1. Grow your baby fish like a PRO

    Microworms, great live feed for your Fish or Shrimp Fry. They are easy to culture and will considerably improve your fry mortality rate. Order online to start a never-ending supply of Microworms! [ Click here to order ]

cross post.. this is messed up

Discussion in 'Dogs - Pit bull breeds specific' started by daddyfs, May 12, 2005.

  1. daddyfs

    daddyfs New Member

    Linda McConnell © News

    William Hollowell carries his dog, Bandit, to an animal control van Monday as Denver began enforcing the pit bull ban.

    PRINT THIS STORY | E-MAIL THIS STORY

    Pit bull roundup begins in Denver
    On first day of effort, city's animal control officers seize 12 dogs

    By David Montero, Rocky Mountain News
    May 10, 2005

    Officer Lorraine Pacheco didn't know what to expect Monday - the first day of Denver Animal Control's enforcement of the city's ban on owning pit bulls.

    "At first, I was like, do I even want to come into work today," Pacheco said from behind the wheel of her city-issued white van.


    Advertisement



    "People not wanting to give up their dogs, saying 'I love my dog, why are you taking him?' It's not a witch-hunt."

    It is the law, though.

    The Denver District Court ruled this year that an ordinance passed in April 2004 was legal, and about 200 owners of pit bulls were notified by mail that they would have to turn over their dogs beginning Monday.

    Doug Kelly, director of the Denver animal shelter, said that, as of early Monday evening, 12 pit bulls were in custody after owners either relinquished them or they were picked up by officers such as Pacheco."We really didn't know what to expect," he said. "We were prepared for a higher caller volume."

    Of those dozen dogs, he said six will likely be euthanized after 24 hours. The others, which the city picked up, will be traced back to their owners, he said. If the owners had previous pit bull violations, the dogs won't be returned and will be euthanized. If the dogs had no prior violations, the owners will have the opportunity to relocate them outside the county of Denver.

    William Hollowell had received a notice and gave up his dog voluntarily when animal control officers arrived Monday afternoon.

    Three animal control vans parked outside his brick house while his dog, Bandit, jumped and barked inside a small fenced area of the backyard."I'll get him," Hollowell said quietly as animal control officials closed in with wrangling equipment.

    The 50-year-old with long dreadlocks opened the fence's door a crack and slipped behind the chain-link door separating the officers from the snarling dog. He calmly put a chain leash on Bandit and started to walk him out. Bandit struggled at first, lunging in different directions before his owner picked him up and brought him to the back of the van. In the background, two American bulldogs barked loudly.

    "I'm definitely sad," Hollowell said. "He's like a member of my family. There's going to be a lot of sad people."

    Pacheco said because Hollowell voluntarily gave up the dog, he wouldn't be ticketed. The fine for violating the city ordinance is up to $999 and/or a year in jail.

    As they were finishing loading up the dog, and Officer Frank Jimenez was explaining to Hollowell his options, Pacheco got another call about a pit bull running loose in a Montbello neighborhood.

    When she and Jimenez arrived about a half-hour later, the home in question had no evidence of a dog. The woman who answered the door when Pacheco knocked wasn't too happy to see them, either.

    Between a flurry of obscenities, the woman said she gave up the pit bull days ago. A little girl inside the doorway to the house mentioned it might be in the basement. Officers asked her if they could look there.

    "I don't have no dogs," the woman yelled. "There ain't no dogs in the basement. You want to search the house, get a warrant. And then I'll sue you."

    Keri Lafave, a neighbor, said the black pit bull had been running loose in the neighborhood earlier in the day. However, she said the dog wasn't mean.

    Both Jimenez and Pacheco called Denver police officers for backup and, while they waited for the squad cars to arrive, they stood watch by the backyard in case the woman tried to flee with a pit bull. When the officers arrived, the woman refused entrance to her house and Pacheco said a warrant would have to be issued.

    "I've been called everything in the book," she said as she got in the van and drove away. "I just try and tell them I'm just doing my job."

    monterod@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-892-5236
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    i cant imagine someone jus comin up to my house and takin my dog jus cause.. this is wild... the cop cant really be askin folks to be understandin with that bulls111 line "I just try and tell them I'm just doing my job." cuz your is takin people's family members away for no reason at all.. i hope i never get stationed in Denver
     
  2. DeLaUK

    DeLaUK New Member

    This is just sick....!!!!!!
     
  3. someday

    someday New Member

    I agree...BSL is terrible. That's why I write as many letters as I can now...if I was every faced with it I would definetely fight it like heck and move if I had to. There is no way someone would be able to come in and take my dog. I just not right and I don't agree with it at all. But I realize some people, especially people with families can't just pick up and move and it's very sad for them. It's very hard to place pit bulls..there's just so many that already need homes.
     
  4. yogi

    yogi New Member

    Denver? the state that tried to pass special pet family law.

    I am confused, wasn't just a few months ago that Colorado was looking to pass a pet as family member law to ensure insurance loss protection etc. This seems somewhat contradictive.......How can they talk about how family pets are more than pets but really family members therefore deserve special amenities granted to humans then turn around and do this. Granted I do not own nor ever have a Pit Bull as I raise Min Pins but that is beside the point, no way would I tolerate let alone let someone come onto my property and take my dogs just because the politicians are to afraid of a few in their contintuency will make waves regarding re-election. These laws are ridiculous. I can understand special laws in place holding owners of some breeds liable via fine or impisonment but to put the entire breed on trial due to issues with a few is totally absurd. That's it, time to move back to Alaska....at least when you homestead you can shoot the dog catcher for trespassing.
     
  5. DeLaUK

    DeLaUK New Member

    This is not a million miles away from what HITLER did to Jews...if you fit the category, leave the country or die.

    I thought the BSL's brought in to the UK and Germany many years ago were bad enough, Pit Bull, Tosa's, Cane's and Dogo owners were warned it was illegal to breed, give away or sell the dogs, they had to be spayed and neutered.....they did not go on a massive witch hunt and euthanize OR confiscate every dog of the breeds involved.

    Rottweillers, German Shepherds, Dobermans, Akitas, Chows, Cocker Spaniels, Labrador Retrievers; Chihauhas, Dalmatians....varying on States have higher attack and bite statistics than Pit Bulls so why the **** are they making PREDJUDICIAL MURDER legal.
     
  6. jrbuddha

    jrbuddha New Member

    Comparing this to what happened to the Jews is pathetic.

    Is it a bad thing? Yes.

    Is it as bad as millions of Jews being killed?
    Not hardly.
     
  7. True_Pits

    True_Pits New Member

    While I agree, even though I own and love the breed, its a lot different then millions of people being tortured and killed or dying from disease/starvation. But its not all too far away in he sense that it is a type of genocide and I would never hand over my dog to these people, whats wrong with them? Oh yeah I'll be sad, he's a member of the family, I'm going to miss him but here you go, never would I ever. They are going to kill these dogs, all of them, its what they do everytime all the way down to the puppies.
     
  8. jrbuddha

    jrbuddha New Member

    Like I said, I agree its a terrible thing.

    But how far do you think an argument with Denver city council over this law would go when you tell them that they are comparable to Hitler and his Nazi regime? Saying that alone will cause most everyone with an open ear to close it right away.
     
  9. True_Pits

    True_Pits New Member

    I would never plan to use that in an arguement, I wouldn't really say anything about them more for my breed and why BSL is wrong and ineffective.
     
  10. DeLaUK

    DeLaUK New Member

    I want planning on using it at as arguement with Denver City Council....the point was the 'mentality' of it is no different.

    You may not like the choice of words I used but Ive heard others using the same 'terms', while not comparing people lives to dogs lives....to deliberately wipe out an entire population in a particular area of any living species, in my opinion, takes a certain level of barbarianism....its sick, its been proved over and over again that it doesnt work, there are other dogs that are higher risk and have proven statistics for attacks, both fatal and non fatal but I dont see those breeds being singled out and euthanized just for the mere fact that they exist.

    Since this intial thread was posted, I have talked to a few in both UK and Germany all of whom are disgusted that a modern civilisation can legally carry out the destruction of an entire breed in any given area. While I believe UK was the first country to put into use BSL's, as I said they did not euthanize the existing, living dogs unless that particular dog warranted it through an attack, in which case it then came under the DDL.
    I work at a shelter in Germany...which incidently...is where someone used the terminology I used.

    I did write my last post when I was extremely angry but I wont apologize for it, I believe this reasoning as to why I used it is suffice. If the moderators do not approve then they can edit or delete it, thats their prerogitive but I stand by it.
     
  11. charmedagain

    charmedagain New Member

    I totally agree with everything that has been said.

    As i menntioned in a different post all breeds of dog are capable of turning and attacking someone so if they are going to tarnish one breed then all breeds should be tarnished with the same brush.

    As i look at if these pathetic laws keep coming into force before long it will be illegal to own any breed of dog and eventually all will be wiped out.

    These people seriously need to get there fingers out and sort the problem properly.

    Just because there is a few people out there that use there dogs as weapons or use them to fight and cause destruction does not mean all pits are like this.

    My uncle owns some aswell as staffidshire bull terriers (sp) and they are the sweetest dogs you could ever meet.

    One thing i can say is i would never hand over any of my pets and i will be damned if they would take them by force they would have one serious fight on there hands.

    So all we can do is fight this and hope we can stop this barbaric approach to this..

    Just my opinion
     
  12. daddyfs

    daddyfs New Member

    wow.. Delauk... i think comparin this to the Jews is a bit extreme.. to the Jewish folks it is probably offensive.. i know you dont mean it that way but comparing a devestating part in their history to what Denver is doin to dogs is.. in my opinion.. wrong..
     
  13. DeLaUK

    DeLaUK New Member

    Extreme, maybe, I compared the mentality behind the act....

    the Jewish branch of my family were not offended by what I said, in fact I had the opposite response from them....the exact words (unable to print) but basically they thought this 'type' of mentality had been eliminated years ago and are disgusted that any living species should be wiped out in any given area based on someones predjudicial opinion.

    My intention was not to start a huge debate but people are entitled to their own opinions.
     
  14. yogi

    yogi New Member

    totally agree with your response.

    I may not agree with what you have to say but will defend your right to say it. Now, who is defending the rights of these dogs?
     
  15. StormyMoon

    StormyMoon New Member

    not yet but if left undealt with yes imagine how many pit bulls are in the US if one state does this you can count on others doing it also.
     
  16. Shineillusion

    Shineillusion New Member

    DeLa, I understand where you're coming from. But your timing might be a bit off if you use the Holocost as an example of the mentality involved.

    PETA has had an on-going "Holocost on a Plate" campaign, comparing the eating of meat to the Holocost, that has gotten a lot of people bent out of shape. The campaign has been pretty dirty in some areas, and down right insulting at times.

    Not disagreeing with you about the mentalilty issue. Just letting you know the water is already muddy before you wade in any further.
     
  17. DeLaUK

    DeLaUK New Member

    I know nothing about PETAS current campaign, I dont particularly follow the goings on of a bunch of hypocritical, abusive, extremists.

    It seems that a few have chosen to 'see' a couple of words I used and jumped all over it without 'reading' the post or understanding it. I said the 'mentality behind the act' was not a 'million miles away from'.... is somewhat similar to.... not the act itself.

    So while a few have said I 'compared' this particular BSL to what Hitler did....(which is not what I did)...the same people also say they dont disagree that the 'mentality' of it is the same...(which is exactly what I said.) ????? So it seems that for a few...they are either being hypocritical or they did not read and understand exactly what I wrote.
    There may be some of Jewish descent that are offended I dont know, it wasnt my intention and with the Jewish folk that I spoke to before and since I put my post in they understood the way it was written and were not offended by any means, as Ive already stated they are sickened with whats going on in Denver and they themselves have voiced more strongly about this than myself or anyone else Ive heard.

    Is it not a fact that dogs are currently being rounded up, confiscated and euthanized because they fit a certain profile? I think the waters have already turned muddy long before I said anything on the topic.

    On that note though I will not post anything further on this particular topic, Ive said all I need to say and I stand by it.
     
  18. charmedagain

    charmedagain New Member

    I got a reply to my email here is what was said in it....

    RE: Response to Inquiry on Pit Bull Ordinance

    On behalf of Mayor John Hickenlooper, I have been asked to respond to your recent letter inquiring about Denver’s pit bull ordinance. While a much more detailed explanation of the full history and judicial review of Denver’s pit bull ban ordinance is now available online on the official website of the City & County of Denver at www.denvergov.org/City_Attorney -under the section entitled “Pit Bull Ordinance Information” as well as a number of relevant documents, the following information may answer your questions:

    The history behind Denver’s pit bull ordinance goes back further than the mere date of its passage on July 31, 1989. Between 1984 and May of 1989, pit bulls attacked and seriously injured more than 20 people in Colorado, including three-year old Fernando Salazar, who was fatally mauled by a pit bull in southwest Denver in October of 1986. On May 8, 1989, 58 year-old Reverend Wilber Billingsley was attacked and bitten by a pit bull in the alley behind his home at 1075 Emerson Street, Denver. The pit bull’s attack was sustained over a long period of time, and a neighbor, Mr. Norman Cable, attempted to stop the attack by hitting the pit bull with a 2” x 4” piece of wood lumber, which had no effect. Mr. Cable eventually was able to stop the attack only by shooting the pit bull with a shotgun. The victim suffered serious injuries over 70 bites, with both of his legs being broken. As a result of these attacks, the opinion of the local community, as evidenced by editorials by the two leading newspapers, was in support of increased regulation over pit bulls, including a complete ban: Let’s outlaw killer dogs, editorial, Denver Post, June 12, 1998; and Tougher rules and stronger enforcement on pit bulls, editorial, Rocky Mountain News, May 12, 1989. The most recent fatal dog mauling in Colorado involved three pit bulls viciously mauling Jennifer Brooke, which occurred in November of 2003 in Elbert County.

    The nation’s leading expert in the field of ethology (the study of animal behavior) and pit bulls, Dr. Peter Borchelt, Ph.D., a certified applied animal behaviorist, testified before the Denver District Court that this breed of dog was artificially selected by humans for breeding in order to enhance their behavioral traits most beneficial in fighting other animals, and resulted in a breed of dogs having an aggressive behavior frequency distribution pattern that is permanently shifted higher than other breeds of dogs. Such behavioral traits as higher levels of strength, tenacity, tolerance to pain, combined with their “bite, hold and shake” attack behavior that results in the ripping and tearing of flesh and muscle, presents a logical explanation for this ban. While the individual tendencies of any individual pit bull may vary, as a clearly defined phenotype, the breed has been determined to have higher levels of such dangerous tendencies as a group, justifying this action.

    This ordinance has been heavily litigated, and has been upheld by the judiciary repeatedly, as the best available evidence indicates that there is a logical reason to differentiate the treatment of pit bulls from other dogs, not because they are more likely to attack humans or other domesticated pets, but should they attack, they are more likely to impose serious injuries upon their victims, and more likely to cause fatalities. This determination was upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court in 1991, in the matter of Colorado Dog Fanciers, Inc., v. Denver, 820 P.2d 644 and most recently by the Denver District Court on April 7, 2005.

    Upon Governor Owens signing HB04-1279 into law on April 21, 2004, Nancy Severson, the Manager of the Denver Department of Environmental Health, the administrative agency over the Division of Animal Control, announced the voluntary suspension of enforcement actions of the ordinance, but advised that the enforcement could resume upon the conclusion of any legal litigation. Subsequently, the Division of Animal Control consistently advised everyone that their possession of a pit bull in Denver would be done at their own peril, as enforcement of the ordinance could resume at any time. The extensive local media’s coverage of the pit bull litigation also provided notice, specifically after the City’s victory in December 2004 in its litigation with the State over the issue of constitutional home rule authority. The City & County of Denver shall resume enforcement of its ordinance on Monday, May 9th, in order to exercise its lawful home rule authority pursuant to Article XX of the Colorado state constitution in pursuit of its duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. Despite no legal requirement to grant any delay in the resumption of enforcement, the 30-day period is more than reasonable to allow the removal of these pit bulls.

    Finally, as the executive branch of Denver’s municipal government is tasked with the enforcement of laws passed by the legislative branch, any changes to the ordinance would be the decision of the Denver City Council.

    Thank you again for you inquiry.

    sorry is so long........

    Mike
     
  19. DeLaUK

    DeLaUK New Member

    I got that also, they will be getting a reply....were you able to get to the link they put in?
     
  20. yogi

    yogi New Member

    I just caught the tail end of a news segment on TV stating that appears the actress Linda Blair is looking into taking some sort of legal action against the city of Denver to have this law overturned. For those of you who may not know, she is an advocate of animal rights. Maybe if personalities such as herself get involved it will draw the kind of attention the city will realize it cannot fathom and take steps necessary to resolve the issue in a more humane way.
     

Share This Page