Tag Archives: repeal

Aurora Colorado repeal needs help now

A potential repeal of Aurora Colorado’s breed ban has been moved onto the next step by the council.

The repeal, which is backed by Renie Peterson, passed the first step in the process, when it was sent to study by the cities Public Safety committee.  The committee meets in order to hear proposals and hear feed back from areas of government that the proposal concerns.

The agenda was changed so that BSL was first in line. Because of protocol, Animal Care and Control were the only people allowed to present. We were disappointed in both their support of continuing the law, and using Dogsbite, a hysteria based website, as “proof” of the dangers of dogs who have a certain appearance. We’re going to hope they are able to develop partnerships that nurture the “care” part of their mission. A second source was Kory Nelson. A Denver City Attorney, who fought like tooth and nail to keep BSL in Denver, and continues to champion it as a great law…”

In arguing for keeping the breed ban, the local animal care and control department claimed that HSUS held them up as a model community for their dangerous dogs laws.  HSUS has responded to this claim, in a letter to the city council (full letter available here).

“We also understand there has been some confusion about The HSUS’ endorsement of Aurora’s dog policies. The HSUS supports strong, comprehensive laws regarding the management of vicious or dangerous dogs, contingent upon there being no breed-specific components of said law. In a recent council meeting, a speaker claimed that HSUS cited Aurora as “model” legislation, and in 2004 we did—prior to the introduction of breed-specific policy in Aurora. The HSUS does not support or commend Aurora for their current dog laws. Instead we encourage your community to forge a new path to promote public safety and support dog owning families.”

At least one member of the committee who had initially shown some support for a repeal had begun to back track a little bit in her support, stating that she would support a repeal of the ban for restrictions instead.

One other council member, who has not made a commitment either way, specifically called out the credibility of ACC’s source of information and stated he wanted information from unbiased sources.  This information is being gathered and provided to the full council.

“In arguing for keeping BSL, Cheryl Conway of Aurora ACC argued that people who complain about the law are not from Aurora, nor even from Colorado. We’re going to ask you to help prove them wrong on that by a letter writing campaign.”

AURORA COLORADO RESIDENTS AND RESIDENTS ONLY:

The time has come to make your voices heard!

Begin reaching out and expressing support for a repeal.  One of the comments made by an official is that they don’t think residents support a repeal.  Considering that pro-BDL groups from not only out of the city, but also out of the state and out of the country, have been contacting the council, this is an ironic point.

“…what we do see, what we know, are that groups like dogsbite are lobbying hard in our community to control local issues and laws. They are hitting it hard, and will remain relentless until the end. So it’s our job, your job, Coloradans jobs, to shut them down. These are our cities and communities, our neighbors and our representatives.  It is our voice, local voices that deserve to be heard, and determine the outcome of local issues.

Residents should reach out with a simple expression of support.  The shorter the better, as we know that at least one council member has stopped reading the e-mails and is looking only at the subject lines.

The council can be reached at citycouncil@auroragov.org.

The subject line should read in support of the repeal.  This should be straight to the point.  Something along the lines of “Repeal breed ban”  or “Please support breed ban repeal” so that it is easily seen what the topic is.

A lot of studies and data have been presented to the council already, so at this time all that is needed is expressions of support for the repeal.

Again, a simple message will do.

“To whom it may concern,

As a resident of Aurora in Ward # X (ward number can be found on the cities website) I support the repeal of the “pit bull” ban and urge the council to support a repeal of the ban as well.

(Your name)”

Or:

My name is…

I am a resident of Aurora. I support repeal of BSL and replacing it with breed neutral laws that hold owners accountable.

Regards;
(your name)”

Make sure to include your ward number or address, any information that will identify you as a resident of Aurora.  This is incredibly important and cannot be stressed enough.

These correspondence are being counted, and members are claiming they are receiving a flood of e-mails urging them to keep the ban.

Another thing residents can do is to attend their wards meetings.  There is a schedule available here, of which wards are having meetings, the date and times.  This will give residents a chance to speak directly about the issue, show an in person presence and be heard, as well as giving you, the resident, a more active role in what is happening in your community.

The study session is set for March 3rd at 5pm.  Every single person who supports a repeal is being urged to attend this meeting.  There will be no public comment at this meeting but a large presence will make an impact.  The meeting will take place at the Aurora City Hall-Council Chambers, 15151 E. Alameda Parkway, Aurora, Colorado, 80012.

Information in italics has been reprinted with permission from ColoRADogs.

Bradford PA comes into compliance with state law

For years Pennsylvania has had a state law that prohibits breed discrimination in any form.

When this law was enacted, there were no grandfather clauses allowed, and all places with breed discriminatory laws had to repeal their existing ordinances as they were voided by state law.

Some places seem to never have been made aware of the state law, as we saw with Bessemer PA last year, and now Bradford PA this year.

According to officials, they were questioned about the legality of the existence of their ordinance targeting “pit bulls” as dangerous.  The declaration of being dangerous meant that, in Bradford, dogs deemed to be pit bulls were banned, as dangerous dogs were not allowed in the city.

After an investigation, they were told that state law does in fact invalidate the ordinance, and they moved to officially remove the old ordinance from the books.

Tuesday, January 28th, the council met and repealed the old breed discriminatory law.  This was done without ceremony, and with out opposition, during a meeting where many different items of business were discussed.

Though there are some who list ordinances in PA as being valid, it is shown repeatedly that this is not the case.  Pennsylvania doe not allow breed discrimination by municipalities at all.  

Not only that but PA also takes things a step farther, being one of 2 states in the US that do not allow insurance companies to refuse or cancel coverage based on the breed of dog of the insured.

Waterloo Wisconsin repeals breed discriminatory restrictions

In 2013 Waterloo Wisconsin officials were discussing the possibility of repealing their breed restrictions.

Enacted in 1996, the ordinance targeted  “(1)The pit bull terrier breed of dog. (2) The Staffordshire bull terrier breed of dog. (3) The American pit bull terrier breed of dog. (4) The American Staffordshire terrier breed of dog. (5) Dogs of mixed breed or of other breeds than listed under Subsections (1) to (4) above whose breed or mixed breed is commonly known as “pit bull,” “pit bull dog” or “pit bull terrier.”

These dogs and their mixes were considered to be vicious by default.  Dogs that were targeted had to be muzzled, on a leash of a certain length, confined to the specifications of the ordinance, both inside and outside the house, targeted dogs are not allowed to live in multi-dwelling housing and signs must be posted.  These rules apply to dogs that have been declared vicious by their behaviors, as well as those who are determined to be a targeted breed.

In 2013 Watertown, WI, looked into a breed discriminatory law and rejected the idea after a lengthy debate.  The proposal there was a mirror of Waterloo’s ordinance.  This rejection was used to galvanize support in the area against breed discriminatory laws, as well as highlighting and supporting the failure of such a law.

Alderwoman Laura Cotting suggested removing the breed discriminatory language at the October 3rd meeting of the Health and Safety Committee.

At their last meeting, officials acted on this suggestion by removing all breed based language from the dangerous dog ordinance.

We have been able to get some information about what happened there behind the scenes.

The issue first came up when a bike trail between Waterloo and Watertown was approved to be installed by the State.  A group of dog carting and sledding enthusiasts who hold events in the area decided, based on several factors, that this trail would be a great place to promote dog carting events, but because of the existing breed discriminatory law in Waterloo, participants would not be able to cross the city line without stopping to muzzle some of the participating dogs.   This raised some questions for competitions, as well as the legalities behind dogs that may not be residing in Waterloo, and whether the law would affect them.  Included in the participating dogs that were restricted are therapy dogs working in the surrounding areas.

The city was contacted by community members who were concerned about the effect the breed discriminatory law would have on such events and the city at large.

After the city was contacted, a committee was formed to investigate the issue, look at the existing law, make recommendations and draft changes to the existing law.  Three public Safety Committee meetings were held.  The public was invited to participate in all meetings.  After the changes were drafted, there was a public hearing on the new language in the ordinance.   Between 10 and 15 people attended the hearing.   There were some differences of opinion on aspects of the changes officials were making to strengthen the revised breed neutral law, such as leash requirements and licensing issues, but all the residents agreed that breed neutral was the way the city should go.

Only one person spoke in support of the existing breed discriminatory language.  This person was not known to the community members.  When it became clear that the idea of keeping the existing breed discriminatory language was not supported by any member of the community or council, we are told that the individual that was there supporting it became frustrated.  This person had, at one point, attempted to get some personal information of the people who suggested the repeal, but the members of the community refused to disclose any of that information.

There was only one dissenting vote to the changes.

Congratulations to the city of Waterloo, Wisconsin, for supporting safe and humane communities, and wanting to address the real causes of dangerous dogs, reckless and negligent owners.

Chesterfield, MO – Repeals Pit Bull Legislation

***UDATE***

Chesterfield, Missouri! Bill No. 2909, which amends the “Dangerous Animals” ordinance to REMOVE all the breed specific language was APPROVED at the second reading on December 3rd, 2012!

Way to go Chesterfield!

_______________________________________________________

Chesterfield, Missouri Council members will meet at 7:00 PM tonight, Monday, December 3rd to move forward with removal of the cities current breed specific legislation REPEAL.

If you are in the area, please attend the meeting in effort to show your support of this action.

For more information….

Worcester MA – Pit Bull Regulations Removed

According to the telegram, and communications between StopBSL.org and City Officials, Worcester will drop requirements that pit bulls be licensed, registered and muzzled in public.  Instead of the police chief ordering measures against problem dogs — restraint, removal from the city, or euthanasia — the city will have a complaint and hearing procedure.

http://www.telegram.com/article/20121127/NEWS/111279895/1020

Wilmington DE – Residents Want Pit Bull Legislation Changed

UPDATE FROM:
We had a great evening at Wilmington City Council. 3 people spoke in support of repealing the BSL and zero in opposition (even after the news paper called for opposition to come voice their side). We also had 4 supporters in the audience. We provided every council member with a letter including all of the information f

rom our END BSL tab on our website. There will be a new proposition drafted in the coming week and we will let you know when it will be brought forth for a reading/vote. We will need everyone to come out to support it! We are on the brink of change and we need everyone’s involvement. For more information, check out our website or email Amanda@pitbullsoldiers.com. The next meeting is November 1. Please mark your calendars and come out to support the innocent. Thank you to everyone who attended today’s meeting and to everyone who supports us in this fight. -A

__________________________________________________

Twelve years ago Wilmington DE passed an ordinance with strict regulations for any dog deemed a ‘pit bull’.  Owners of such dogs were required to register their dogs, muzzle them while in public parks and keep them on a leash no longer than 6 feet.  Their ordinance also required a person to be at least 21 years old in order to accompany the dog and all pit bulls would be spayed or neutered.

But four months ago resident Amanda Rodriquez started asking for change.

And every  month since then, Ms. Rodriquez has addressed the Wilmington City Council with the same request…Support legislation eliminating its strict laws governing pit bull ownership.

Council hasn’t been so eager to see change however, even though Mayor James M. Baker has introduced legislation to repeal Wilmington’s breed-specific legislation.

While some of the council members have expressed their apprehension to repeal the regulations, pointing out two recent incidents involving unlicensed dogs, others have reserved their decision requesting more information be available to review.

Councilman Michael A. Brown Sr. said “I always like to hear everybody, and apparently we haven’t heard everybody because everybody that has come up into the 30-minute public speaking period, all of them have been for it.  We haven’t heard any on them that are against it.”

Please send your POLITE, RESPECTFUL and PROFESSIONAL correspondence to officials in Wilmington, DE at:

Norman D. Griffiths
Council President
ngriffiths@wilmingtonde.gov

Charles Potter, Jr.
1st District Council Member
cpjr00@aol.com

Ernest “Trippi” Congo II
2nd District Council Member
sammycongo@aol.com

Eric D. Robinson
3rd District Council Member
3rddistrep@gmail.com

Hanifa G.N. Shabazz
4th District Council Member
hshabazz@wilmingtonde.gov

Samuel Prado
5th District Council Member
sammy_wilm@yahoo.com

Kevin F. Kelley, Sr.
6th District Council Member
President Pro Tempore
6thdistrict@comcast.net

Paul F. Ignudo, Jr.
7th District Council Member
ignudo7th@comcast.net

Tracey Thomson Schofield
8th District Council Member
traceyscho@gmail.com

Michael A. Brown, Sr.
Council Member At-Large
mabrown@wilmingtonde.gov

Charles M. “Bud” Freel
Council Member At-Large
budfreel@aol.com

Loretta Walsh
Council Member At-Large
lwalsh@wilmingtonde.gov

Justen A. Wright
Council Member At-Large
justen@justenwright.org

MANCHESTER, MISSOURI – Board of Aldermen Repeal Pit Bull Ban with Unanimous Vote

We reported in August that a Manchester resident had filed a suit against the City of Manchester on the grounds of violation of her constitutional rights because she had received at least four citations because of her dog.

Last night, the Board of Aldermen voted unanimously to repeal the cities pit bull ordinance, adopting instead a non-breed specific dangerous dog law.

According to City Manager, Andy Hixson, the revision to the existing ordinance removed the term ‘pit bull’.  The changes are effective immediately and all vicious dog designations will be determined by the individual dogs behavior rather than breed or appearance.