posted 06-29-2003 01:28 AM         

Once they have that, they need to go through and pick out the parts they KNOW they can challenge... some things the leg. will probably have that she can pick at are: breed identification.... if people who've been involved in the breeds for years can have a hard time determining whether a dog is a mix of that breed or not, then how are ACOs (some of whom have had NO breed ID training whatsoever), police officers, and the general public going to be able to accurately ID a breed as one of those on the restricted list?; failed BSL in other places... BSL is expensive to enforce (when Baltimore City, MD was looking to put a breed ban in place, estimates were that it would be upwards of $75,000 just to hire the extra people, and enforce the BSL, and that was just to start out), and there have been a LOT of situations where BSL has failed to reduce the number of dog attacks/killings and in some places, even the population of the banned breeds. The irresponsible owners who allow their dogs to harm other people/animals or let them roam aren't the type to follow a law saying they have to get rid of their dog, are they ?; there are already laws in place, that if enforced, would put an end to a LOT of dog attacks... generic dangerous dog laws (one "free" bite rules, etc, where after a dog bites, it's considered "vicious" or "dangerous", and is placed under restrictions (muzzles, short leashes, etc); if dog bites again, dog is PTS), leash laws, licensing laws (how many dogs that attack are licensed???), etc.

Have them send emails, letters, etc with this type of information (but make sure they're fairly brief, as some people will toss it if it's too long for them to read) to their city councilmen/women, mayor, governor, any person who may have some weight in the passing of the law. Also, provide alternatives to BSL in their letters... education programs for children on dog safety, and for dog owners on responsible dog ownership, enforcing current laws more strictly, etc. Lawmakers want the easiest way out... make them see that BSL isn't the way to go in that case, but don't leave them with no other alternatives. If your friend can find any articles on the problems with BSL, or GOOD solutions to the "dog bite problem", then send those along to the legislators.

Check things out and see if their are any anti-BSL groups around, local breed clubs would be good, or even the local HS or SPCA (make sure they're not breed discrimanate though ). Have them give their advice as well. Go to the hearings the council has, if they're made public. Let them know that you (or your friend, in this case), as a citizen of that city, will not be pleased if your dog is placed under such restrictions... it's amazing how some people start to reconsider things if enough people start threatening to "hop ship", so to speak, and leave, or not visit because they're afraid of what might happen to their pets (of course, some gov. people might not care if you leave, and some places don't really make much off of tourism, so this strategy may not work in all cases).

Don't belittle any incidents that may have occurred... there is NOTHING more insulting to people than to have a crisis they went through be made to seem insignificant, especially when it comes to children. So many people get caught up in their attepts to save their breed, that they overlook that the proposal is (may not be in your case, but in some cases, it is) in reaction to a serious attack on someone, and either make the attack seem like it was no big deal, or don't even mention it (I actually think it's better to not mention it, than to make it seem insignificant, but maybe I'm wrong). Those attacks are NOT just to be blown off, and remember, you're not trying to pretend that people don't ever get hurt by dogs (though it's not as common of an occurance as some other types of injuries), you're trying to help the legislators to find a way to prevent those tragedies without infringing on your rights to own the breed of dog you choose. I've seen letters (I've made this mistake a few times myself too)that make it seem even like it was the victim's fault, when in reality, no one (well, I can think of a few situations where this might not ring true ) deserves to be injured or killed by a dog attack, which in most cases, could so easily have been prevented. I'm not saying your friend would do this, just a few words of caution, because it is easy to do sometimes.

That's all I can think of right now, and here are some links that may be of help as well.

American Dog Owners Association http://adoa.org/

Defense of the APBT http://www.dapbt.org/

Dogs at Risk http://www.dogsatriskusa.org/

International Stafford (anti BSL info) http://www.internationalstafford.com/bsl/bsl.html