Marty
05-22-2006, 07:45 PM
Springfield,MO -- A group of veterinarians, dog lovers, and, we suspect, folks who prefer limited government, have submitted a petition to overturn the city's recently enacted law requiring registration of pit bull ownership. The petitions were turned in with more than 2,400 signatures and once the city clerk verifies them will likely have enough to surpass the required 1,392 to force the city council to revisit the issue.
The city council could just go ahead and repeal their breed-specific law that in our opinion will be ineffective in dealing with the pit bull problem; or they can stick to their guns and let the voters decide.While we still believe the law is a bad one, in this case we hope the city council takes the necessary action to turn this vote over to the people. It will create an opportunity for the type of citywide — and perhaps countywide — discussion that might lead to a better solution.
We understand the city's concern with pit bulls. In that regard, we're probably more aligned with them than the folks who want to overturn the law. The animals have shown time and time again that in the wrong hands they are dangerous and deadly. Their numbers are increasing. In an urban area, the proliferation of pit bulls is alarming. City officials will tell you that one of their biggest concerns with the breed is that drug dealers use them for protection.
Well, to us, that sounds like a police problem, not an animal control problem.
Plenty of dangerous breeds other than pit bulls populate our city, and it sends a poor message that the city will decide one type of dog owner must be treated differently than another kind. As far as the city is concerned, there should be two classes of dog owners: good ones and bad ones.
Bad dog owners should be held to the standard of existing laws that provide opportunities for fines and confiscation of abused, mistreated or vicious animals. Springfield's vicious dog law is a good one, and in many ways it's proven effective.
The problem, of course, is that the city doesn't have enough money to put into its animal control program to use the law to its best advantage. That's a funding issue, however, not one that should require a new law.
That's why we think it's time for a countywide discussion of animal control problems. We do believe something should be done to reduce the proliferation of pit bulls. We do believe the city should aggressively protect children from the dangers of vicious dogs. But we also believe the city shouldn't pass a law that doesn't solve the problem. One of the inefficiencies of the law in its current form is that it has the potential to just shift the issue to the county. Ask the Greene County commissioners and they'll tell you they're worried about pit bulls and other dogs, too.
What Springfield and Greene County need, we believe, is direction from the voters on how to deal with this problem. It might be time to return to a dog-license fee to fund a more effective animal control program. It might be time to add even more teeth to the vicious dog ordinance — that aren't breed specific — so that city and county officials have a tool to protect children and families.
Ultimately, safety has to be a primary goal, but not at the expense of fairness and due process.
The city's residents have given their council a do-over. This time, city leaders should take their time, invite a countywide discussion, focus on the real problem and come up with a plan that will work.
http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060522/OPINIONS01/605220311/1091
The city council could just go ahead and repeal their breed-specific law that in our opinion will be ineffective in dealing with the pit bull problem; or they can stick to their guns and let the voters decide.While we still believe the law is a bad one, in this case we hope the city council takes the necessary action to turn this vote over to the people. It will create an opportunity for the type of citywide — and perhaps countywide — discussion that might lead to a better solution.
We understand the city's concern with pit bulls. In that regard, we're probably more aligned with them than the folks who want to overturn the law. The animals have shown time and time again that in the wrong hands they are dangerous and deadly. Their numbers are increasing. In an urban area, the proliferation of pit bulls is alarming. City officials will tell you that one of their biggest concerns with the breed is that drug dealers use them for protection.
Well, to us, that sounds like a police problem, not an animal control problem.
Plenty of dangerous breeds other than pit bulls populate our city, and it sends a poor message that the city will decide one type of dog owner must be treated differently than another kind. As far as the city is concerned, there should be two classes of dog owners: good ones and bad ones.
Bad dog owners should be held to the standard of existing laws that provide opportunities for fines and confiscation of abused, mistreated or vicious animals. Springfield's vicious dog law is a good one, and in many ways it's proven effective.
The problem, of course, is that the city doesn't have enough money to put into its animal control program to use the law to its best advantage. That's a funding issue, however, not one that should require a new law.
That's why we think it's time for a countywide discussion of animal control problems. We do believe something should be done to reduce the proliferation of pit bulls. We do believe the city should aggressively protect children from the dangers of vicious dogs. But we also believe the city shouldn't pass a law that doesn't solve the problem. One of the inefficiencies of the law in its current form is that it has the potential to just shift the issue to the county. Ask the Greene County commissioners and they'll tell you they're worried about pit bulls and other dogs, too.
What Springfield and Greene County need, we believe, is direction from the voters on how to deal with this problem. It might be time to return to a dog-license fee to fund a more effective animal control program. It might be time to add even more teeth to the vicious dog ordinance — that aren't breed specific — so that city and county officials have a tool to protect children and families.
Ultimately, safety has to be a primary goal, but not at the expense of fairness and due process.
The city's residents have given their council a do-over. This time, city leaders should take their time, invite a countywide discussion, focus on the real problem and come up with a plan that will work.
http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060522/OPINIONS01/605220311/1091