Jasper, AL: Council hears first reading of breed ban

Mayor Sonny Posey of Jasper, AL, has proposed a breed ban that would include “pit bulls,” Dobermans, Rottweilers, Chows, mixes of these, and any mutt that “looks like” one of these.

The council may take the first vote on the ordinance during the next council meeting on June 7. Please send polite, respectful, educational correspondence to city council members to encourage them to pursue a breed-neutral dog ordinance. Next city council meeting: June 7, 10 AM(?), Jasper City Hall Council Chambers, 400 West 19 th Street, Jasper, AL.

Contact info for city council members:
City of Jasper, Alabama, P. O. Box 1589, Jasper, Alabama 35502-1589
City Hall/Mayor Phone 205-221-2100
Mayor, sposey@jaspercity.com (Mayor Posey requested the ban)
City Hall, cityhall@jaspercity.com

Council examines ordinance to collar city’s pet problem being examined

by David Lazenby, 5/22/11

[…] Currently, [city attorney Russ] Robertson said there is little restrictions on dogs in Jasper “until one is declared vicious.”

“In order to be declared, it must have bitten, or without provocation bite or fiercely attack a person or other animal. Once a dog is declared vicious, we have pretty good procedures,” Robertson said.

Robertson added that until a dog is declared vicious, the city’s leash law is the only control the city maintains in regard to dogs.

Along with a proposed ban on the purebred dogs is a prohibition on “any mixed breed of dog, which contains as an element of its breeding” the breeds of dogs that may be banned in Jasper.

However, Robertson said mixed breed dogs would only be outlawed if they “look enough like” the breeds that may be banned.[…]

Full article retrieved 5/23/11 from http://www.mountaineagle.com/view/full_story/13364323/article-Council-examines-ordinance-to-collar-city%E2%80%99s-pet-problem-being-examined?instance=latest_articles

Advertisements

6 responses to “Jasper, AL: Council hears first reading of breed ban

  1. Viki Strachan

    What’s Wrong with Breed-Specific Laws?
    BSL carries a host of negative and wholly unintended consequences:
    * Dogs go into hiding
    Rather than give up their beloved pets, owners of highly regulated or banned breeds often attempt to avoid detection of their “outlaw” dogs by restricting outdoor exercise and socialization and forgoing licensing, microchipping and proper veterinary care, including spay/neuter surgery and essential vaccinations. Such actions have implications both for public safety and the health of these dogs.
    * Good owners and dogs are punished
    BSL also causes hardship to responsible owners of entirely friendly, properly supervised and well-socialized dogs who happen to fall within the regulated breed. Although these dog owners have done nothing to endanger the public, they are required to comply with local breed bans and regulations unless they are able to mount successful (and often costly) legal challenges.
    * They impart a false sense of security
    Breed-specific laws have a tendency to compromise rather than enhance public safety. When limited animal control resources are used to regulate or ban a certain breed of dog, without regard to behavior, the focus is shifted away from routine, effective enforcement of laws that have the best chance of making our communities safer: dog license laws, leash laws, animal fighting laws, anti-tethering laws, laws facilitating spaying and neutering and laws that require all owners to control their dogs, regardless of breed.
    What’s the Alternative to Breed-Specific Laws?
    In the aforementioned study, the CDC noted that many other factors beyond breed may affect a dog’s tendency toward aggression—things such as heredity, sex, early experience, reproductive status, socialization and training. These last two concerns are well-founded, given that:
    * More than 70 percent of all dog bite cases involve unneutered male dogs.
    * An unneutered male dog is 2.6 times more likely to bite than is a neutered dog.
    * A chained or tethered dog is 2.8 times more likely to bite than a dog who is not chained or tethered.
    * 97 percent of dogs involved in fatal dog attacks in 2006 were not spayed/neutered:
    * 78 percent were maintained not as pets, but rather for guarding, image enhancement, fighting or breeding.
    * 84 percent were maintained by reckless owners—these dogs were abused or neglected, not humanely controlled or contained, or allowed to interact with children unsupervised.
    Recognizing that the problem of dangerous dogs requires serious attention, the ASPCA seeks effective enforcement of breed-neutral laws that hold dog owners accountable for the actions of their animals.
    For help in drafting animal control laws, contact the ASPCA’s Government Relations department at lobby@aspca.org.

  2. DIANA HONEY

    When they think up a bill that will cause family heart break and chaos,heart break,pain and suffering-who are they really thinking about? Are they so set on pure genocide as the Nazi’s were with the Jew’s that now the only way humans can legally plot to kill another species is to go after a being that has no voice and cant say your not going to kill me? All those so called law makers are using pure hate to butcher animals and for the most part get away with causing fear and pain and terror, not only to other humans who are having there beloved family member ripped from there arms and homes ,but also to all the animals who are having to experience pure evil from another human, being taken from there homes and the ones who have loved them, being slammed into cages where they have never been before with 100’s of other animals being then driven to a slaughter house ,where they are kicked,beaten ,shoved around,dragged while they yelp and scream to eather have there mouths tied shut and slammed down to the ground where eather a needle is shoved into there arm, or to have a needle shoved directly into there hearts-experiencing the hole trauma,or there piled into a gas chamber by large numbers one on top of the other all fighting and scratching-climbing on each other to get out- then there gassed where you can hear all of the animals scream ! Yes you can hear the screams ! A sight and sound that stays with you forever! This is pure hate and genocide of many species’. Hundreds of body’s piled on top of each other or stuffed into barrels and then hauled off to some dump” This is directly what this BSL is-point blank-”,, BSL is a nothing more then butchering and murder, And they use this bill to be able to murder and destroy a family! It is past time to stop any person or politician from enacting such a violation to our right to happiness and privacy, and to any one who willingly causes abuse to animals or causes directly the cause of murder to another living being in this manner! Bsl violates animal abuse law’s that are all ready set up to protect animals- and to take another’s animal with out there permission is theft and to kill said animal is murder! No mater what you try to call it- IT IS MURDER!

  3. Jack Crader

    Russ Robertson is the attorney for the city of Jasper. He will be responsible, I’m sure, for the wording of the ordinance and all other legalese going into this atrocious waste of tax payer resources. The link for his contact info is http://www.lairdandrobertson.com/Attorneys.shtml/1879369_1

  4. Hello. I live in Europe in Poland. My city has 300 thousand. residents and 10 years was not incdentów of Bull terriers. Amstaff dogs and one type I can not bite. So the mindless denigration of race is a mistake, because if this race was evil, and in me to bite. This is not an agreement and the lack of knowledge. Zbyszek.

  5. Jerry Kitchens

    If you don’t ban the dog; at least, “ban the bite”.
    Most severe dog bites are on children and are in the home and are by the owner’s dog. Public protection will not prevent most severe dog bites to children.
    If dogs capable of causing severe bites to children are allowed to be present with children we must pass an ordnance that protects them.
    There are “easy” ways to protect children from their own dogs in their own homes. We must do it.
    Most dog attacks to children are by Pit Bull type dogs and Rottweilers and most of those bites are to the face!
    It only requires a muzzle when these dogs are in the presence of children.
    If we pass an ordnance please make it protect the largest number of potential victims and the most vulnerable when in the most likely place to be severely bitten; which is children in the home.
    Most of these severe and fatal attacks on children are in their face. The suvivors are scarred for life; physically and emotionally.
    By requiring muzzles in the presence of children they can keep their “potentially vicious” playmataes and still not be killed or scarred for life. There is an alternaitve to the muzzle. It is a tooth guard that is available for purchase.
    Please don’t ignore these defenseless victims.

    • stopbslcom

      Jerry–You say “if dogs capable of causing severe bites to children…” All dogs are capable of causing severe bites. Is your concern limited only to those children bitten by certain types of dogs? If a child is hospitalized by a Labrador Retriever or a Chihuahua, do you care?
      You say “Most dog attacks to children are by pit bull type dogs and rottweilers…” This is an invented “fact” that has never been substantiated with scientifically gathered data. And even if there were–it is meaningless data without knowing the total population of each breed or type of dog (another number that has never been possible to obtain).

      No one is ignoring “defenseless victims” (children or dogs). Quite the contrary, we want everyone to be safe. Breed-specific laws and breed bans don’t stop dog bites. They don’t save victims; they create victims. To add insult to injury, they discriminate against victims–as you are doing in your comment–sympathy and protection and concern only for some people, outrage against only some types of dogs.

      Reduction of dog bites can be accomplished, and has been accomplished, through breed-neutral ordinances that put responsibility on dog owners, and through educational initiatives. Public safety has never been improved via breed-specific laws.