Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

New pitbull laws in San Francisco

LM1313
November 16th, 2005, 07:13 PM
Actually, this one isn't too bad as pit bull laws go. Pit bulls in San Francisco have to be spayed or neutered--that seems to be it.

~LM~

twodogsandacat
November 16th, 2005, 10:04 PM
Any link???

LM1313
November 17th, 2005, 02:19 AM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/16/PITBULLRULES.TMP&feed=rss.news

San Francisco supervisors unanimously approved a set of ordinances Tuesday requiring the neutering or spaying of an estimated 7,000 pit bull terriers and pit bull mixes in the city.

The legislation, sponsored by Supervisor Bevan Dufty, also will set new restrictions on the breeding of pit bulls, requiring breeders to obtain a permit from the city. People found violating the requirement to have their dog neutered or spayed could be fined up to $1,000.

Dufty called his ordinances "a responsible framework and response to dog aggression we have faced in our city."

Several Bay Area cities have experience high-profile pit bull maulings. The fatal mauling in June of a 12-year-old San Francisco boy by two unaltered pit bulls prompted calls in the city for stricter regulation.

Dufty said he rejected the idea of banning the dogs altogether from San Francisco as unfair to conscientious owners of pit bulls.

"I recognize that there are responsible, loving owners of pit bulls and pit bull mixes in our city," he said.

But Dufty noted that pit bulls in the city accounted for more than 50 percent of the dangerous or vicious dog cases handled by authorities each year in San Francisco. When owners involved in those cases are told they can have their dogs back if they are spayed or neutered, he said, some simply abandon their pets.

The laws will take effect Jan. 1, the same day a state law allowing cities to enact breed-specific dog regulations goes into force.

Dufty acknowledged that a petition drive to repeal that state law was underway. About 380,000 signatures are needed to place the measure on the state ballot in June.

As part of the legislation, the city's Department of Animal Care and Control will try to increase the number of dogs registered in San Francisco. Officials say out of about 120,000 dogs in the city, only 13,000 are licensed. The laws passed by supervisors Tuesday will increase the fine for having an unlicensed dog from $25 to $100.

Also Tuesday in Contra Costa County, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to bar convicted felons from owning dogs that are aggressive or weigh more than 20 pounds.

The new ordinance, introduced by Supervisors John Gioia and Mark DeSaulnier, also would lower the threshold for declaring a dog potentially dangerous and require owners of such an animal to apply for a permit to keep their dog and abide by certain rules.

The ordinance allows the county to order owners of dogs exhibiting certain behaviors to attend obedience classes, to keep the animals in secure confines that have been inspected and to register their dogs. Felons with nonaggressive dogs weighing more than 20 pounds could apply for a permit to keep their pets.

Animals that don't repeat aggressive behavior for three years would be eligible to have their "potentially dangerous" designation removed.

Schwinn
November 17th, 2005, 12:49 PM
Overall, I'd support this. "Pitbull" breeders (I'm assuming Am-Staff, AMPBT, and Staffie breeders) would allow to continue, and it would eliminate backyard breeding of pitbulls for the thugs who cause the problems.

I'll be honest, there's a part of me that says, "This should go for all dogs!" and maybe feels it is still based on misconceptions of pitbulls (it's those who breed them for fighting, not the breed. Any breed can have the same issues once it becomes the chosen one for these thugs), I still think this is an awesome solution that finds a decent middle of the road.

LM1313
November 17th, 2005, 01:52 PM
Schwinn, I had a similar reaction. On the one hand, it still singles out pit bulls, which is unfair to the dogs. On the other hand, pit bulls ARE unfairly treated, abused in dog fighting rings, and specifically trained to be aggressive by some people, moreso than labradors or poodles, so it makes sense to have laws in place to protect the breed itself from humanity.
But Dufty noted that pit bulls in the city accounted for more than 50 percent of the dangerous or vicious dog cases handled by authorities each year in San Francisco. When owners involved in those cases are told they can have their dogs back if they are spayed or neutered, he said, some simply abandon their pets.

Anyone who would abandon a dog just because it had to be spayed or neutered doesn't deserve to have one anyway!
It sounds like dogs deemed "dangerous" aren't in danger of being PTS, the owners just have mandatory obedience classes to attend and have to keep it "secured". I like that the dogs are allowed to come off "dangerous" status if they haven't had an incident in three years.

~LM~

babyrocky1
November 17th, 2005, 06:24 PM
Overall, I'd support this. "Pitbull" breeders (I'm assuming Am-Staff, AMPBT, and Staffie breeders) would allow to continue, and it would eliminate backyard breeding of pitbulls for the thugs who cause the problems.

I'll be honest, there's a part of me that says, "This should go for all dogs!" and maybe feels it is still based on misconceptions of pitbulls (it's those who breed them for fighting, not the breed. Any breed can have the same issues once it becomes the chosen one for these thugs), I still think this is an awesome solution that finds a decent middle of the road. Yes, but its not sensational enough to get whatever politician put this forward on the news night after night and we all know thats whats important in Ontario!!!

babyrocky1
November 17th, 2005, 06:31 PM
I just read the whole post, I don't agree that it should be just pit bulls that are to be spayed and nuetered, but other than that, theres some good stuff in there. I think the convicted felon thing is very good! I also think its good that a dog labelled potentially dangerous has a chance to redeem him or herself. It just sounds like the spirit of this law was done in consideration for all involved, not malisciously like ours!

twodogsandacat
November 17th, 2005, 06:49 PM
I do agree with the requirement. I also would like to see it for all dogs but especially in the case of pit bulls.

These dogs are extremely at risk, especially in large cities, high crime areas and any where you may find dog fighting.

As for the fine I think it should be tenfold (especially in the case of pit bulls) and collectable by the state. Failure to pay would restrict you from attaining drivers license, tax refunds or any state payments - until the fine is paid.

You should have to show intent to train for and win awards in order to breed or already own a champion dog. I’m not saying win but at least compete seriously.

When given the possible restrictions placed on this breed by haters like Bryant or those seeking only political gain by those like Bryant I welcome any intelligent approach to the so called ‘pit bull problem’ that also incorporates rules which will also protect the dog.

The rule for convicted felons I agree with 90%. I agree 100% for violent crimes, drug crimes and in the case of animal abuse or dog fighting a total ban from owning any animal.

I just sent an email to the SFGATE in support of politicians like these that should be respected far more than the politicians that propose unenforceable laws that do nothing to increase public safety or protect the other victims - the dogs.

Schwinn
November 18th, 2005, 12:18 PM
My big issue with the signalling out of pitbulls is two fold. First of all, I'm being sensitive, because of Daisy and the other bullies in Ontario. It almost feels like they are saying it is a pitbull problem, which it is, for now. But it's an owner problem, not a pitbull problem. Which leads me to point two, which probably is more unbiased. And that is that the law now makes other strong breeds more attractive for training to fight. If you surf the web long enough about dog fighting, you'll see that already there are many other breeds that are being chosen, just pitbulls are more "fashionable" in the rings right now.

twodogsandacat
November 18th, 2005, 06:01 PM
My big issue with the signalling out of pitbulls is two fold. First of all, I'm being sensitive, because of Daisy and the other bullies in Ontario. It almost feels like they are saying it is a pitbull problem, which it is, for now. But it's an owner problem, not a pitbull problem. Which leads me to point two, which probably is more unbiased. And that is that the law now makes other strong breeds more attractive for training to fight. If you surf the web long enough about dog fighting, you'll see that already there are many other breeds that are being chosen, just pitbulls are more "fashionable" in the rings right now.

Well the pit bull is more fashionable for a reason. It’s the best overall. I’ve seen in dog fighting forums discussions (most of which have now become members only since the Tant conviction) regarding various breeds and there’s not much that will stand up to a pit bull. Of the breeds that could take them on the size of the dog makes it much more expensive to feed and house etc. Of course that is for now.

Still your point is certainly 100% valid. If there were nothing but Cocker Spaniels left man would pit two of them against each other. Michael Bryant has made it illegal to train a pit bull to fight in Ontario, which means you can avoid jail time by training and fighting other dogs. The only laws you need to worry about in Ontario are cruelty laws and we know they are a joke.

However my point in particular was that these dogs are the ones that are in the words politicians like to use ‘at risk’ and I certainly support this law. It still allows exceptions to the breeding and sterilization restrictions that hopefully will be granted to those that want to better the breed not fight them. As I’m sure you know from researching to gather information on all this BSL crap there are literally thousands of rednecks and ‘gangsters’ breeding these dogs? Their advertisements plainly state what they are being bred for.

I occasionally find a web page and then go to the root (the so called index) and occasionally find pictures of dogs with wounds and scars that tell the truth.

Until every dog fighter is burning in hell this law is a start. If you want a pit and the breeder is certified by the state hopefully you get a pit with all the characteristics that those on this board find desirable not what those on the above mentioned boards find desirable.

babyrocky1
November 18th, 2005, 06:19 PM
Just from the way the law, the whole law, was written, I got the impression that they were not doing this because they were anti-pit bull. It seemed that they were sincere in their desire to stop the abuse. Its the opposite to the way the law is drafted here, ofcourse. the intent of this law is to Kill of the breed as quicky as possible. Someone who claims to have legal experience told me that when a court is interputing a law, and theyre not sure how to dole out sentencing, they look at the law and its intent. Since Ontarios law is obviously to make life as short as possible for the pit bull and as miserable as possible for its owner, well were seeing already how Bryants law is being enacted. I wish we had some of those Sanfrancisco folks here.

twodogsandacat
November 18th, 2005, 06:31 PM
Just from the way the law, the whole law, was written, I got the impression that they were not doing this because they were anti-pit bull. It seemed that they were sincere in their desire to stop the abuse. Its the opposite to the way the law is drafted here, ofcourse. the intent of this law is to Kill of the breed as quicky as possible. Someone who claims to have legal experience told me that when a court is interputing a law, and theyre not sure how to dole out sentencing, they look at the law and its intent. Since Ontarios law is obviously to make life as short as possible for the pit bull and as miserable as possible for its owner, well were seeing already how Bryants law is being enacted. I wish we had some of those Sanfrancisco folks here.
Exactly a politician that wants to address an issue without making life hell for responsible owners and breeders has struck a balance. There are many in California calling for a total ban. Politicians like this need to be rewarded for making wise decisions.

As for morons that rule by majority (an uninformed majority) it is interesting that more people in a poll supported mandatory curfews in Toronto for kids than for banning pit bulls. Why did the law not go into effect…. because innocent kids, those working at McDonalds for example would be impacted. The fact that there are far more good kids than bad kids is also a factor. Wait there are around 30, 000 pit bulls in Totonto and only a few ‘bad ones’. Go figure.