Dear Ms. ***** & Kane,
Thank you for contacting my office with your concerns about HB 4714. As the Chairman of the Regulatory Reform Committee I do not plan on taking up this legislation at this time. Your e-mail has been filed for reference purposes. Thank you again for contacting me, I appreciate you taking the time.
Sincerely,
Hugh D. Crawford
State Representative
38th District
So, that is one representative down.
Have a video of Kane to lighten the mood of this blog right now. I've called this game (creatively) "Get the ball". This gives him a run-through of some of his commands and teaches him impulse control, which is important for every dog, regardless of whether you want them to know more than a couple basic commands.
Better news:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.freep.com/article/20110609/NEWS15/110609019/Michigan-House-panel-puts-the-brakes-on-proposed-pit-bull-ban?odyssey=tab|mostpopular|text|FRONTPAGE
Kane is so adorable in the video!
ReplyDeleteI'm horrified at the news about this proposed pit bull ban, but very glad that not all of the reps are backing it! Please keep us updated.
@Retrieverman
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for posting that link. I hadn't realized that without his support as chairman, that it wouldn't go any further. I would've been a lot happier about his email, LOL.
@Retrieverman
ReplyDeleteAlthough, reading that article, Bledsoe says that his bill doesn't call for the euthanasia of any dogs. And yet they wouldn't have been allowed to be owned in Michigan?
Where would they have all gone? Just magically disappeared or something? Jesus. I think Crawford needs to share some of his common sense with Bledsoe.
@2dogcrazy
ReplyDeleteFrom my understanding, the bill would have 10 years to grandfather in dogs already living in Michigan. Assuming Kane lives only 9 more years, he'd be fine. But I seriously doubt it. Many pit bulls live well over 12 years.
This law would require enforcement, which means money spent on enforcement. I'm sure the state and local governments of Michigan have lots of spare change lying around to snuff out the pit bulls.
Never mind that the people who are truly keeping these dogs for nefarious reasons won't care what the law says. They will keep fighting dogs and drug guard dogs. They will just find better places to hide them.
It also would force people who don't want their dogs confiscated to hide them. That means the dogs don't go to the vet. That means they would pit bull welfare even worse.
And never mind that most people can't tell a pit bull from a Patterdale. All sorts of non-pit bulls would get rounded up. Any smooth-coated dog could be said to be a pit bull.
Further, when they ban actual breeds to stop people from owing aggressive dogs. This is what happens: Those who want a man-eating dog will simply import something really big and mean from some Third World country. And this dog will have traits that no pit bull or domestic bred guard dog will have.
I'm thinking of some strains of Fila Brasileiro that are so aggressive that only one or two people can touch them. And did I mention that a fila is usually just slightly smaller than an English mastiff? It's not that there aren't safe filas, but with the culture of that breed, there is a desire to breed for ojeriza, which is extreme xenophobia. It makes sense on Brazil, where you have a very high crime rate, but not here, where we have things called tort law and vicious dog ordinance.
Within the pit bull culture, most people aren't breeding for more intractable dogs that are hard to handle. Most people are trying to keep this breed from getting in the hands of the bad guys. Most breeders want a pit bull that is as docile as the typical boxer but is as intelligent as any herding breed.
I am in favor of laws that crack down on aggressive dogs, but focusing on breed is not a useful endeavor. If we create a law that bans or puts a breed specific law onto pit bulls (however they are legally defined), how is that law going to stop a dog from another breed from mauling someone?