TO ALL PITBULL ADVOCATES PLEASE WRITE TO THE EDITOR ON THIS

Everybody that is a PITBULL ADVOCATE please do your best to e-mail this newspaper in RE: This particiular editorial. Apparentlly, he has never met nor been exposed in any way shap or form to a true pitbull.
He, like many others just needs some education on the positive aspects of pitbulls. I called this particular newspaper this morning and asked to speak to the director. I got her voice mail. I left a very detailed message on my pit bull therapy dogs and my shelter work. I requested a story to be done about my pet therapy PITBULL dogs. As of yet, I have not heard back.
I doubt if I shall hear back either. This particular city has a pit bull ban in effect.
Everyone PLEASE PLEASE e-mail a letter to the editor with some positive thoughts.
Please keep it polite and informative.
Thanks so much.
The dogs will appreciate your help too!
E-mail to the editor of the Pawtucket Times is:
editor@pawtuckettimes.com

The state should follow Pawtucket’s pit bull lead




10/12/2004




Several years ago, I was startled to learn of a particularly vicious pit bull attack. Pit bull attacks continue to be a recurring problem in many communities across the country. The arguments persist how to deal with this dangerous situation.

Legislation aimed directly at the pit bull dog arouses a sharp debate.

Advertisement

Animal rights activists, self-proclaimed public policy gurus, and dog fanciers of all stripes decry any attempts to restrict or ban the breed. The say it’s not the dogs but the owners that are to blame. Punish the deed and not the breed is their slogan.

Here is an analogy to chew on. To plan to only react to what happens and not to act preventatively is to encounter the same dilemma as our current national security problem.

Do we only respond to a terrorist attack, or, knowing the terrorists exist and what they are, do we root them out and keep them at bay?

Are pit bulls terrorists?

I point out only that the evidence is persuasive that because of their breeding, their physical characteristics and their explosive temperament, they tend less to be domesticated dogs than dangerous dogs. Very dangerous dogs.

A very few of the pit bull incidents from only the last couple of months:

In Oregon, two pit bulls attacked a 7-year-old boy. A passing woman threw herself on top of the boy. Besides the bites and gashes both suffered, one of the boy’s ears was nearly torn off and she lost half an eyebrow.

In Brooklyn, one of two pit bulls leaped up into the arms of a man holding a 3-month-old and bit the baby in the head, and the other dog attacked the man.

In Texas, two loose pit bulls charged a porch and tore apart a cat that had been sitting at its owner’s feet. A 73-year-old Colorado woman who was mauled and required 50 stitches and plastic surgery.

A Marin County, Fla., animal control officer thought he had a pit bull captured when a second one lunged through a fence and attacked. One tore his ear and the other bit him in the face.

A Toronto man who had bred the dogs was mauled by two pit bulls. It was reported he might lose his arm.

An Aurora, Colo., 3-year-old was playing when attacked by a 14 month-old pit bull. She suffered a fractured skull and needed 51 stitches. The neighbor who rescued her said the dog had the girl by the back of the neck and was shaking her in that pit bull death grip.

 

Definetely writing a letter, but I need to know...do they currently have breed specific legislation? I gather that Pawtucket does, but the rest of the state does not...is there legislation pending at the state level? and is this an editorial or is this written by a columnist? if you know...let me know...couldn;t find where you found the article online.

 

ok..i wrote them one. I kept it as unemotional as I could...So hopefully they'll actually give it some thought.


To the Editor:

I'm writing in regards to your recent editorial concerning breed specific legislation against pit bulls.
To be useful, legislation must be effective, enforcible, economical, and reasonably fair. Breed specific legislation would fail all of these tests. This legislation is motivated by fear and lack of relevant knowledge.

The media and the inexperienced would have you believe that these breeds are vicious and should be prohibited. However, these very breeds as a whole have proven their stability and good canine citizenry by becoming 'Search & Rescue dogs, Therapy dogs working inside hospitals, professional Herding dogs and family companions for years.

Our Country was not founded on the restriction and punishment of the masses based on the actions of a few....when has this changed? Your terrorist analolgy was not quite right. A more correct analogy would be comparing pit bulls to muslims. Do we profile muslims because some are terrorists? No, we are not allowed to do that in this country. Simlarly, it's unfair to ban pit bulls because some have been involved in attacks, as have many other breeds of dogs. It simply does not address the problem. Your analogy supports a wonderful alternative to breed specific legislation that gets to the root of the problem; strict and detering punishment for those who have dangerous and uncontrolled dogs, regardless of breed.

A five year study published in the Cincinnati Law Review in 1982, vol. 53, pg 1077, which specifically considered both Rottweilers and "pit bulls", concluded in part that:

..statistics did not support the assertion that any one breed was dangerous, ..when legislation is focused on the type of dog it fails, because it is ... unenforceable, confusing, and costly. .. focusing legislation on dogs that are "vicious" distracts attention from the real problem, which is irresponsible owners.

Breeds and mixes are hard to identify and often dogs are mislabeled and destroyed based on paranioa and prejudice and also punishes those that are good canine citizens. Many breeds function as assistance dogs for handicapped owners, search and rescue dogs, drug-sniffing dogs, police dogs, etc. and drives them out of the community.

The American Veterinary Medical Association and several state veterinary medical associations oppose breed-specific legislation for just this reason.

In light of this and other studies, I urge you to consider the following:

1. Reject the current legislation, which is contrary to fact and distracts from the real issue, that of responsible ownership.

2. Actively pursue legislation that would render owners liable for the actions of their pets, such as a good non-breed specific dangerous dog law.

Bottom line: the legislation proposed will not only be unfair for responsible citizens but it addresses the wrong problem. Supporting breed specific legislation only harms the law abiding responsible dog owner.


Katie Droske

 

Might want to send them a link to that video of someone already hasn't done it... I will be sending a letter in applause of the above letter...with a couple added points that pit bull refers to a Type not a breed in BSL context and that there are countless other breeds that carry out vicious maulings, but are not reported... ALSO that BSL is impossible to enforce and many cities and states (Colorado, New York) that once held to the beleif that BSL worked have changed their policies citing that it is illegal to ban a breed when there is no reliable way to discern one breed from another aside from "veiwing" the animal.

Laws to adopt would be strict requirements of owners of dogs (not breeds) who have been involved in an unprovoked attack.

Serious consequenses for repeat offenders, animals AND humans in this case and a more EDUCATIONAL view on interactions between humans and dogs...they are, after all, animals and humans, children, need to learn how best to behave while in the presence of ANY Animal... We know how to deal with bear attacks...why don't we know what to do with a dog who is aggressive???or what NOT to do with a dog period???

Just a few points... THanks for the opportunity!

 

Someday!

:lol:
THAT is PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!! Oh my how well written and informative!!!!!!!!!!!!
As far as answers to your above questions:
So far, there is no legislation pending at state level. But other towns/citys are expected to follow :cry:
Many ACO's do not want nor will support BSL which is a plus :lol: On the other hand, many may follow thinking it is quick solution to the problem :?:
The letter was written as an editorial (private Pawtucket citizen) Not a reporter.
Again,
THAT WAS WONDERFUL
Please everyone keep the letters coming It can only help!

 

GO SARA!

Thank you! :lol: