Last updated on 2011.05.15
One snarky mention of the comparative risks of mixed martial arts events and pit bulls roused a blogstorm of comments from pit bull owners earlier this week.
Pit bull lovers, rain down your rage on Madison. Following one (one) pit bull attack, the Madison City Commission has placed pit bull regulations on its Monday evening meeting agenda. Scroll down to page 52 of the agenda packet, and you'll find proposed Ordinance #1506 on vicious animals. Fair enough.
Then comes the bête noire of pit bull fanatics: breed-specific legislation. Apparently finding angels insufficient protection (and if I'm to put any stock in angels, I expect intervention before the dog bites), the Madison City Commission will discuss Ordinance #1507, which would impose the following requirements on owners of pit bulls, pit bull mutts, and dogs that look like pit bulls:
- Register your dog and pay Madison $20 every two years.
- Always confine your dog in a locked structure or fence.
- If you leash the dog, you must keep a firm grip on the leash; you may not simply tie or chain the dog to an inanimate structure.
- Erect a prominent sign warning everyone you have a dog covered by this ordinance.
- Maintain a $250,000 single-incident insurance policy to cover injury, damage, and death caused by your dog.
- Submit photos of your dog to Madison's Animal Control Officer.
- Notify the city if you move, if your dog has puppies, if you get rid of your dog, or if your dog dies.
- Put a collar with your official tag on your dog.
The insurance mandate could give our local 9-12 Project a chance to get some wind back in its sails. I might raise an eyebrow in that direction as well. There's probably more damage done around town by drunken idiots than by dogs, but I haven't heard the city commission suggest requiring everyone with beer in the fridge to buy drunken idiot insurance. Cars have injured and killed more Madisonians than dogs have, but the state requires car owners maintain no more than $50,000 in personal injury/death liability and $25,000 in property liability (see SDCL 32-35-70).
As you pit bull lovers descend on Madison (and yes, please do! We need your sales tax dollars!), remember: the persecution of pit bulls and other dangerous dogs has absolutely no analogy whatsoever to the persecution of blacks, Jews, homosexuals, or other human beings. Please stick with straight risk-benefit analysis.
And take heart, fellow citizens: if Madison's pit bull ordinance is stopped by folks crying "pit bull rights!" or by the simple logic that cars hurt more people than dogs, we can still stop pit bull attacks by other means.
Bonus Boxing Brief: The Madison City Commission apparently thinks kickboxers and similar human pugilists are four times as dangerous as pit bulls. Proposed Ordinance 1505 (May 16 agenda packet, p. 56) requires mixed martial arts event organizers to carry at least $1,000,000 in liability insurance.
Update 2011.05.15 15:25 CDT: Stay tuned for the next big Madison animal controversy, when John Nelson gets Mayor Hexom's goat (or will that be vice versa?).
I'm not a pit bull fan, but I have to point out that they aren't inherently more dangerous than any other dog breed. The problem with pit bulls--as with Rottweilers or any other dog--is when the owners raise them wrong. People used to believe that German Shepherds were dangerous dogs, too, until public opinion changed.
That said, I'm a Border Collie person, not a pit bull person. However, if there's a problem with dangerous dogs in a municipality, the solution should probably focus on the actual problem--irresponsible owners--rather than on something relatively random, such as dog breeds.
my, 2 cents. This is a knee jerk reaction to a single incident. STUPID. As Chris said, the problem isn't with the breed of dog, but with owners. My former neighbor had a pitbull, he is one of the sweetest dispositioned animals I've ever met... I was leery of a pit, because of their reputation but he won me over. I think the whole thing is over reaction on the part of the city commission.
As a dog person, I oppose breed-specific legislation. However, I also favor responsible ownership. As such, I have absolutely no problems with provisions 2, 3 and 8. My city already requires 1 and 7 for all dogs, and additional restrictions for dogs deemed "dangerous"- based on actions, not breed/looks.
I do have to say that the big problem with legislating pit bulls is that many breeds can look like a pit, even to the most educated eye. It gets even trickier when you consider the fact that my friend's GREYHOUND is sometimes confused for a pit bull. (No, I have no idea how people make that mistake, either.) Who will decide if a dog looks like a pit bull or not? What if an owner doesn't think his dog looks like a pit, but his neighbor disagrees?
And of course, I must point out that this proposed legislation would have done NOTHING to prevent the attack that actually happened since it occurred in owner's home. The dog wasn't even loose in the house- it had been secured in a separate room and a child let it out.
I lol'ed when I was thinking of what the MHS mascot was while reading this.
Since a pit bull is a terrier does this go to all terriers as well?
Nope, Rob: that would be like saying that since all car owners are people, all people must have driver's licenses. Here are the breeds listed in the draft ordinance:
*bull terrier
*Staffordshire bull terrier
*American pit bull terrier
*American Staffordshire terrier
*Presa Canario
*Cane Corso
Yes I know that part. But what is all a bull breed. Does that mean all bulldogs. Is a bull breed also a mastiff. Does that mean boxers as well. The american pit bull terrier was a combination of a bulldog and a terrier. So with the statement that anything that resembles a pit bull would then need to include terriers.
Those sound like very good questions for knowledgeable people to ask the city commission.
Another question is why does the ordinance not have anything about altered dogs. 70% of dog bites come from unaltered males. They tend to get loose and roam. I would love to see a program for this. There is already a program to help low income families with spay and neutering.
I think many of these requirements should go for all dog owners. I am amazed that madison does not have a registration of dogs.
Any idea if this proposed ordinance is copied from existing ordinances elsewhere?
From what someone told me is it sounds like it came from tea. I think we need to do.some breed neutral type things first. Start there and many problems would be solved. I am not against the idea of stronger ordinances. I think we need them. Trust me I have feared many dogs when I have had mine out. Yes I want to punish bad owners so that people don't punish good ones.
What a sad story. Animals are so loving and we should understand that people love their pets aswell as the animals loving their owners.
I was bitten by a Cocker Spaniel when I was a kid. I didn't hear people out to ban all cocker spaniels.
I would be in favor of perhaps fewer puppy mills and people who think they need to make a few hundred $$$ off of purebred dogs. To many people have litters they can't take care of and we have enough poor animals at the humane society and animal shelters around the state.
I've had dogs all my life that were abused and beaten by a bad owner. Some were agressive and others were terified but they were all wonderful after they were loved.
The best dogs are mutts. But I like all dogs.
any animal should be treated with respect. This would be a great cause for the 9/12ers.
"Animals are so loving" is a hasty generalization. I nonetheless agree that I would love to see more aggressive legislation against puppy mills and irresponsible owners. Of course, that's the kind of legislation Missouri Republicans repealed, against the will of the people.
I have many problems with the proposed ban. The first problem i have is that it is unconstitutional to require insurance on your dog when we all seen how the proposed health care reform law turned out. Second i would like to point out that more people were bitten by cocker spanials last year than any other dog and people love them because they are just so cute. I have been around many pit bulls and everyone I have seen is so calm and well behaved, they are happy and loyal pets unless raised bad. To me it almost seems like pit bulls are then new thing for people to be against just like blacks in the 60's hippys in the 70's or even arab after 9/11 it seems like America just has to segregate some how
The dogs had their own doggie doors that let them come in and out of the house as they pleased. The family told deputies the dogs had never attacked a person, though one of them might have killed a cat, Smith said. He said relatives insisted the toddler would play with the dogs and even "use them as pillows while watching TV."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/toddler-dies-ga-mauled-dogs-18826973#.UVUESHfrSdx
I like dogs in general. I was told once the issue with pitts/rotties and other dogs alike is they have a chemical imbalance in the brain, it's like a person with mood swings I guess be all happy then want to woop someones ass the next. All dogs can be great the problem is they like people can be unpredictable that being said. I owned a rottie very loveable girl but would I leave my kids unatended with her? I always made sure I was around when her and the kids were together. Other wise she was in her bedroom when I couldn't watch. No one really knows what a dog/person is capable of. I think the insurance policy maybe a good idea but why does it need to be so freaking high?.
The mentality of comparing a cocker spaniel bite to a Pit.