[AB1101]

This is what I sent to John Stevens
This survey is based around slander and fiction. If you do not like your neighbor, then say his dog is vicious. Work with the ACF American Canine Foundation on putting vicious dog laws into place, and then enforce them. You are asking for big legal trouble by doing this.
This was his reply
If the postman is going to stop delivering your mail because your neighbor is an irresponsible pet owner, have your rights been violated?

My Reply
Then the neighbor would call the local authorities to have the dog owner investigated for irresponsible dog ownership. The authorities would have to determine if they feel the dog is vicious. If the dog is considered vicious then there should be vicious dog laws in place to address this situation. If you investigate dog owners based on a survey, then you will have people saying dogs are vicious based on what breed they are. This might be true with some dogs, but there is a lot of hysteria around certain breeds of dogs. The truth of the matter is you have good owners and bad owners. This survey is trying to set up a breed banning based on statistics of the survey. Call the American Canine Foundation and work with them on putting the best dog laws into place. They are the experts with these legalities.


This was John Stevens Reply
What rights does this man have?

My story: I work out of the home, so my neighborhood is visible to me
> nearly all the time. I make it a point to carry a rather large, sharp
> knife solely for the purpose of either defending myself from dogs or
> as a line of attack if I see someone attacked by dogs while walking
> in our neighborhood.
>
> The city has never stood up and really done something about this
> problem, and so consequentially I must put up with my neighbor's
> three pit bulls running loose. If the city can't once and for all
> actually ban vicious dogs from the city, then there should be a
> stronger criteria for penalizing owners who can't keep their dogs
> penned. If my other neighbor's rat terriers get loose, they may be a
> nuisance, but they are not likely to attack and kill me. So, I would
> propose defining what exactly constitutes a vicious dog, either by
> size or breed or other classification system, then fine those owners
> at a much higher rate, say $100-500 per instance, when their pets are
> running loose. If you make the fine painful enough, they'll maybe
> think twice about securing their gate.
Would you walk the street in your neighborhood with tigers on the loose?

I then sent him a letter about the Ohio ruling, followed by this. If you were wondering, No Reply
Breed Specific Legislature is Unconstitutional. Do not waste your taxpayers money by putting this into place. Instead put vicious dog laws into place that gets rid of VICIOUS dogs. Don’t judge a book by the cover. Rottweilers are used for Search and Rescue all over the country. They are also used for people with disabilities. It is the OWNERS that create vicious dogs. Educate dog owners to take their dog to training classes, get their dog CGC (Canine Good Citizen) certified. Do not go back to an archaic way of thinking, because dog organizations will take your legislature to the Supreme Court, and you will lose. You should be commended for trying to protect your citizens. Just remember, there are a lot of bad parents, if they are from a certain race, does that mean you ban that race?