BSL In Montana

Thank you for the info,please help and repost



Date: Jan 11, 2009 12:54 PM


Montana legislator: Let's kill all the pits


A Montana legislator apparently has nothing pressing on her agenda and has decided to introduce a bill to ban all pit bulls in the state. A costly proposal for the state. Not to mention tragic for innocent dogs and their people. But it’s sure to guarantee headlines for her, state Rep. Robyn Driscoll.




Let’s stop this bill now. Click on the link below for more information about this bill which mandates the surrender of all pit bulls which must then be euthanized. Find out how you can help stop this.


http://www. animallawcoalition. com/breed-bans/article/650

A Bill to Kill All the Pit Bulls in MontanaPosted Jan 11, 2009 by lauraallen Breed Bans
Montana state Rep. Robyn Driscoll, a Democrat who represents the 51st District, has introduced a bizarre bill calling for the elimination of all "pit bulls" from the state. If the bill, H.B. 191, becomes law, owners must surrender their pit bull dogs which must then be euthanized within 10 days.


Those who don't give up their dogs to be killed? Well, any peace officer is authorized to obtain a search warrant and come and get the dog.


The cost of paying animal control and other law enforcement officers throughout the state to round up family pets and kill them will be substantial. A task force found that a pit bull ban in Prince George's County, Maryland, just one county, cost $560,000 in one year.


There are exceptions for pit bulls temporarily in the state, passing through, or attending a exhibition, show or competition "sponsored by a dog club, association, or similar organization". Even for the dog to attend an exhibition, show or competition, the owner must obtain written permission from the county and the sponsor must take steps to "prevent [the pit bull dog] from escaping or injuring the public." The only other exception is for a pit bull wearing a tag indicating it is a registered pit bull, but the registration and tag must have been obtained before the law's effective date. Here is a copy of the bill.


The National Canine Research Council reports that between 1965 and 2008, there were 3 fatalities in Montana from dog bites. Yes, 3 in 43 years. In 2005 alone, just one year in Montana, 1,400 people died from smoking and 251 in traffic accidents. (Maybe Driscoll should work to protect Montanans from smoking and second hand cigarette smoke or negligent or drunk drivers; that would at least be something useful.
)

The NCRC notes, "All the dogs involved ... were ...not spayed or neutered....All three cases involved unsupervised children left alone in a yard with unfamiliar dogs (2 cases) or the child wandering off and encountering an unfamiliar, chained dog (1 case).
"

The bill, H.B. 191, is now in the House Local Government Committee. Check Animal Law Coalition for updates.


Take Animal Law Coalition's poll on breed bans on this page!



WHAT YOU CAN DO

Write or call Rep. Robyn Driscoll and urge her to drop this breed ban. Tell her dogs don't bite because of breed and breed bans don't make communities safe from dog bites. Instead, they penalize responsible owners and greatly increase animal control costs. Send her the information found here. Be polite.


Robyn Driscoll, (406) 534-4874, rdriscoll@peoplepc.com

Contact the House Local Government Committee by calling Joe Kolman, 406-444-9280

Find Montana legislators and email, fax or call them and urge them to say no to H.B. 191.
Here is the fax number for the House: 406-444-4825

 

Yeah, pretty sad news. What's next to come.

 

Just sent my letter

 

Bumpity-Bump. We need everyone to send an email or letter. Just because you don't live there is no excuse. It could be you next.

 

this coming from a state where its legal to drink and drive:rolleyes:

 

^^^^^^I know.....Banging Head..... :rolleyes::eek::mad:

 

Sad to say some of my family lived up there, now they're all dead & gone. They wouldn't put up with this at all! I already wrote with Roverlution.org

 

I well call Monday first since I'm still new can you give me any tips on what too say LOL

Thank you

Aaron

 

I got a better idea . . . let's have open season on politicians. We can split it into bow season and rifle season. Six months for each. Maybe have a bounty on 'em as is customary for vermin.

 

Correction: it is definitely NOT legal to drink and drive in Montana. I'm hoping you already know that and were just being sarcastic...

Thank you though for your protest of this ludicrous bill. I have a pitbull/bulldog named Bruno and he is the sweetest dog in the world. Reckless/irresponsible/corrupt owners make dangerous dogs; breed does not designate a dog's demeanor, just as race or nationality does not designate one's personality. One more correction: this bill does not call for the euthanization of all Montana pitbulls. But still, a breed-specific ban infringes upon the rights of pitbulls and their owners. Thanks for your support!

 

Re: STOP BSL In Montana

URGENT Please sign petition against Montana’s proposed BSL

Please follow the link below to sign the online petition against Montana’s proposed BSL:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/MontanansAgainstBSL

Please don’t let them kill my friends!

PLEASE REPOST THIS LINK TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!

I have been trying to post this everywhere I can, nut have carpal tunnel and do not know how much longer my hands will work. However, I will keep on keeping on - my pittys would NEVER give up on me!

 

i have been saying for the past year, "well atleast I live in Montana, no way could it happen here." i guess all it takes is a few misguided politicians. where does a guy need to go? alaska? if it passes i'm most likely moving about 100 miles away to idaho or Wyoming. keepin my fingers crossed though

 

anyone seen that new show, "Leverage?" gives me ideas.

 

that is what i was thinking a while back, my family has a place in Bigfork and i was contemplating moving out there

 

MT BSL Bill to be Considered Thursday, Jan 22!
Print This Article
[Monday, January 19, 2009]
Montana House Bill 191–which, with little exception, seeks to prohibit the ownership, harboring, or keeping of dogs described as "pit bulls"–is scheduled for consideration by the House Local Government Committee on Thursday, January 22, at 3PM, in room 172 of the capitol building, 1301 East Sixth Avenue in Helena. The American Kennel Club encourages all Montanans to contact the committee members listed below and express their respectful yet strong opposition to this draconian bill.

The bill, which prohibits the ownership, harboring, or keeping of dogs described as "pit bulls", defines "pit bulls" to include Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and "any dog that has the physical characteristics that substantially conform to the standards established for those breeds by the American Kennel Club." If the bill is passed and signed into law, all such dogs would be seized and euthanized.

The American Kennel Club strongly opposes any legislation, like HB 191, that determines a dog to be "dangerous" based on specific breeds or phenotypic classes of dogs. Instead, we support reasonable, enforceable, non-discriminatory laws to govern the ownership of 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 believes that Montana’s existing breed-neutral law should remain the effective law of the state.

---------------


if anyone is in the area and can attend the hearing to speak out against BSL, please, please do!!

 

Some people might have a hard time writing a letter maybe we can post up a guideline to what to wrtie to these BSL people

 

Tips For Writing or Talking About BSL

Aurora, Colorado City Councilmember Bob Fitzgerald explained the need for a citywide pit bull ban thus: "We don't want 'those people' here." Owners of certain breeds of dogs - especially pit bulls and Rottweilers - suffer from strong stereotyping that can make it difficult for them to be heard or treated seriously, especially when it comes to talking about BSL. Government representatives typically believe that owners of certain breeds are drug dealers, criminals, young punks, poverty-stricken, or otherwise marginalized and "dangerous". And many owners of these particular breeds are seen as anti-social, uncaring, thuggish, or violent.

No scientific studies have been done to determine whether the stereotype is in fact the norm, and as is often the case, I suspect the stereotype is pretty far off. (Some informal polls indicate that most pit bulls are in fact owned by middle-age white females of average socio-economic status.) However, when talking with your representatives about BSL, you must be aware of not only how you are portraying yourself, but also how the representatives already see you. If you are already shoved into the negative category of "anti-social, drug dealing pit bull owner", your representatives are going to discount or abuse every single thing you say. You can make the situation worse through your own words and behavior, so it's important to tread carefully. Here are some tips regarding how to properly portray yourself and communicate for best results.

1) Keep it short and to the point. Legislators really don't read everything they get. It's not humanly possible. Often they just ask their aides to keep a tally of "yays" and "nays". Make sure you state your position clearly and firmly in the first few sentences. Make it simple: "I do not support SB 1111." Then elaborate.

2) Steer clear of stereotypes. In politics, appearance is everything. When you talk face-to-face about BSL to politicians and the media, you must also adopt that same philosophy. Hide your tattoos, brush your hair, put on some nice slacks and a dress shirt, stand up straight, and use good grammar. I know it doesn't seem fair that you can't just "be yourself", but the fact is, life isn't fair, and this isn't about you. It's about your rights as a citizen and your responsibilities as a dog owner. If you don't convey an attitude of respectability, you will get two negative results: first, you won't be taken seriously, and second, you will be reinforcing a negative stereotype, thereby making it much harder for all the rest of us.

3) NEVER speak or write rudely - ALWAYS be respectful and mature. As the saying goes, "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." Or like my mom used to tell me, "if you want to be treated like a grown-up, you need to act like a grown-up." If you want your views to be heard, you need to be patient, open-minded, and mature. If you name-call, swear, threaten, or lash out, you risk losing your audience. Not only that, but you are reinforcing a negative stereotype ("all pit bull/Rottweiler owners are uneducated and immature"). Denver councilmembers recently expressed interest in a non-breed-specific alternative to their draconian pit bull ban - until they started getting angry hate mail and threats from some pit bull owners. That just confirmed to them that pit bull owners are scary, angry, dangerous individuals; they now defend their BSL with fervor, and hundreds of family dogs have been put to death as a result. Don't let your passion and emotions carry you away when you speak!

3) If you choose to mention your dog, be very careful what you say. When you speak out against BSL by arguing "My pit bull is the friendliest dog on the planet and everyone loves him!", that is not helping your case. Your pro-BSL representative believes you own a ticking time bomb. Your protests that your dog "loves everyone" only confirms in their mind that you are in denial - and anything else you may try to say becomes more crazy talk to them. On the other hand, if you speak to the representative as a concerned citizen - not a dog owner - you are more likely to be heard and respected as an equal rather than discounted as a nutjob.

Mention your dog only if you have proof - a title, certificate, award, or other evidence - that your dog is capable of "above average" good deeds and is highly unlikely to be a "ticking time bomb." If you have a therapy dog, a search-and-rescue dog, a hero dog (which received some sort of recognition from a major group), or an obedience-titled dog, you can mention it. If your dog's credentials are average (i.e. Temperament Tested, took some agility classes, lives with a child and hasn't eaten him yet), that's great - but not good enough to get out of the "could snap at any moment" category, so it's probably best to leave him out of it. Yes, you have every right to be proud of your dog, and yes, you should tell people all about your great dog - but not when you're talking to a pro-BSL legislator. They have a tendency to tune out words from pit bull and Rottweiler owners in particular.

4) Join your representative in worrying about the human victims. Aurora Councilmember Bob Fitzgerald gives us a wonderful quote regarding his reasons behind supporting a pit bull ban: "The thought of one kid getting hurt is too much for me." If we think further about the context in which Fitzgerald gives this comment, he seems to be implying that he does not care about children who are attacked by dogs other than pit bulls. In fact, some months prior to Fitzgerald's insensitive comment, in a city very close to Aurora, a young girl was killed by two Alaskan Malamutes. This child's needless death was apparently not "too much" for Fitzgerald, since he shows no interest in banning Alaskan Malamutes.

This sort of exclusionary thinking is pervasive among legislators who support BSL. They are so focused on the victims of attacks committed by certain breeds of dogs that they tend to overlook victims who were attacked by less "controversial" breeds. In effect, they are minimizing the danger posed by non-targeted breeds, the fear suffered by individuals who live near a dangerous dog of a non-targeted breed and the pain inflicted on victims of attacks committed by a non-targeted breed. Ultimately, pointing this out to representatives is helpful; politicians do not want to seem insensitive toward victims, and the only way to treat every dog attack victim equally and fairly is through non-breed-specific legislation, where all victims are entitled to the same justice and retributions regardless of thebreed of dog that injured them.

5) Provide good examples of non-breed-specific legislation that works. Identify some possible solutions to the problems your community is having with dangerous dogs. Perhaps your animal control department is underfunded and understaffed, resulting in paltry enforcement of laws. Maybe your community has a blase attitude toward leash laws and other dog laws. Perhaps school children are not getting any lessons in dog safety. Try to identify what areas need to be worked on in order to improve public safety and reduce dog bites. Offer model non-breed-specific dangerous dog legislation to replace breed-specific proposals (the AKC and the HSUS can both provide this). Our government representatives need to look like they're doing something - anything - to protect the public against vicious dogs. They automatically default toward BSL because it seems so easy, but if you give them something better, safer, and more effective...

6) Phone calls, snail mail, and fax are preferable to email. Email is too fast and too easy - our legislators get emails by the truckload, and even after weeding out the spam, they still have to sift through countless poorly written or incomprehensible emails and rantings. (I know from personal experience that some representatives don't bother checking their email at all.) Sending a letter in the mail, or, if time's a factor, sending a letter via fax, is often the best way to show that you are a concerned, involved citizen who has given a lot of thought and energy to the issue at hand. You can also make a quick phone call to express your opinion if you are able to control your emotions and not let any anger or anxiety leak into your voice or words.

http://stopbsl.com/communicationtips.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Writing Effective Letters to Officials (and Sample Letters):
http://www.defendingdog.com/id2.html

Some other helpful resources:
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/BSLindex.htm
http://www.defendingdog.com/

 

Here are some useful letters samples for writing to legislators and others in your area.

http://www.coldsteelpits.com/coldsteelknowyourrights.html

 

Why doesn't BSL work?

When it comes to laws that regulate "dangerous dogs," there is at least one fact that is hard to dispute: Dogs that run loose unsupervised, dogs that bite or attack people or other animals, and dogs that just plain cause a nuisance are a real and often serious problem in communities across the country. The more vexing and contentious issue arises in figuring our how to best address this problem. While many states, including New York, Colorado and Illinois, favor laws that identify, track and regulate dangerous dogs regardless of breed and prohibit "breed-specific"
laws that either regulate or ban a certain breed of dog, some local governments have enacted breed-specific laws. It seems, though, that the problem of "dangerous dogs" may not be remedied by the "quick fix" of breed-specific laws.
Dealing with Dangerous Dogs in Your Community: There is little evidence that breed-specific law - which can be incredibly expensive and difficult to enforce: make communities safer for human families or for the companion animals that are a part of so many households. And it turns out such laws can also have negative and wholly unintended consequences. Moreover, in its study of human fatalities resulting from dog bites, the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) did not support the breed-specific approach, citing, among other things, the inaccuracy of dog-bite data; the difficulty in identifying dog breeds (especially true of mixed breeds); and the probability that as certain breeds are regulated, those who exploit dogs by making them aggressive will merely turn to other, unregulated breeds.
For example, a task force formed in 2003 to study the effectiveness of the Prince George County, Maryland pit bull ban estimated that the county spends more man a quarter-million dollars each year to enforce the ban. Further, in a report to me County Council, the task force noted that "public safety is not improved as a result of (the ban)" and that "there is no transgression committed by owner or animal that is not covered by another, non-breed specific portion of the Animal Control Code (i.e., vicious animal, nuisance animal, leash laws)." The task force has recommended that Prince George County repeal the ban.
Significantly, the CDC also noted how many other factors beyond breed may affect a dog's tendency coward aggression things such as heredity, sex, early experience, reproductive status and socialization and training. These last two concerns seem well-founded given that more than 70 percent of all dog bite cases involve unaltered male dogs, and that an unaltered male dog is 2.6 times more likely to bite than a neutered dog.
Breed-specific laws also cause unintended hardship to responsible owners of entirely friendly, properly supervised and well-socialized dogs that happen to fall within the regulated breed category. Regulated breeds, it is worth noting, have expanded in some localities to include not just pit bulls and rottweilers but also a variety of other dogs, including Dalmatians, Chow Chows, German Shepherds, Doberman Pinschers and any mix of these breeds.
Although these dog owners have done nothing to endanger the public, they may be required to comply with other regulations. Sadly, these responsible caretakers can be forced to choose between costly compliance and giving up their beloved companion. Perhaps the most unintended yet harmful consequence of breed-specific laws is their tendency to compromise rather than enhance public safety.
When limited animal control resources are used to regulate or ban a certain breed of dog, without regard to behavior, the focus is shifted away from routine, effective enforcement of laws that have the best chance of making our communities safer: dog license laws, leash laws, animal fighting laws and laws that require all dog owners to control their dogs, regardless of breed.

 

A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years (Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998). It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.​

Many practical alternatives to breed-specific policies exist and hold promise for preventing dog bites. For prevention ideas and model policies for control of dangerous dogs, please see the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions: A community approach to dog bite prevention.*​