[ SHOWGSD-L ] this is what we are up against
- From: "Anja Heibloem-Stroud" <Anja_Heibloem-Stroud@xxxxxxx>
- To: "showgsdlistnew" <Showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 09:06:45 -0700
Scary!!!
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 10:06:52 -0700
From: "Cherie Graves" <paragon@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: CROSSPOSTED from the staffybull list
HERE IS WHAT WE ARE UP AGAINST!
Read the following from Kory Nelson, Esq.
Denver, Colorado, who IS contacting CA Legislatures!
http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/SB_861
The opponents to SB861 and BSL have interjected irrelevant issues and
misleading facts into the debate. Those California legislators who are
interested in objective analysis should consider the most recent results of
actual legal litigation over the same issues, as courts of law consider only
relevant legal issues and reliable evidence. During the recent litigation in
2004-2005 in Denver, Colorado, I was the lead attorney for the City and County
of Denver against the State of Colorado, which passed a state statute
prohibiting breed specific legislation. In the litigation, there were 2 legal
issues: (1) Who gets to decide what the regulations are over dangerous dogs
local government or state government? And (2) Is there rational evidence to
support the differential treatment of pit bulls from other breeds of dogs
While much more detailed information, including the full judicial rulings,
copies of legal briefs, trial exhibits, and full historical reviews of Denver's
ordinance and the litigation is available online at the official website of the
Denver City Attorney's Office at: Link I will summarize the two answers here.
Regulation of Dangerous Dogs is a "Municipal Affair" w/o a Need for Statewide
Uniformity
The State of Colorado, like the State of California, has provisions in their
state constitution that provide that matters of pure local concern should be
decided by local government. Local government's regulations in such an area
would supersede conflicting state law. The propriety of such regulation of a
matter of local concern is not for the State or the Courts to decide. The
decision on the type and manner of Breed Specific Legislation, which is a
matter of pure local concern, should be decided at that level of government
that is closest to the people and is most informed about the unique nature of
their community's problems and attitudes. The Denver District Court ruled in
favor of the City & County of Denver on this issue, stating:
The Court concludes that the issue of which dog breeds are permitted,
prohibited, or restricted within a city is a matter of purely local concern.
The State has not articulated, and the Court cannot conceive, a need for
statewide uniformity. In fact, there seems to be a need for local control in
this area. Each community has its own attitudes and preferences with respect to
dogs. In each community, depending on culture and demographics, dogs occupy a
different role. It would not make sense for the owners of mountain dogs in
Telluride, farm dogs in Lamar, and urban dogs in Denver to be subject to the
same kinds of laws and restrictions. . . . local control of breeds means
flexibility in crafting locally-acceptable solutions to the problems created by
dogs. As the largest and most populous metropolitan area in Colorado, Denver
faces unique challenges in ensuring that dogs enhance the lives of citizens
rather than threaten their safety.
The California Constitution, Article XI, § 5(a), states:
(a) It shall be competent in any city charter to provide that the city governed
thereunder may make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to
municipal affairs, subject only to restrictions and limitations provided in
their several charters and in respect to other matters they shall be subject to
general laws.. City charters adopted pursuant to this Constitution shall
supersede any existing charter, and with respect to municipal affairs shall
supersede all laws inconsistent therewith.
The California Supreme Court has already determined that matters that are
a "municipal affair" supersede any conflicting state law:
When the charter city measure "'implicates a "municipal affair" and poses a
genuine conflict with state law,' " the determinative question is whether the
subject of the statute is of statewide concern. (Johnson v. Bradley, 4 Cal. 4th
389, 399 (Cal., 1992)) If it is not, "'the conflicting charter city measure is
a "municipal affair" and "beyond the reach of legislative enactment." Cawdrey
v. City of Redondo Beach, 15 Cal. App. 4th 1212, 1222-1223 (Cal. Ct. App.,
1993)
A Constitutional Rational Basis for Differential Treatment of Pit Bulls
Continues To Exist
In 1991, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in the case of Colorado Dog Fanciers
v. Denver, that there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to find that
despite there being unreliable evidence as to which breed of dog may be more
likely to attack, should a pit bull attack it was more likely to result in
severe bodily injury or death.
The history of pit bulls clearly shows these dogs were selectively bred by
humans to maximize their dog's chances of winning in a fight against another
animal initially bulls, then other dogs. Humans bred these dogs in order to
enhance specific behavioral traits: strength, agility, tolerance to pain,
tenacity to continue attacking, and the infliction of maximum damage to their
opponent. Other breeds of dogs, when they do attack, are more likely to bite
their victim and release. Pit bulls were specifically developed for their bite,
hold and shake behavior. They will bite their victim and hold that bite for
long periods of time, refusing to let go. Some mistakenly use the incorrect
term "Lock", but there is no physiological mechanism these dogs just are so
tenacious that they refuse to release their bite, despite having massive pain
and injuries inflicted upon them. One reported incident had the pit bull owner
cutting off their dog's legs, one at a time, to display their dogs continued
drive to attack their opponent in the ring (the dog died, but its progeny's
value multiplied several times). Once a pit bull, with its well developed and
stronger jaw muscles, has grabbed its victim, it will shake its head back and
forth, ripping the victim's skin, muscle, blood vessels and tissue. Pit Bulls
were first selected to encourage its predatory behavior passed down from their
wolf ancestors, who would run along side larger caribou, elk, and moose, jump
up and bite, holding their bite until joined by other pack members to drag the
large animal down for a kill. Single Pit Bulls would hang onto fighting bulls
for hours! Their advocates call them loyal sure they are they will engage
in a battle to the death for their masters that's loyalty no one needs.
Randall Lockwood, one of the nation's leading experts on pit bulls, has
reported that pit bulls were also selected for their tendencies not to display
body language or other behaviors that might tip off an opponent of their intent
to attack. The tactical advantage of getting one's pit bull attack to come off
as a "surprise" has been intentionally bred into these dogs, resulting in a
breed of dog that would similarly surprise any human victim. The lack of
growling, barking, etc., which may give a human sufficient warning to avert an
attack or retreat to a location of safety will obviously increase the
likelihood of serious injuries being sustained. Furthermore, because pit bulls
were bred to be tenacious despite the infliction of pain or injury, stopping a
pit bull attack is extremely difficult.
No one can define an "irresponsible" pit bull owner until their dog has
attacked someone and then it's too late. In balancing the right of the public
to keep their innocent members of their community safe from such horrific,
gruesome, and mutilating maulings by such strong animals it is the weakest
amongst us that need our protection : the young, the elderly, the weak. The
attempts of anti-BSL advocates only offer up the non-existent right of dog
owners to own the breed of their choice to attempt to counterbalance the
interests of the public's safety. If there is no debate over a citizen's right
to own a tiger or lion, there is no logical reason to even consider this
debate. If we could have removed all Weapons of Mass Destruction from the hands
of terrorists, they would switch to conventional explosives; but the result
would be that their explosions would have a lessor likelihood of causing
serious bodily injuries or death. People will still be hurt by dog bites but
that doesn't mean communities should allow lions or tigers or pit bulls.
Finally, those who support pit bulls support dog fighting, by providing dog
fighters their favorite gladiators. Dog fighting is still a multi-million
dollar illegal enterprise that goes on across this county in closed groups,
like the mafia, that are extremely difficult for law enforcement officials to
penetrate. As these dog fighters' activities are so "underground", do you
believe that they would obey any ban on pit bulls of course not! But, if pit
bulls were illegally to possess, law enforcement officials could obtain search
warrants where pit bulls are discovered and during such a search, additional
evidence of their dog fighting could be discovered and seized for felony
prosecutions. By giving them the legal ability to possess their favorite
gladiator, they are insulated to continue in their horrible acts of cruelty.
These dog fighters can't hire their own political lobbyists to openly advocate
their position, so as to protect their millions of gambling income. So how and
where are they going to oppose such BSL activities? These anti-BSL groups who
accept anonymous donations to support their organizational efforts are being
deliberately indifferent to the support they give dog fighters.
There is no legitimate necessity for the pit bull breed to continue. They
provide no unique traits that are beneficial to any organized society based
upon socially redeeming qualities that can not be provided by other breeds.
Nothing offered by pit bulls can possibly justify the deaths and maiming this
breed has inflicted upon innocent humans and other domesticated companion
animals. The bite of a Chihuahua is one thing, the bite of a pit bull is of a
completely different category, described by doctors at the University of Texas
Department of Medicine as being closer to a "shark attack".
As no litigation on the merits of the increased dangerousness of pit bulls has
ever resulted in a victory for pit bull advocates, their emotional illogical
anthropomorphic rhetoric should be discounted and disregarded, and the results
of actual litigation should be respected and followed. America had long ago
decided where disputes of fact and law should be decided, and the pro-pit bull
advocates can't win there. SB861 should be passed so that each and every
charter municipality in California can decide for themselves if they want to
avail themselves of a very practical tool in the form of BSL to protect their
community.
Kory Nelson, Esq.
Denver, Colorado
--Kory Nelson, Esq. (07-25-05)
Anja Heibloem-Stroud
www.pet-net.net/hausmekon/
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2005. All material remains the property of the original
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind
are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE
PROSECUTED.
For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITE - http://www.showgsd.org
============================================================================
Other related posts:
- » [ SHOWGSD-L ] this is what we are up against
