Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [7] ] |
| Subject: Re: city ban | |
|
Author: BILLYT Author Host/IP: 209.4.43.134 |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 06:38:28 02/19/06 Sun In reply to: cienfuego 's message, "city ban" on 23:10:09 02/18/06 Sat What you describe is an extinction program as when the word mandortory is heard what other choice is there.I know you mentioned $150.00 per unaltered dog which leaves one with that option but also for many presents getting rid of the dogs or play the money game.Its a cancer that plaques the nation from backwoods counties and parishes to city's big and small and if they have there way the whole state. Its disscrimanation in the first degree.If its was not the APBT OR ROTTIE then it would just be another breed that they would find to set a law into play. Its very obvious that alot of people that own the breeds should not have them and that goes for the breeders who become careless or just don't cull for ill temped dogs that will show aggression or bite.The APBT although on the list of dogs that cause bites to be written down they are by far from being in the top five.When it comes to any breed that causes harm to someone it does not matter which breed it turns out to be the same law applies to them as it does to the two mentioned. Perhaps it might be just me but as soon as spring draws closer each year it seems to trigger laws against the breeds mentioned and others besides. Although I no longer have one at this time I spent an awful lot of money on these dogs,The tags went up down here in Fla also to where it hurt real bad.One could aquire a rabbie shot from a food depot or at an open air clinic for five dollars but although it made the dog legal in the fact that it did have a tag the city wanted the extra money. It has always been a money game and those that read the pappers no matter what appears in them.If an attack is printed most of the time the breed responsible even though not a pit or rottie will be called by those name even if its not pure as it just has to look like the breed. Eduaction is the only thing that is left to make people understand that although they are responsible in some cases they are not in all attacks. I hope you all have enough clout to turn this thing over and in your favor.If indeed it carries it should apply to all breeds no matter what.Extinction is forever and useing the high dollar cost for unaltered dogs put many owners in that boat of haveing to pay or find homes for them in other area's. The main thing with these laws is that its almost one hundered percent that they cannot be enforced for every owner of a dog. What will happen is people although wanting to be lawbideing will go under ground to avoid looseing there dog or haveing to pay for unaltered dogs. I'am not sure what the last pole was if owners of the breed were successful in reverseing the laws or wipeing the slate clean. I wish you all that you'll succeed in stopping that law. If not it will be added to the cancer list that is spreading over the country. LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA for >Tuesday, February 21, >Item 65: >"PUBLIC HEARING >65. Hearing on proposed amendments to the County Code, >Title 10 - >Animals, to establish a Mandatory Spay and Neuter >Program for Restricted >Dogs for the purpose of controlling the breeding of >certain dog breeds, >specifically Pitt Bulls and Rottweilers; amend the >definition of "Hobby >breeder"; add definitions for "Pitt Bull," >"Rottweiler," and "Unaltered"; >and to establish a fee of $150 per year for an >unaltered restricted dog >license. (06-0343)" >Due to the Presidents Day holiday on Monday, the BOS >meeting begins at 1:00 >p.m. on Tuesday afternoon, Room 381B, Kenneth Hahn >Hall Of Administration, >500 West Temple Street, Los Angeles. Meetings are >broadcast live via Windows >Media Player or live audio by telephone at >(213) 974-4700 and rebroadcast on Wednesday, Feb. 22, >10:00 p.m.m KLCS. A >recorded message of approved items is available >immediately following Board >meetings at (213) 974-7207. Contact us for additional >information about >attending the meeting and coordinating efforts. > >The supporting 23 page document (letter from Marcia >Mayeda, Director of >Animal Care and Control, brief County Counsel >"Analysis" and ordinance text) >is available (PDF) from a link on the County's agenda >at ><a rel=nofollow target=_blank href="http://bos.co.la.ca.us/Categories/Agenda/cms1_041360.ht">http://bos.co.la.ca.us/Categories/Agenda/cms1_041360.ht</a> >ml > >Mayeda's letter rationalizes the ordinance based on a >6 breed-type breakdown >of the County's shelter dog population and comparison >of the respective >euthanasia rates, use of shelter space, adoption rates >and unaltered >licensing ratios for the 6 types - Shepherds, Pit >Bulls, Labradors, >Chihuahuas, Rottweilers and Terriers. This brief >categorical analysis >concludes that Rottweilers and Pit Bulls have >disproportionate negative >impact on shelter resources that can now be mitigated >due to the permissive >authority of SB 861 enacted last year. Based on 4,549 >unaltered dogs >identified as "Pit Bulls" or Rottweilers in the >County's licensing database, >6 new jobs would be created at a cost of $668,077. >These dogs would be >subject to an unaltered "restricted" dog license >costing $150 (668,077 >divided by >4,549 assuming that these unaltered licensed dogs >would apply for restricted >licensed.) > >The permit process to obtain a restricted license is >complex with many >contingencies to maintain the license and criminal >liability for any >failure. The risks for dog owners and restricted dogs >would far exceed >prudence and any enjoyment from owning dogs, make it >unlikely out of area >breeders would place quality dogs in Los Angeles >County for any purposes and >exponentially expands authority of animal control to >micro-manage private >ownership of unaltered dogs. The potential for >abusive, discriminatory >enforcement practices in a diverse metropolis is truly >troubling, and >trivial violations have severe punitive consequences >and forfeiture. The >precedent of this type of ordinance, building on the >San Francisco model >threatens all ownership of unaltered dogs and even >cats by shifting >discretion about the merits of individual animals from >owners to a public >agency. > >LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: > >Gloria Molina, Supervisor, First District >856 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration >500 West Temple Street >Los Angeles CA 90012 >(213) -974-4111 >Fax (213) -613-1739 >molina@bos.co.ca.cu.us > >Yvonne B. Burke, Supervisor, Second District >866 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration >500 West Temple Street >Los Angeles CA 90012 >(213) -974-2222 >Fax (213)-680-3282 >seconddistrict@lacbos.org > >Zev Yaroslavsky, Supervisor, Third District >821 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration >500 W. Temple St., >Los Angeles, CA 90012 >213-974-3333 >Fax (213) 625-7360 >E-mail zev@lacbos.org > >Don Knabe, Supervisor, Fourth District >822 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration >500 West Temple Street >Los Angeles, CA 90012 >(213) 213-974-4444 >Fax 213-626-6941 ><a rel=nofollow target=_blank href="http://knabe.com/dist_info/supervisor/supervisor_contac">http://knabe.com/dist_info/supervisor/supervisor_contac</a> >t.html > >Michael D. Antonovich, Supervisor, Fifth District >County of Los Angeles >869 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration >500 West Temple Street >Los Angeles, CA 90012 >(213) 974-5555 >Fax (213) 974-1010 fax >fifthdistrict@bos.co.la.ca.us [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |