Loaded weapons (Reading, PA)

[Rene Allegrini]

This is an editorial written in the Beaver County and Allegheny Times. It seems that after all the negative news articles, everyone fighting against BSL and sterotyping might be finally making an impact. Slowly but surely cities, towns, law makers are realizing, "the targeted breeds deserve a better fate - and better owners."

Loaded weapons
07/25/2007


The city of Reading appears to have a dog law that has some teeth in it.
However, more teeth are needed so that municipalities can take a bigger bite out of irresponsible dog owners.

The Associated Press reports a city ordinance requires restrictions on a breed in the year after more than 30 dog bites occur and a particular breed is responsible for more than 40 percent of them.
Owners would have to keep pets muzzled and on chain leashes when outdoors and would have to get a $500 permit for nonsterilized dogs.

Reading is having a problem with pit bulls or, more specifically, their owners. So far this year there have been 32 dog-bite incidents, with about 60 percent of them being done by this breed.
The latest incident occurred Friday when a man and the police officer who came to help him were attacked by a pit bull. Police ended up shooting and killing the dog after a number of attempts to subdue it with tranquilizers failed.

This animal deserved a better fate - and a better owner.

The Reading law is significant because it doesn't single out a specific breed. Instead, it catalogues the number of incidents involving a breed and then places restrictions on those who own that breed.
It's too bad the city can't be even tougher on owners. What many people fail to understand is that dogs that are not under control, dogs that are allowed to roam the streets, are loaded weapons waiting to go off.
State lawmakers need to look into this problem and give municipalities more legal teeth so they can take a bigger bite out of irresponsible dog owners.

http://www.timesonline.com/site/news...d=478566&rfi=6

[fbkeays]

I think this is a terrible law. This kind of thinking might work in 2nd grade, but we are talking about peer pressure working in an entire community. What this law does is punish the law abiding just because of non law abiding people happen to also own the same "breed" of dog they do. This is nothing more then a fancy way to profile and stereotype people.
What happened to innocent until proven guilty? This law says you are guilty because X number of other folks with your favorite breed can't be bothered to confine their dogs. Who is to say that a person with targeted breed X will also fail to control their dog just because they own breed X?
Why not put a curfew on race Y just because people of that race happen to rob mini marts at 2 am? Is that unfair and racist? You bet, so is requiring good people with good dogs to jump through restrictive hoops because their dog happens to have some characteristics with someone else's dog.

[sweetlee]

I have to agree with above post. This is not fair and it does target that "certain" breed and while it targets bad owners, it also is unfair to responsible owners of the breed. I would be furious if I had to muzzle and chain my dog outside because some other rottie owners let their dogs run loose and bite people.
How about if we made a law that required chihuaua (sp) owners to keep a tight muzzle on their dogs because at least 40% of chronic nusiance barkers are of that breed? (at least in my experience) and I bet that 75% of chronic barkers are not over 15 lbs.
Or as the above poster said, most Mini Mart robberies occur in the middle of the night and sadly enough, most of them are committed by a certain race. GREAT POINT. I also believe this just lends weight to the misunderstanding of certain dogs and opens the way for more insurance companies to deny homeowners, etc. There must be a better way. I don't know how I feel about the intact dogs law? There are so many knotheads who are letting dogs of all breeds reproduce because they are too cheap to get them speutered. Or too lazy to look into the free and reduced price programs that are offered all over the country. I once thought that maybe shelters should charge for dropping off litters of puppies or kittens, but that would only ensure that these litters are abandoned in the woods without a chance at survival. It makes me madder than heck that most of these people use the night drop off box to dispose of their litters, I assume it is because they are embarrassed, and they SHOULD be. But at least with the anonymous drop off the puppies and kittens have a chance at finding a home. Now I am rambling, sorry.

Sharon

[shybird]

I happen to agree with Frances also. I have always said laws only punish those that already abide by them. The answer to the problem is very, very simple, but our law makers are just trying to justify their salaries. The money for their stupid saleries would be better spent paying dog wardens to enforce laws already in effect in most place. (like leash laws and licenses) You can bet your sweet bippy that most bite incidences are from loose dogs that probably are not licensed.