Tighten the leash on dangerous dogs

[size=-1]Louisville,KY -- [/size]It's been almost a year since the mauling deaths of a 14-month-old girl and a 60-year-old man prompted the Metro Council to crack down on dangerous dogs. But after months of bickering between council members, breeders and humane groups, and after more than a half dozen proposed revisions to the city dog ordinance, Louisville remains without a plan that will truly protect citizens from killer canines and hold owners of dangerous breeds accountable for their pets.

Let's hope that's about to change.

The latest draft of the ordinance, set to go before a Metro Council committee today, includes the most reasonable set of provisions to date. It lays out strict but logical new requirements for pit bull owners who choose not to spay or neuter their pets. It also makes it easier for animal control officers to document aggressive behavior in dogs of any breed and, if necessary, to levy the new restrictions on them, too.

The draft is a welcome compromise between those who want to target the "bully breeds" responsible for most dog attacks and the owners and breeders who claim breed-specific legislation is unfair and ineffective.

Naturally, some dog groups are unhappy about the proposed rules. But it's sensible to tighten the leash on owners who choose not to fix their animals. Some details of the ordinance are still being worked out, but owners of unspayed and un-neutered pit bulls would have to keep their dogs in pens at least seven feet tall and might have to carry $100,000 in liability insurance, among other regulations.

This would surely be an inconvenience for unlicensed breeders (licensed kennels would be exempt). But the real purpose is to give pit bull owners an incentive to fix their dogs, thereby cutting down on the number of pit bulls roaming the streets and dropped off at animal shelters (one in every four dogs impounded in Louisville is a pit bull) -- and to cut down on the number of dangerous dogs in the community.

The ordinance would also give Metro Animal Services important new powers to investigate complaints from frightened citizens and apply the new requirements to owners of any dog deemed dangerous. Preventing dog attacks is crucial, but so is giving residents the confidence to walk the sidewalk without fear.

Breeders are right when they argue that most pit bulls aren't vicious and that any type of dog can turn mean. That's why the new ordinance targets irresponsible owners, the ones who are negligent and have given pit bulls their stigma.

Conscientious owners and breeders should see this as a way to rid the community of vicious pit bulls and prove that there's more to the breed.

But first there must be an end to the needless deaths and maimings. This version of the ordinance represents a step in that direction, and the Metro Council should vote to pass it.

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060821/OPINION01/608210327

 

Well, for one I hope this is presented as an opinion piece and not a news story because it is filled with bias. I see many problems with this. For starters, only "pitbulls" are being singled out. Yes it states that they can levy restrictions on other breeds documented as being dangerous.....but why not start with all dogs there instead on any one particular breed? Why should "bully breeds" alone be altered and no other type of dog? Do you really think an animal control officer is going to file a report documenting a Lhaso Apso as being aggressive? And exactly how will the dogs being fixed eliminate dogs wandering the streets? Agreed, with fewer bitches in heat and fewer males seeking them out, fewer dogs will want to roam.....but with responsible ownership that wouldn't be a problem to begin with. Do they not already have leash laws there? So once again, responsible owners and good dogs have to suffer for the mistakes of others. Here's the other thing wrong with this, registered kennels are exempt from the fencing and liability coverage requirements, fine. So, if you just have one or two show dogs you have to register as a kennel and pay some exorbitant fee to the municipality? Not everyone who shows dogs is also a breeder. And you can't have a fixed show dog. Also, Metro Animal Services are getting "important new powers" (God help us when that is granted to any government agancy) to investigate complaints from "frightened citizens". Just great, now fueding neighbors can throw each other under the bus....oh, this is Kentucky, Hatfield's and McCoys? The end result will be multiple law suits, infighting and violence between neighbors, unneccessary taxes (fees and licensing) forced upon responsible owners, more money for the insurance companies and lawyers......and more dead dogs. Way to go Louisville!

 

I'm all for speutering, but this recent trend towards believing that it will stop dog attacks is a bit unsettling. When was the last time you saw a bitch pop open the gate with her uterus, or a dog maul somebody with his testicles? If speutering is what Louisville gets instead of an outright ban, so be it. But I wonder how long it will be before people realize that this is not a problem we can always legislate against.

 

Dogs have always at times bitten people, it just goes with having dogs. And on the list of dangers we face day to day I'd bet that dogs are pretty low on the list. And newsflash: Crimminals are NOT going to spay and nuter their dogs just because of a law. God save from people who want to save us from everything.

 

Hell dogs don't even rate. Americans kill more babies in one day than dogs could bite in a whole year. I say abortion clinics are more of a danger to human life than anything.

 

Last night there was a meeting here in Louisville Ky. I talked with the Head of Metro Animal Services, and if you show you dogs with the AADR, ADBA, UKC etc and can prove it, you can get a Class B kennel liscence for $150 and be exempt from that. As far as the showing part he siad you only have to show at one event per year, and that didn't really make sense to me.

 

Same thing happening in Daytona, FL

 

Licensed kennels are exempt.

Thats a no brainer. Just go down to the court house and get a kennel license.

 

Gotdam it, no its not! You show me where this countries constitution gives people the right to tell us what to do with our livestock, on our property. I'm sick and f'ing tired of people thinking they have the right to make decisions for others to "Save them from themselves". Bollocks. This is the same propaganda the communists were using 60 years ago. If your for giving up your freedoms to a military state to feel secure, and am content with the gov't telling you what to do-right down to the status of your dogs dick and balls-GET THE HELL OUT OF AMERICA AND GO TO A COUNTRY FOUNDED ON CUR-ASS COMMUNISTS...NOT PATRIOTS! We'll take care of ourselves, and we'll be just fine without YOU telling ME what is "sensible" with dogs you've never met, and never will. I'm all for spay/neutering, but the day I acknowledge the role of the gov't is to tell me what to do with my livestock-I'll be worm feed.

 

I agree, 110%, and I will never have the opinion, viewpoint or same thinking process of those who feel the need to "control aggression/dangerous issues" regarding dogs, by means of sterilizing them as a "quick fix". If I wanted to be told how to make my chioices, I would move to a communist society where their dictator can dicate to me until he's blue in the face. I choose to live in this country, and have lost family and friends in combat, and have family and friends still fighting, so I can have the freedom of choice that this country supposedly has to offer.
By instituting laws such as these, where it becomes mandated/necessary for you to follow, or face the reprocussions of not doing so, my "choice" has, yet again, been snatched away from me by complete strangers, who think they know what's "best" for me, and my animals, and as stated, "on my property".
Total BS, imo.
I would agree to fining irresponsible/repeat offenders, who have "ruined" it for so may responsible owners, but by mandating it, again, it will be the good owners, who, I'm sure there are far many more of, will ultimately suffer the most...
Before you know it everyone has a "kennel" and is running to city hall to obtain their licence. What then, constitutes a "kennel", or will that be subject to change as well?
I do think "dangerous dogs" are, and have been a problem. But, it's not a problem limited or restricted to "pit bulls". ANY dog has the propensity to become dangerous, so why, yet again, is the "pit bull" being singled out?
This is, imo, another knee jerk reaction to a problem no one really knows how to completely erradicate, so, what the hell, why not just take it out on the dogs, like it's typically been done. It's only a dog, right?!!!:mad: