Success in VB Twp. Michigan Last Night!

Well - could not post when I got home last night because the dang wind knocked out my cable and internet!

Very good meeting with 99% of council members agreeing they need to focus on bad owners, not limits and the like. It was also mentioned that the did not wish to reinvent the wheel, which it appears the current draft of the ordinance is trying to do. Lots of applause from the audience on the council statements.

One of the members talked about seeing a young girl walking a "Metropolitan" mastiff that she could barely control. All of the members agreed that the purpose of the ordinance was to insure public safety and the limit on the number of dogs allowed would not accomplish that goal. A person could own one dangerous dog and limiting the numbers would have no effect.

The public packed the house - the hunting dog owners, rescue, sporting, and pet people were there in full force.
Forum was then opened to the public. One of, if not the first person to speak was the immediate neighbor to the pit bull rescue the Buster Foundation. She delivered and emotional and lengthy testimony recounting the numerous times her and her family have been terrorized by pit bulls escaping from the rescue and running loose in the neighborhood. Afraid to go get the mail, carrying spray bottles with ammonia, their son accosted at the bus stop. Only two instances of dog at large were reported to the police over 8 years, despite the claim that there have been many more. She brought a typed up list of incidents and provided to the council. Kept referring to the dogs as "vicious pit bulls with their ears chopped off". Husband went next and told pretty much the same story, oh and just yesterday he said there was an incident in Livingston County where two pit bulls had supposedly attacked a horse that had to be put to sleep. These people also said they are continually exposed to obscene gestures from people of the Buster Foundation and are told "if you don't like it, then move."

This lady and her husband are very obviously terrified of our dogs and I wondered if they had ever met one with their eyes open. It seems to me that no attempts have been made to show these people what a "good" pit bull acts like. Maybe they are just very closed minded, I dunno.

They were kind of brushed off by other people, commenting that "every neighborhood always has one person that complains about everything".

"Closer to Home Animal Advocates" passed around a well written statement addressed to the VB twp public safety committee.
This excerpt from the statement pretty much sums it up:
"I agree that the ordinances need to be enforced but, to quote Dr. Al Stinson, a retired professor from the Michigan State School of Veterinary Medicine and Director of Legislative Affairs for the Michigan Association of Purebred Dogs: The change being proposed is really just a 'feel good' bit of legislation. It give the elected officials grounds to say that they tried to fix the problem. However, it only removes the rights of many of their citizens without really solving the problem. Legislation, without justification that it will solve the problem, and cannot be enforced with the resources provided, is poor and discriminitory legislation."

It was noted that VB Twp. only has one part time AC officer who would be hard pressed to enforce any of the regulations the draft ordinance contains.

Another good suggestion from Closer to Home Animal Advocates is the use of an arbitrator to mediate neighborhood disputes, which I think is sorely needed in this case. IMHO, The Buster Foundation really needs to consider relocating to a more suitable facility.

Next step - the twp has agreed to work with and review samples of dog legislation submitted by various organizations. They may: continue to revamp the current draft, adopt a sample submitted with revisions or in it's entirety, or throw the whole thing out and start from scratch.

 

Thanks for the updates on this situation. Glad to hear things appear to be going well.

 

Were they presented with the Calgary model? It's got to be the best peice of legislation I've seen yet.

http://www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org/calgaryAB.html

 

Thanks Bama .

I try to share these things so people can possibly use tactics that are working to fight this legislation in their area should the need arise.

The members of this council appear to be very reasonable - it was good to hear them say that most of these ordinances are just copied from city to city, regardless if they are effective or not. This council wants to do something better, something that targets the irresponsible owners.

Fortunately, the council has been emphatic all along that their ordinance would not be breed specific. So far, they are holding true to their word.

Also fortunate, not having to rely solely on pit bull people to fight this. The rescue, hunting dog, fly ball dog, therapy dog, and pet owner people carried this one for us. There was one good old boy there with a pack of beagles that spoke several times, god love him! He was great!

Drycreek - thank you. I know there were 4-5 offers of dog legislation submitted, but I don't know if the Calgary model was included.
I looked at your link and the only thing I didn't like about it was the declaration of a vicious dog includes one who bites another domestic animal. So that would include other dogs and cats? Maybe I did not understand how to read the document correctly - what do the "appealed" items mean?

 

Great news every victory counts!

Unfortunately the story about the two "pitbulls" attacking the horse was true. It happened only a few miles from where I live. It is also the same town that two people were mauled to death by several American Bulldogs a few months ago. The ABs were origionally reported as "pitbulls" by the local paper: The Livingston County Press. Hopefully they are wrong about these dogs too but the damage has already been done. Relatives of the mauling victims and the horse's owner have pledged to pass BSL. They don't think anyone should own these dogs let alone more than one of them.

 

Having the without provocation clause creates a wide avenue for acceptable behaviors. For instance, if your walking your well behaved dog down the street and another persons fluff ball comes running up and barking and jumping at your dog, any action taken by your dog could be considered provoked. You are also given the opportunity to defend your dogs actions at a hearing.

Those are areas of previous legislation that were changed or deemed unneccesary and removed.(repealed)