Other articles with keyword "DOGGIEPING" since 12/29/04
Posted on 05/11/2005 5:21:38 AM PDT by MississippiMasterpiece
It has to be one of the dumbest laws, ever. And I don't even own or like pit bulls. It's nothing personal, only that I'd never keep any animal that eats as much or more than I do.
Still, I can weep for the pit bulls of Denver, particularly for the puppies that never did anything other than get born into the breed.
Yet here we have the city of Denver, newly sprung from legislative and judicial restraint, rounding up pits over the past couple of days and killing them like rats during The Plague.
A uniformed officer arrives at a home. "I'll get him," she announces to her partner. Rather than fight it all, a distraught man emerges, weighs going to jail and a fine, and in the end hands over his dog.
"I'm definitely sad," he later tells a reporter. "He's like a member of my family."
Later in the day, a woman pleads: "I don't have no dogs!
"There ain't no dogs in the basement!" she yells as the uniformed man and woman, responding to an informant's report of a pit bull, interrogate her. Outside, squad cars filled with police officers wait to see if they are needed.
"I'm just doing my job," the woman officer later laments.
It has been eight years since I last had a dog, God rest him. And the one thing I truly know is I would have never given him over to the dogcatcher to be killed simply because he was a beagle.
I would hardly care if a judge in the city where I lived said it was the rule and the law. Yet this has been happening since Monday in Denver, when a state law prohibiting bans of "breed-specific" dogs was overturned and the city's moratorium on pit bull confiscation and killing was lifted.
And no one much is saying a thing.
It is why we need to speak with William Suro. He is a veterinarian of 45 years, who in 1988 started the MaxFund, a nonprofit that provides medical care for injured animals with no known owners, which seeks new homes for them.
It is a shelter that has never killed a single dog.
Bill Suro, 69, for years has wrangled with Denver in the courts of legal and public opinion over the ban, passed in the wake of the pit bull killing of a young child.
"Unfair. Stupid," Bill Suro says of this week's roundup. "It remains an emotional response to a terrible thing that happened, but one that doesn't really help those hurt or killed by vicious dogs."
Bill Suro is a blunt-spoken and uncompromising defender of animals, and a man who believes in harsh punishment for those who abuse and kill them.
He has in recent hours counseled numerous terrier owners, given the shock of their lives simply because their pets resemble pits and were threatened with euthanasia. Denver animal control authorities acknowledge receiving and being sent on numerous "could be a pit bull" calls.
"It makes me and every animal lover and organization across this country just sick," he said. "It's crazy."
He and his wife, Nanci, over the past few months have emptied MaxFund of every pit bull they once housed, shipping them to like-minded shelters outside of Denver.
He puts the number at close to 20 pit bulls. Some owners, too, have come to MaxFund, only to be turned away. He and Nanci, he said, have done all they could.
"We would absolutely love to be the Underground Railroad for pit bulls, but we know the city would close us down."
Yes, I tell him, but aren't pit bulls actually the human flesh-ripping monsters they are portrayed to be?
Bill Suro snickers at my naivete.
"I've been a veterinarian for 45 years, and I've never once been attacked or bitten by a pit bull. There are other breeds where I have gone into an examination room and really been on my guard. I will not tell you which, but they scare me."
Cities like Denver, he says, whip up pit bull hysteria. And that is all it is, he said. People now all believe every pit bull "is a coiled and snarling attacker. It's nonsense."
Cities, he said, would be much better served if they took a simple look at canine attacks from recent years.
"Eighty percent all fatal attacks in the U.S. are caused by male dogs. I guess, given this, it would be prudent to now ban all breeds of male dogs."
Denver, he said, does not at the same time send dogcatchers to cite owners of non-neutered dogs,
"It should know there have been fatal attacks in the U.S. by Pomeranians, that half a dozen attacks that caused death or serious injuries were by cocker spaniels."
And then he raises an issue I had not contemplated, and which I do not lend much credence to. But I will give him his say because it matches what has happened the last two days in the city:
"There appears a racial end of this," Bill Suro says.
"Look at the dogs that have been impounded, and the surnames of their owners. . . . They aren't killing dogs from Cherry Creek. They pick on the easiest people to pick on, the ones who give up easiest," he said, adding that he has forwarded this claim to the American Civil Liberties Union.
What happens, I ask, when all of the Denver pit bulls have been rounded up and put down?
He would not want to be a Malamute, he said.
A male Malamute attacked and killed a 7-year-old girl in Fruita last Saturday night.
"It is not the breed," an unsmiling Bill Suro said.
The problem is that few have even heard of the AST and assume that any short-haired dog who attacks people is a "pit bull."
These clowns wouldn't know a "pit bull" if they tripped over one. I have a Boxer and every time I take him for a walk I am asked, "Is that a pit bull?"
That's what we're dealing with.
Try huskys, Akita's, Rottweillers, German shepherds, Dobermans, the Canarias breed (large dogs originally from the Canary Islands to name a few breeds.
"The breed is called a Staffordshire Bull Terrier in the UK..."
They're not the same. They are different breeds.
http://www.la-spca.org/dedication/tt_AMstaff.htm
I believe my information is more accurate than yours. Much of what you wrote is not true. But since you are a rude man I will not debate the points.
If you think I'm going to get excited when you come for my guns .... you should wait and see how excited I am going to get when you come for my dogs.
The Staffordshire Terrior IS a "pit bull" when reported by the media. If a Staffordshire Terrior were to bite someone, the media would report it as a "pit bull" attack and posters here would froth all over themselves with the "kill them all" frenzy that often accompanies such ignorance.
25 years in prison for anyone who trains a dog to be vicious.
We in Virginia have a saner law that just may keep a kid from getting killed by an Akita, or a Dogo Argintino, not listed under Colorado's illogical piece of legislation:
§ 3.1-796.93:1. Authority to control dangerous or vicious dogs.
A. The governing body of any county, city or town may enact an ordinance regulating dangerous dogs and vicious dogs.
B. As used in this section:
"Dangerous dog" means a canine or canine crossbreed that has bitten, attacked, or inflicted injury on a person or companion animal, or killed a companion animal; however, when a dog attacks or bites another dog, the attacking or biting dog shall not be deemed dangerous (i) if no serious physical injury as determined by a licensed veterinarian has occurred to the other dog as a result of the attack or bite or (ii) both dogs are owned by the same person. No dog shall be found to be a dangerous dog as a result of biting, attacking or inflicting injury on another dog while engaged with an owner or custodian as part of lawful hunting or participating in an organized, lawful dog handling event.
"Vicious dog" means a canine or canine crossbreed that has (i) killed a person; (ii) inflicted serious injury to a person, including multiple bites, serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or serious impairment of a bodily function; or (iii) continued to exhibit the behavior that resulted in a previous finding by a court or an animal control officer as authorized by local ordinance pursuant to the provisions of subsection E, that it is a dangerous dog, provided that its owner has been given notice of that finding.
C. Any ordinance enacted pursuant to this section shall prescribe the following provisions:
1. Any animal control officer who has reason to believe that a canine or canine crossbreed within his jurisdiction is a dangerous dog or vicious dog shall apply to a magistrate of the jurisdiction for the issuance of a summons requiring the owner or custodian, if known, to appear before a general district court at a specified time. The summons shall advise the owner of the nature of the proceeding and the matters at issue. The animal control officer shall confine the animal until such time as evidence shall be heard and a verdict rendered. If the animal control officer determines that the owner or custodian can confine the animal in a manner that protects the public safety, he may permit the owner or custodian to confine the animal until such time as evidence shall be heard and a verdict rendered. The court, through its contempt powers, may compel the owner, custodian or harborer of the animal to produce the animal. If, after hearing the evidence, the court finds that the animal is a dangerous dog, the court shall order the animal's owner to comply with the provisions of the ordinance. If, after hearing the evidence, the court finds that the animal is a vicious dog, the court shall order the animal euthanized in accordance with the provisions of § 3.1-796.119.
2. No canine or canine crossbreed shall be found to be a dangerous dog or vicious dog solely because it is a particular breed, nor shall the local governing body prohibit the ownership of a particular breed of canine or canine crossbreed. No animal shall be found to be a dangerous dog or vicious dog if the threat, injury or damage was sustained by a person who was (i) committing, at the time, a crime upon the premises occupied by the animal's owner or custodian, (ii) committing, at the time, a willful trespass or other tort upon the premises occupied by the animal's owner or custodian, or (iii) provoking, tormenting, or physically abusing the animal, or can be shown to have repeatedly provoked, tormented, abused, or assaulted the animal at other times. No police dog that was engaged in the performance of its duties as such at the time of the acts complained of shall be found to be a dangerous dog or a vicious dog. No animal which, at the time of the acts complained of, was responding to pain or injury, or was protecting itself, its kennel, its offspring, or its owner or owner's property, shall be found to be a dangerous dog or a vicious dog.
3. The owner of any animal found to be a dangerous dog shall, within 10 days of such finding, obtain a dangerous dog registration certificate from the local animal control officer for a fee of $50 or an amount as set by local ordinance but not to exceed the costs incurred by the locality to administer this program, in addition to other fees that may be authorized by law. The local animal control officer shall also provide the owner with a uniformly designed tag that identifies the animal as a dangerous dog. The owner shall affix the tag to the animal's collar and ensure that the animal wears the collar and tag at all times. All certificates obtained pursuant to this subdivision shall be renewed annually for the same fee and in the same manner as the initial certificate was obtained.
4. All certificates or renewals thereof required to be obtained under this section shall only be issued to persons 18 years of age or older who present satisfactory evidence (i) of the animal's current rabies vaccination, if applicable, and (ii) that the animal is and will be confined in a proper enclosure or is and will be confined inside the owner's residence or is and will be muzzled and confined in the owner's fenced-in yard until the proper enclosure is constructed. In addition, owners who apply for certificates or renewals thereof under this section shall not be issued a certificate or renewal thereof unless they present satisfactory evidence that (i) their residence is and will continue to be posted with clearly visible signs warning both minors and adults of the presence of a dangerous dog on the property and (ii) the animal has been permanently identified by means of a tattoo on the inside thigh or by electronic implantation.
5. While on the property of its owner, an animal found to be a dangerous dog shall be confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked structure of sufficient height and design to prevent its escape or direct contact with or entry by minors, adults, or other animals. The structure shall be designed to provide the animal with shelter from the elements of nature. When off its owner's property, an animal found to be a dangerous dog shall be kept on a leash and muzzled in such a manner as not to cause injury to the animal or interfere with the animal's vision or respiration, but so as to prevent it from biting a person or another animal.
6. If the owner of an animal found to be a dangerous dog is a minor, the custodial parent or legal guardian shall be responsible for complying with all requirements of this section.
7. After an animal has been found to be a dangerous dog, the animal's owner shall immediately, upon learning of same, notify the local animal control authority if the animal (i) is loose or unconfined; (ii) bites a person or attacks another animal; (iii) is sold, given away, or dies; or (iv) has been moved to a different address.
8. The owner of any animal that has been found to be a dangerous dog who willfully fails to comply with the requirements of the ordinance shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
9. All fees collected pursuant to the ordinance, less the costs incurred by the animal control authority in producing and distributing the certificates and tags required by the ordinance, shall be paid into a special dedicated fund in the treasury of the locality for the purpose of paying the expenses of any training course required under § 3.1-796.104:1.
D. Any ordinance enacted pursuant to this section may prescribe the following provisions:
1. All certificates or renewals thereof required to be obtained under this section shall only be issued to persons 18 years of age or older who present satisfactory evidence that the animal has been neutered or spayed.
2. All certificates or renewals thereof required to be obtained under this section shall only be issued to persons who present satisfactory evidence that the owner has liability insurance coverage, to the value of at least $100,000, that covers animal bites.
E. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision C 1, any ordinance enacted pursuant to this section may provide that an animal control officer may determine, after investigation, whether a dog is a dangerous dog. If the animal control officer determines that a dog is a dangerous dog, he may order the animal's owner to comply with the provisions of the ordinance. If the animal's owner disagrees with the animal control officer's determination, he may appeal the determination to the general district court for a trial on the merits.
(1993, c. 977; 1994, c. 115; 1997, cc. 582, 892; 1998, c. 817; 2000, cc. 11, 727; 2003, cc. 785, 841.)
When pitbulls are outlawed only outlaws will own pitbulls.
> Dogo Argintino<
Drat, read that "Dogo Argentino".
Which breed?
Good for Denver!!!!!
The same people who feel it necessary to have a pit bull are the ones who feel it necessary to have a Hummer.
Pit Bulls kill, regardless of the owners, any housebourne animal who can , at will or provacation, take a human life needs to be irradicated.
Nail the folks that have a problem - not wholesale banning of a type that isn't even very well defined.
Pit Bulls and Islaamofascist Terrorists; both getting a bad rap.
Dogs are vicious, or not, depending on their upbringing.
A pit bull is simply too powerful. It's like keeping anthrax in your home and claiming it's covered by the 2nd Amendment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.