For Rottie and Bully Breed Owners in Illinois

BSL on the Move in Illinois!
[Thursday, January 12, 2006]
Immediate help is needed to stop two poorly written bills that would hurt responsible dog owners in Illinois !

HB4213 Background:

Introduced by Rep. Michael Tryon on December 1st, 2005, HB4213 automatically deems American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, "pit bulls," Pit Bull Terriers, Rottweilers and Staffordshire Terriers vicious and requires owners of these and other dangerous dogs to maintain liability insurance . As AKC reported last month, the bill further restricts the regulations for keeping these dogs, including requiring them to be muzzled and leashed whenever outside their owners' residence, even in a fenced back-yard. Fines for violations will increase to a minimum of $1001.

Action Needed:

HB4213 has been referred to the House Committee on Agriculture and Conservation. A hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, January 18 th at 2 p.m. in Room D-1 of the Stratton Building . Dog owners are strongly encouraged to attend the hearing to express your opposition to breed-specific laws. If you cannot attend, please contact the committee members below with your concerns today. Your voice is particularly important if your representative sits on the committee. To find out who represents you in Illinois, click here.

House Committee on Agriculture and Conservation
Stratton Office Bldg #200-9S
Springfield , IL 62701
Phone:217/782-1018

Rep. Kurt M. Granberg (D) [Chair] Phone: 217/782-0066, Email: granbergkm@ilga.gov
Rep. Brandon Phelps (D) [Vice Chair] Phone:217/782-5131
Rep. Mike Boland (D) Phone:217/782-3992, Email: bolandmj@ilga.gov
Rep. Shane Cultra (R) Phone:217/558-1039
Rep. Lisa Dugan (D) Phone:217/782-5981
Rep. Robert Flider (D) Phone:217/782-8398
Rep. John C. "Jack" McGuire (D) Phone:217/782-8090, Email: strep86@aol.com
Rep. Donald L. Moffitt (R) Phone:217/782-8032, Email: moffitt@gries.net
Rep. Richard Myers (R) Phone:217/782-0416
Rep. Robert W. Pritchard (R) Phone:217/782-0425
Rep. David B. Reis (R) Phone:217/782-2087
Rep. Dan Reitz (D) Phone:217/782-1018, Email: repreitz@egyptian.net
Rep. Jim Sacia (R) Phone:217/782-8186
Rep. Keith Sommer (R) Phone:217/782-0221
Rep. Patrick Verschoore (D) Phone:217/782-5970
HB4367 Background:

Sponsored by Rep. William Black, HB4367 is an overly broad bill that would allow cities and counties to regulate (though not ban) ownership by breed, thus opening the door for mandatory spay/neuter, muzzling, or any other type of restrictions targeted at certain types of dogs. HB4367 contains a host of other troubling provisions, including:

Expands the definition of "dangerous animal" such that a dog who injures a cat that came into its own yard, or barked at a person walking on the other side of its fenced yard, could be considered dangerous.
Expands the definition of "vicious animal" to include one that causes any physical injury to a person, even a nip, and even on the owner's property.
Deletes "without justification" from both the definitions of "dangerous" and "vicious," thus subjecting the animal to punishment for defending itself or its owner.
Imposes a Class 4 felony punishment on every owner of a vicious dog, and on an owner of a dangerous dog that allows his or her animal to in any way injure another animal or person.
Provides that dangerous and vicious determinations can be applied to all companion animals, including cats, ferrets and horses.
Allows Administrative Hearing Officers, rather than Circuit Courts, to make determinations, and gives them more leeway to do so.
Establishes a Vicious Dog Attack Relief Fund that allows victims to collect compensation even if they were the owner of the dog.
Deletes an existing requirement that animal control facilities offer animals for adoption or be made available to rescue groups.
Action Needed:

HB4367 has not yet been assigned to a committee. Concerned dog owners should contact their own representative, as well as the bill sponsor, to convey your opposition to this ill-written bill.

Rep. William Black
Capitol Bldg #314
Springfield , IL 62706
Phone: 217/782-4811
FAX: 217/782-1873

The American Kennel Club's Position:

The American Kennel Club supports reasonable, enforceable, non-discriminatory laws to govern the ownership of dogs. The AKC believes that dog owners should be responsible for their dogs. We support laws that: establish a fair process by which specific dogs are identified as "dangerous" based on stated, measurable actions; impose appropriate penalties on irresponsible owners; and establish a well-defined method for dealing with dogs proven to be dangerous.

AKC strongly agrees with the need for laws that keep both people and pets safe in their communities. However, we do not believe that breed specific dangerous dog laws accomplish this. Breed-specific legislation does not hold all dog owners accountable for their behavior, but rather only places restrictions on owners of certain breeds, regardless of the dog's behavior. In order to protect public safety, laws must address owners who are intent on being irresponsible or even malicious with their dogs, regardless of what breed they keep. Strong enforcement of reasonable dangerous dog laws and increased public education efforts to promote responsible dog ownership are all positive ways to prevent future dog attacks.

For more information please contact:

Illinois Dog Clubs and Breeders Association
Lotzadots101@aol.com

AKC's Canine Legislation department
919-816-3720
doglaw@akc.org

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What a disappointing post.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe society should take exactly the same approach to some human types that are prone to violence? We could even give psychological tests and such to make even further determination of "prone to violence" ...make them wear monitoring devices and limit their activities outside their homes?

If you think about it, those "prone-to-violence" humans do much greater harm to society than do the dogs.

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry to disappoint you but I just thoughht I'd get the word out to anyone who may have one of these dogs, so they may be able to do something about it. I think it's really stupid as a majority of the time if a dog is viscious it's because somebody wanted them to be that way and taught or abused them into being that way.

 

Raven:

I'd have to agree with you there. 'Boo hoo hoo, the nasty dog bit me'. Perhaps you shouldn't have been trespassing on its owner's property, or throwing rocks at it.

 

Riiiight, and 'tresspassing' could include being neighbourly, and knocking on a door to tell your neighbour something; car lights left on, suspicious people in the area, whatever. Keeping a dog that is prone to unprovoked attacks is just plain wrong.

 

I agree. But to condemn an entire specie of animal for the acts of only a very, very few is just plain wrong, too.

Baron Max

 

Pit Bulls are eight times more likely to turn on their owners than any other dog breed.

Since they can't go around policing who owns Pit Bulls, it's important to be able to prevent attacks on small children by these dogs, who often do much more damage and have a much higher fatality rate for their attacks against humans. This set of laws protects other people from being attacked by these animals, and if they are... it offers some restitution for the attacked and a place to start from in suing the dog owner for keeping a dangerous dog.

We already know they are the most dangerous of the dog breeds, no matter how well you treat them. They have instincts that cannot be reprogrammed entirely. I think that the proposed law is okay, if it prevents more attacks.

"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.)

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

Now lets analyze this; 1/3 of all fatal (ending in the victims death) dog attacks were by pit-bulls for a study done over 10 years. Since we can deduce that 1/3 of the dog-owning population does NOT own pit-bulls (in fact it's 2% that own pit-bulls), that shows us that they are much more likely than other breeds to attack even more so than I stated. Males attack more than females, and most of the victims are children with the median age of all attacks being around 15.

Since we can't keep parents from being utter morons, we have to do the best we can to protect children. Parents seem to think Pit Bulls are a good "Family" dog, when they are certainly not and have shown to be more agressive than most other dog breeds both by dog breeders and by the AKC.

 

Well, then ...if they're so vicious and mean, then let's eliminate the problems altogether ...let's annihilate the entire breed of dog and make it a death sentence to ever breed any more of them.

Perhaps we can do something similar to particular human "breeds" who are also eight times more likely to turn vicious and attack/kill other humans. We can test people to see if they have those particular genes, then if they do, then just shoot 'em! Why wait for them to attack?

Find 'em and shoot them, too!

Baron Max

 

phlog:

Precisely. A neighbour is still trespassing on the dog's, and its owner's, territory. Hence, naturally, it will attack. Wouldn't you attack if a stranger entered your house?

However, even in these circumstances, attacks by 'vicious' breeds are rare.

But in the dog's mind, it IS being provoked. This is not the fault of the dog, but the owner.

The obvious solution is to keep the animal fenced and leashed if it is so 'vicious'. Surely that is a better solution than annihilating a whole breed.

Man, that sure sounds terrifying when you put it like that. But perhaps for a clearer picture, you should provide some statistics on the PERCENTAGE of pit bulls that turn on their owners. Statistics are often used to exaggerate and inflame the situation.

The most likely to go rogue is their owner mistreats them? Yeah...

Bullshit.

More bullshit. What 'instincts' are you talking about exactly?

Which it is, if treated correctly. This means that you prevent your children from treating the dog like shit.

All that has been demonstrated is that a mistreated Pit Bull is more likely to attack than a mistreated Poodle.

What you think is fucking irrelevant, since its based on bullshit.

 

The most vicious dog I ever met was a Chiahuahua. One of the nicest was a 110 pound Rottweiller named "Duke" that was a former guard dog.

 

That's what they did in Toronto, actually. You cannot breed, sell, or aquire a pit bull in Toronto. All existing pit bulls have special rules (muzzle at all times, leash and heavy insurances you must carry if you own one.) or you can bring them in to be euthanized. I don't think that it's a bad idea.

 

Because you're ignorant, and punish the breed instead of the deed. It's a pity that we don't muzzle idiots like you.

 

Kotoko's "statistics" are bullshit.
For starters what the government classifies as "pitbull type" encompasses an enormous family of dog breeds and crosses.
This family of dogs is then compared to other single breeds, which is just completely unfair for obvious reasons. Any other "type" of dog who's membership was so vague and open would similarly top the list.
You might as well compare "pitbull types" with "non pitbull types", when you do you find non-pitbull types are responsible for far more attacks.
If you compare single breeds border collies have more reported attacks than american pitbull terriers. Which is amazing considering how many border collie attacks wouldn't be reported due to their ineffectiveness.
American pitbull terriers barely rate.
Rottweilers I do believe are in the top 5, but again you have to realise most dog attacks go unreported. Rottweilers are guardian dogs. I'd bet bouncers beat more people than accountants. That's life.

Rottweilers and "pitbull types" do happen to be responsible for the most fatalities and serious injuries caused by dogs. But this kind of comes with the territory of being more physically capable.
"Strong men" are probably responsible for most of the serious injuries and fatalities which occur in street fights, shall we ban strong men then? Keep them in straight jackets perhaps?
You'll find mastiffs and bullbreeds and the like are the least easily provoked of all dogs. The dogs with the most stable and tolerant temperements. Toy breeds are the most aggressive and undoubtedly attack people most often, but it's just funny when they do.
American pitbull terriers, which bare the brunt of this "pitbull type" classification are perhaps one of the least human-aggressive dogs on the planet. They're the most commonly stolen of all dogs. People need guard dogs to defend their kennels of pitbulls.
Anyone who knows the first thing about pitbulls knows it has been a requirement in their evolution that they're easily handled by strange humans. No other breed has been so strictly culled for showing aggression towards humans. And the result is a dog which quite frankly will tolerate too much crap from man. To an unnatural degree, which can be nauseating to witness.
I'm not personally a fan of the breed for this very reason, not in it's pure form anyway.

The true disgrace to all this is that pitbulls are the most abused of all dogs. This is the issue which should be addressed.
Every dog that ever attacks anyone is immediately destroyed without any semblance of a trial. So we're automatically more than "even" with dogs who attack people, but now there are laws which cause the mass slaughter of dogs(maybe not these laws, but there are laws in certain places - where I grew up for one) for being of the "same type" as individual dogs which have attacked people, and on top of that these dogs are killed and mistreated all the time by low lifes without anyone batting an eyelid.
It's pretty frigging obvious who the victims are here.

Kotoko et al, please click here;
http://www.thepitbullproblem.tk

 

http://www.realpitbull.com/myths.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull

[/quote]

The above addresses why we should be cautious of the so-called 'statistics' released by sensationalist media morons. Quite simply...

1. Pit bull's are hard to identify. Usually, any mean looking dog with big muscle content is assumed to equal a Pit Bull.

2. There is a lot of ambiguity over what exactly constitutes a Pit Bull. What about mixed breeds?

The above pretty much explains my main contention in depth... and that is that these dogs only bite when pushed. If we start persecuting anything which acts in self-defense against mistreatment, we would have to wipe out the entire human race.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull

Pit Bulls are vicious and evil, which is why they are used in Search and Rescue, as well as therapy dogs! Right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_attack

Guess we'd better start persecuting Golden Retrievers instead of Pit Bulls!

 

If a dog is prone to attack when pushed they are definitely not family dogs. I think you reasoned yourself to the other side here.

I might want to see figures first on the ratio of golden retrievers vs other dog breeds. Because obviously there is no relative comparison present in the sentence you quoted. Just a definition of an absolute figure. You might know that the retriever is a very popular dog breed. And moreover it is a very popular dog breed with families. I shouldn't need to say more.

 

spurious:

Nonsense. Any animal is prone to attack if pushed. Hell, I've been bitten by pet mice. The only difference between a Pit Bull and a Poodle is that a Pit Bull can defend itself adequately. When it comes to the crunch, Pit Bulls are far less aggressive than most dogs.

Since Kotoko is a huge fan of statistics...

http://www.badrap.org/rescue/myths.cfm

Judging the aggressiveness of a breed by counting FATALITIES is logically fallacious. I've been attacked far more often by toy dogs than Pit Bulls (and I've only ever encountered a few pit bulls). Like Dr. Lou pointed out, it's funny when a poodle tries to rip a human a new hole. It's NOT funny when a Pit Bull gives even a warning bite.

But that's irrelevant, spurious! Golden Retrievers have been responsible for the majority of child maulings, so obviously we must persecute them! MUZZLE ALL THE VICIOUS GOLDEN RETRIEVERS! Hint Hint: I'm parodying...

Quite simply, people are being retarded (aka. A prevalent human quality) when it comes to animal aggression. Instead of tackling the cause, they tackle the effect. How practical...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Perhaps instead of going into a panic attack, and squealing how supposedly 'vicious' Pit Bulls are, we should...

1. Ensure that ALL dogs are in the hands of good, capable owners.

2. Crack down on animal cruelty, instead of killing the products of it.

3. Provide more reliable information, so that dog owners know the signs of a dog which may be dangerous... and how to produce a loyal friend. Of course, the advice isn't too complicated... treat your pet with kindness and discipline, and it won't react with aggression. But sometimes such simple info is beyond human retardation.

4. Stop spewing bullshit propaganda about dogs such as Pit Bulls and Rottweilers. Demonizing someone is the worst possible crime, because you can treat a demon however you want. Demonize the dog, and people treat it poorer, which in turn increases the likehood of having an arm removed in self-defense.

 

Fraggle:

Bullshit, and too vague. ONE of the purposes they were bred for was to fight OTHER DOGS. Another was to hunt foxes.

Aggression towards HUMANS is NOT what they were bred for. In fact, aggression towards humans was selectively bred OUT of them, because their owners had to take them out of the ring once the dogfight was over.

In dogs, aggression towards animals does not = aggression towards humans. Hell, how many breeds of dogs attack cats, birds, mice, etc? My Springer Spaniel actively hunts down and kills birds... should I cull her in case she suddenly decides to attack me?

 

1. Dogs are not rational. (if you wanna argue that point then I'll settle for you agreeing that on the average a human is vastly more intelligent, perceptive and capable of empathy than a dog is)

2. Those 3 types of dogs are all well capable of killing and/or mutilating a human.

3. For all of those dogs there exist documented cases of unprovoked attacks, always with grave consequences for the human due to the lethality of such dogs.

4. Several statistics documents assert that these kinds of dogs are more prone to attack than other kinds. I have no reason to doubt the validity of those studies, but even if they are just partially true or plain false, 1,2 and 3 are still true and enough for me to feel deep distrust towards these animals.

This is why I agree with always having them on a leash and muzzle outside home. A leash alone is no guarantee that the dog can't do damage (it can break or pull away from the owner and then bite you).

As for humans also being capable of killing and also sometimes more likely to kill, I say yes, that's true, but they are humans and not dogs, and pardon me for having a bias in favor of my own species?. That humans should always receive preferential treatment over dogs is not something I will debate (serial killers, terrorists and the such aside), and I wouldn't expect you to.

Dogs should be treated as humanely as possible, but the limit to that is the risk to humans. (i.e dogs have to be treated as good as possible while keeping 0% risk to humans).
The dog's comfort of being outside without a muzzle on is SECONDARY to people's well being and security, so the dog must keep his muzzle on as otherwise he represents a risk, no matter how minimal, to people.