs and performing other farm work.
After several pit bull owners spoke in defense of their pets and hunting dogs along with at least one man opposed to the breed being allowed in the parish, councilmen also shared their views on the matter.
Councilman Chuck Walters said he felt the parish already had too many laws on the books that were not properly enforced and suggested the parish strengthen existing parish statutes to prevent aggressive animals in general rather than just one breed.
“We have a vicious dog ordinance on the books, and maybe that just needs to be tweaked,” he said. “If people are breeding these things to fight, those are the ones we need to go get.”
Councilman Albert Foulcard agreed banning the breed might not be the best option.
“I recently saw an interview with a man from Afghanistan who was asked how he liked America, and he replied, ‘I like it a lot be cause everyone is free and happy,’” he said.
“I don’t know how happy (local) people will remain if government keeps telling them what to do. Now, we are about to separate pit bull owners from Chihuahua owners and every one else, and it is not our job to determine who can or can’t own these dogs.”
Hidalgo also took an opportunity to explain why he presented the legislation to the council.
“Statistics in the parish say pit bulls here are a problem,” he said. “One third of (animal related) calls are pit bulls, as are animal control calls … I’ve gotten more calls on this than anything else since I’ve been here (on the council), and if it is a financial hardship for pit bull owners to build a pen, how would they afford hospital bills if the dog bit an innocent person?”
The measure was tabled during the regular meeting to be brought back at a later date following more discussion on possible changes to the measure and a second public hearing.
Southgate, MI: Breed-specific language dropped
Southgate has been struggling with language for a revised animal ordinance for several months. Previous alert for Southgate: stopbsl.com/2009/10/26/southgate-mi-city-council-to-reconsider-ordinance-on-vicious-dogs-still-bsl/
www.thenewsherald.com/articles/2010/01/14/news/doc4b4f766d084e3384784509.txt
SOUTHGATE: City rescinds ordinance banning specific breeds of dogs
Published: Thursday, January 14, 2010
By Rene Cizio
SOUTHGATE — An updated version of a vicious dog ordinance no longer singles out specific breeds.
When the City Council first considered an updated vicious dog ordinance last year at the request of Animal Control Officer Aaron Bertera, it included special restrictions for pit bull and Presa Canario breeds.
Response from the community caused council members to rethink the proposed ordinance and the new ordinance only refers to “vicious” dogs and how to determine them as such.
According to the ordinance, a vicious, or dangerous, dog is one that has bitten before causing injury or death to a person or animal.
City officials said the revised ordinance would allow the animal control officer to make determinations on a case-by-case basis if a dog is or could be potentially dangerous.
Potentially dangerous dogs cause injuries that are not serious, but do so without provocation such as chasing the victim and being loose from the owner.
Dogs determined to be potentially dangerous must register as such with the Police Department for $75 annually.
After being determined dangerous, dogs must be maintained in secure confinement, from which they cannot escape, including secured top, sides and bottom.
Owners of vicious dogs also have to post signs saying so, and the signs must be visible from 40 feet away.
A dangerous dog will be required to have either a tattoo or a microchip to identify it.
The dogs must be sterilized, and while most homeowners have insurance, renters might not, but must maintain liability insurance sufficient to cover damage or harm caused by the dogs.
Removal of the dangerous dog classification can be requested by the owner after the dog has gone two years incident free and successfully completed obedience training with the American Kennel Club.
Bertera said he approves of the ordinance.
The penalty for any person in violation of the ordinance could be a municipal civil infraction of $100 to $500.
St. Mary Parish, LA: St. Mary tables ban on pit bulls
Posted: 15 Jan 2010 07:11 AM PST
www.2theadvocate.com/news/suburban/81414212.html
St. Mary tables ban on pit bulls
By ROBERT R. JONES III
Special to The Advocate
Published: Jan 14, 2010 – Page: 3BA
FRANKLIN — The St. Mary Parish Council voted Wednesday to table a measure by Councilman Glen Hidalgo to “prohibit” pit bulls from the parish except under strict guidelines.
Under the measure, the dog breed would be banned unless the owner bought an annual license for $50, provide proof of rabies vaccination by a licensed veterinarian, have the animal micro-chipped for identification purposes and confined in a steel kennel measuring a minimum of 4-feet-wide, 7-feet-long and 6-feet-high with a concrete floor.
A public hearing on the matter filled the board room before the regular meeting, and many people were there in defense of the breed, which has a reputation as a fighting dog but is regularly used in hunting hogs and performing other farm work.
After several pit bull owners spoke in defense of their pets and hunting dogs along with at least one man opposed to the breed being allowed in the parish, councilmen also shared their views on the matter.
Councilman Chuck Walters said he felt the parish already had too many laws on the books that were not properly enforced and suggested the parish strengthen existing parish statutes to prevent aggressive animals in general rather than just one breed.
“We have a vicious dog ordinance on the books, and maybe that just needs to be tweaked,” he said. “If people are breeding these things to fight, those are the ones we need to go get.”
Councilman Albert Foulcard agreed banning the breed might not be the best option.
“I recently saw an interview with a man from Afghanistan who was asked how he liked America, and he replied, ‘I like it a lot be cause everyone is free and happy,’” he said.
“I don’t know how happy (local) people will remain if government keeps telling them what to do. Now, we are about to separate pit bull owners from Chihuahua owners and every one else, and it is not our job to determine who can or can’t own these dogs.”
Hidalgo also took an opportunity to explain why he presented the legislation to the council.
“Statistics in the parish say pit bulls here are a problem,” he said. “One third of (animal related) calls are pit bulls, as are animal control calls … I’ve gotten more calls on this than anything else since I’ve been here (on the council), and if it is a financial hardship for pit bull owners to build a pen, how would they afford hospital bills if the dog bit an innocent person?”
The measure was tabled during the regular meeting to be brought back at a later date following more discussion on possible changes to the measure and a second public hearing.
Southgate, MI: Breed-specific language dropped
Southgate has been struggling with language for a revised animal ordinance for several months. Previous alert for Southgate: stopbsl.com/2009/10/26/southgate-mi-city-council-to-reconsider-ordinance-on-vicious-dogs-still-bsl/
www.thenewsherald.com/articles/2010/01/14/news/doc4b4f766d084e3384784509.txt
SOUTHGATE: City rescinds ordinance banning specific breeds of dogs
Published: Thursday, January 14, 2010
By Rene Cizio
SOUTHGATE — An updated version of a vicious dog ordinance no longer singles out specific breeds.
When the City Council first considered an updated vicious dog ordinance last year at the request of Animal Control Officer Aaron Bertera, it included special restrictions for pit bull and Presa Canario breeds.
Response from the community caused council members to rethink the proposed ordinance and the new ordinance only refers to “vicious” dogs and how to determine them as such.
According to the ordinance, a vicious, or dangerous, dog is one that has bitten before causing injury or death to a person or animal.
City officials said the revised ordinance would allow the animal control officer to make determinations on a case-by-case basis if a dog is or could be potentially dangerous.
Potentially dangerous dogs cause injuries that are not serious, but do so without provocation such as chasing the victim and being loose from the owner.
Dogs determined to be potentially dangerous must register as such with the Police Department for $75 annually.
After being determined dangerous, dogs must be maintained in secure confinement, from which they cannot escape, including secured top, sides and bottom.
Owners of vicious dogs also have to post signs saying so, and the signs must be visible from 40 feet away.
A dangerous dog will be required to have either a tattoo or a microchip to identify it.
The dogs must be sterilized, and while most homeowners have insurance, renters might not, but must maintain liability insurance sufficient to cover damage or harm caused by the dogs.
Removal of the dangerous dog classification can be requested by the owner after the dog has gone two years incident free and successfully completed obedience training with the American Kennel Club.
Bertera said he approves of the ordinance.
The penalty for any person in violation of the ordinance could be a municipal civil infraction of $100 to $500.
I look forward to learning much here