West Fork, AR update: Citizens oppose proposed breed ban

Residents and locals, please continue to work respectfully with city officials to find a compromise that is breed-neutral. The next city council meeting will be June 12.

City of West Fork, Arkansas, P.O. Box 339, West Fork, AR 72774
Phone: (479) 839-2342
Fax: (479) 839-3335
Email: city@westforkar.gov (may not work–better to fax)

All alerts for West Fork: http://stopbsl.org/?s=west+fork

Possible Pit Bull Ban in West Fork Sparks Community Reaction

By: Marissa Stevens

Updated: May 8, 2012

A possible ban on pit bulls in West Fork had a lot of people talking during Tuesday night’s meeting.

The West Fork City Council wanted to hear what residents had to say and they definitely heard some very strong opinions. [...]

Not a single resident was in favor of the breed-specific ban at Tuesday night’s meeting.

Instead, they want to see harsher punishments for irresponsible owners.

“They just need to start ticketing people and enforcing the fines on any dog at large, whether it’s a yorkie or a pit bull, to me it makes no difference,’ said Jacqueline Dunn. [...]

City officials said they will work with residents and hopefully come up with a compromise that makes all dog owners happy. [...]

Full article retrieved 5/9/12 from http://nwahomepage.com/fulltext?nxd_id=330242

DeKalb County, GA: County approves repeal of BSL

DeKalb County commissioners have unanimously voted to repeal the breed-specific language in their county zoning ordinance. Residents and locals, please write the county commissioners and THANK them for making a smart decision.

Contact information for county commissioners
Board of Commissioners, 1300 Commerce Drive, Decatur, GA 30030
Fax: 404-371-7004
ecboyer@dekalbcountyga.gov; jrader@dekalbcountyga.gov; larryjohnson@dekalbcountyga.gov; sbsutton@dekalbcountyga.gov; lmay@dekalbcountyga.gov; kgannon@dekalbcountyga.gov; stanwatson@dekalbcountyga.gov

DeKalb lifts pit bull ban

By April Hunt , The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The DeKalb County Commission unanimously agreed Tuesday to lift the ban on pit bulls — part of the county’s zoning code, not animal control ordinances — after more than a year of weighing the issue.

No other metro county has a ban on pit bulls, and DeKalb’s was less a ban than a source of confusion. Code enforcement officers cited owners who simply had to point out “pit bull” is not a breed of dog to have their tickets tossed.

“It has not been an effective tool for being able to get rid of dangerous animals,” said Commissioner Jeff Rader, who had championed the change. “We are better served relying on the criminal code.” [...]

Full article retrieved 5/8/12 from http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/dekalb-lifts-pit-bull-1433546.html

All alerts for DeKalb County: http://stopbsl.org/?s=dekalb

Ontario, Canada: Final committee hearing on Bill 16, May 9

Bill 16, which would repeal the breed ban in Ontario, will have a final hearing in the Standing Committee of Regulations and Private Bills on May 9 at 9:00 AM.

If the bill passes the committee, it will be ready for a third reading in the full Ontario Legislative Assembly—but the majority party has to call it for a third reading, and it’s not clear if that will happen.

There should be a live webcast on May 9, starting at 9:00 am, if you want to follow the clause-by-clause voting on Bill 16: http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/go2.jsp?Page=/webcast/webcast_main&locale=en&menuItem=dandp_webcast

You can read the transcripts from the previous committee hearings here:

(April 25) http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/committee-proceedings/committee_transcripts_details.do?Date=2012-04-25&ParlCommID=8962&BillID=2552&Business&locale=en&DocumentID=26243

(April 18) http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/committee-proceedings/committee_transcripts_details.do?locale=en&Date=2012-04-18&ParlCommID=8962&BillID=2552&Business&DocumentID=26206

All alerts for Ontario Bill 16: http://stopbsl.com/?s=%22Bill+16%22

Aurelia, IA: City will go to court over “pit bull” service dog

Aurelia, IA, has decided to meet officer and service dog owner James Sak in court. The city has a ban on “pit bulls,” and Mr. Sak’s service dog, Snickers, looks like a “pit bull.” The city has refused to allow Mr. Sak’s service dog a permanent exemption to their breed ban.

We’re somewhat appalled that Aurelia is pursuing this matter. The Americans with Disabilities Act has been strengthened by a Department of Justice ruling that municipal breed bans / BSL cannot and should not apply to service dogs. It seems like a pretty clear-cut situation, and we’re not sure what Aurelia hopes to accomplish by pouring taxpayer money into a court battle with a disabled, cancer-suffering, retired police officer and his federally-protected, unoffending service dog.

All alerts for Aurelia: http://stopbsl.org/?s=aurelia

Animal Farm Foundation is assisting Officer Sak. Below is their press release. Many thanks to Kim for keeping us updated on this issue.

This week the attorneys from Davis Brown Law Firm, who are representing the Saks pro bono, learned that the Town of Aurelia refused to settle out of court and reach a permanent agreement on Snicker’s legal ability to stay with Jim in Aurelia. Therefore, the case will be going to trial. The trial date has been set for July 8, 2013 (note: that says 2013, not 2012).

In the meantime, the attorneys have entered into the discovery period where they will be gathering expert testimony and factual evidence supporting the Saks’ case. This will include information on service dogs, the ADA guidelines, dog behavior, Jim’s health, and so forth.

“Animal Farm Foundation is pleased to support them in these efforts to present the most current, fact-based and peer-reviewed scientific research and information,” said Kim Wolf, Community Engagement Specialist for Animal Farm Foundation.

Snickers has permission from the Federal judge (per the hearing in December 2011) to remain at home with Jim throughout this process.

Earlier this year, Jim was diagnosed with throat cancer. He has been undergoing treatment at Mercy Medical Center in Sioux City. He is expected to recover, and the survival rate for this type of cancer is 70% or higher.

“The worst part of my [cancer] treatment is not having my dog here,” said Jim Sak.

Jim will be returning home to Aurelia upon completion of his treatment.

“Jim has been so strong throughout all of this. We know of his strength comes from knowing Snickers is waiting for him at home, waiting to do his job as his service animal and his support,” said Wolf.

“We want everyone to realize that Aurelia’s decision to use taxpayer dollars to put Jim through the agony of a trial, especially while he’s battling cancer, does not reflect the sentiments of every resident of Aurelia. The outpouring of support and disbelief from Jim’s neighbors has been huge. We don’t want all the residents of Aurelia to be cast in a negative light just because of the illogical, unjust, and heartless decisions of a small minority,” said Wolf.

Bastrop, LA: City to start enforcing BSL

There will be a public meeting on May 14 at 5:00 PM at City Hall so city officials can talk to the public about enforcement of the “pit bull” ordinance.
Bastrop, LA, City Hall, 202 East Jefferson Avenue, Bastrop, Louisiana 71220
City Clerk Sandra Goleman, sgoleman@cityofbastrop.com
Telephone: 318-283-0250

City responds to complaints about pit bulls

By Andrew Bell, Bastrop Daily Enterprise
Posted May 05, 2012 @ 09:30 AM

BASTROP — On May 14, there will be a public meeting at City Hall at 5 p.m. to discuss how the city is aiming to more closely follow to its authority regarding pit bulls.

“It’s going to be an informative meeting, letting residents know that we are going to start enforcing the ordinance,” explained Public Works director Willie McKee.

[...] In April 2009 the mayor and aldermen approved an amendment to the city’s animal and fowl ordinance that specifically categorizes pit bulls as a “dangerous dog.” [...]

Full article retrieved 5/7/12 from http://www.bastropenterprise.com/news/x1809303690/City-responds-to-complaints-about-pit-bulls

Upland, CA: Committee recommends BS-MSN

The Upland, CA, Advisory Committee has recommended BS-MSN for “pit bulls.”

Please encourage city officials to drop the breed-specific language in their proposal. Breed-specific MSN—like any other breed-specific law—discriminates against people and their dogs based on whether the owner or dog have a “desirable” or “undesirable” physical appearance.

Whether you support or oppose MSN, it doesn’t need to be breed-specific. If you think MSN is good for dogs that look like “pit bulls,” then it is good for any dog. By removing the breed-specific focus, Upland can avoid the expense and inequality that goes with BSL.

Also of note, committee members did not choose BS-MSN in order to control overpopulation. (If so, Chihuahuas would also be named.) Rather, committee members voted for BS-MSN because, as committee member and councilor Tom Mitchell says, there’s a “problem” with “pit bulls” according to “a preponderance of the evidence.” What evidence? We’re not sure. According to city statistics, Labs and Chihuahuas racked up the most dog bites in 2011. “Pit bulls” and German Shepherds came in next. As we would expect from the most popular breeds / types of dogs in Upland.

Upland City Hall, 460 N. Euclid Ave., Upland, Ca 91786
(909) 931-4100
City Clerk, smendenhall@ci.upland.ca.us
Mayor and City Council, citycouncil@ci.upland.ca.us
City Manager, citymanager@ci.upland.ca.us

Upland committee recommends mandatory spay/neuter of pit bulls

Sandra Emerson, Staff Writer
Created: 05/05/2012 02:00:37 PM PDT

UPLAND – The City Council Advisory Committee is recommending the City Council move forward on implementing a mandatory spay and neuter ordinance for pit bulls and pit bull mixes.[...]

The ordinance mirrors the ordinance implemented by San Bernardino County in 2010. [...]

Committee Member Mark Creighton voted against the recommendation and is against breed specific legislation. [...]

Chihuahuas, like pit bulls, also make up the majority of dogs in shelters, Creighton said.

“We should have mandatory spay and neuter for them as well, but we’re not arguing that because Chihuahuas aren’t rabidly aggressive dogs,” he said. “Obviously this conversation is only because of people’s fear of a specific breed.” [...]

Full article retrieved 5/7/12 from http://www.dailybulletin.com/ci_20556996/upland-committee-recommends-mandatory-spay-neuter-pit-bulls

West Fork, AR: Proposed breed ban public hearing, May 8

Many thanks to Mona for putting this on our radar.

West Fork, AR, is experiencing growing pains. They’re growing, they lack animal ordinances, and they have only one part-time animal control officer.

The city council has come up with some proposed animal control ordinances. One of the provisions is a “pit bull” ban with a grandfather clause. Current residents can keep their “pit bulls” as long as they register the dog by the date of the ordinance’s passage. No new or unregistered ”pit bulls” will be allowed.

The council added the “pit bull” ban to the proposed ordinances because they are having new problems with “pit bulls” running loose and with people not registering their “pit bulls” (as is currently required for all dog owners). The irony here is that, according to the mayor, West Fork’s ”pit bull” problem is partly due to neighboring communities banning the dogs. So… what is West Fork council doing to solve the problem? Banning the dogs and passing the problem on to one of its neighbors. We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: breed bans and BSL don’t make communities safer, because these laws don’t hold bad dog owners responsible—BSL just pushes the problem around.

The city will hold a public hearing on the animal ordinances, including the “pit bull” ban, on May 8 from 6:00 to 6:30 at City Administration building, 262 Main Street, West Fork (across from the Little O’ Oprey).

IMPORTANT: The mayor and council are aware that the “pit bull” ban is the most contentious of the proposed ordinances. The mayor understands the concerns about the breed ban and has advised us that the council is looking for SOLUTIONS. And they can’t solve anything if all they get are angry objections. We agree.

If you attend the council meeting on May 8, please come prepared to speak concisely and informatively. BE HELPFUL. Briefly state your objection to the breed ban, and then provide a good breed-neutral alternative dog ordinance or some pointers for the council to improve the ordinance. All dog owners should be held to the same standards, regardless of what their dog looks like.